Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 9 – 20 are pending; claims 17 – 20 are new.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 9 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step One of eligibility analysis, the claims recite methods and an apparatus, (processes and machine); thus, the claims fall within the four statutory categories considered appropriate subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of analysis, the claims describe evaluating stored service record information for facilities and evaluating certain criteria based on specified rules. The information is related to maintenance services and operational data within a facility. Therefore, the claims recite a business relation. A business relation is descriptive of a commercial interaction. Interactions implicitly defined within the maintenance-management-service information (“what type of service”, “details of service”). Therefore, the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity, which is an abstract idea.
Claim 9, which is illustrative of claims 10 – 12, contains those elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A method carried out by a facility evaluation apparatus which evaluates values of facilities provided in buildings,
the facility evaluation apparatus being capable of making access to one or more storage devices,
the one or more storage devices storing:
service record information about records of one or more maintenance- management services that have been provided to each of one or more facilities among the facilities, the one or more facilities being provided in a specific building among the buildings, and
evaluation criterion information about evaluation criteria for the values, the evaluation criteria having been set respectively for the facilities in advance,
the service record information including a service-record information item about one maintenance-management service of the one or more maintenance- management services, the service-record information item including first information about a date on which the one maintenance-management service was provided,
the evaluation criterion information including an evaluation-criterion information item about one facility of the facilities, the evaluation-criterion information item including a value determination rule according to which an evaluation value that indicates a value of the one facility among the values is determined,
the service record information including at least a subset of service record information that includes second information about conditions of the facilities, the conditions having been updated through the provision of the one or more maintenance-management services,
the value determination rule including a subset of value determination rules that include:
a first rule according to which an operational period during which the one facility is estimated to be operational is determined on a basis of an at least one of;
a lapse of time since the provision of an at least one maintenance-management service of the one or more maintenance-management services, the at least one maintenance-management service being possible to provide to the one facility,
the number of times of the provision, and
a frequency of the provision, and
on a basis of a condition of the one facility, the condition having been updated through the at least one maintenance-management service that is possible to provide to the one facility, and
a second rule according to which the evaluation value of the one facility is determined on a basis of the operational period that has been determined with regard to the one facility,
the method comprising: a first step of acquiring, by the facility evaluation apparatus, the evaluation value of each of the one or more facilities provided in the specific building by applying the first information included in the service-record information item corresponding to a corresponding one of the one or more maintenance-management services to the value determination rule that is included in the evaluation criterion information,
the first step including:
acquiring the operational period of each of at least a subset of facilities provided in the specific building among the facilities by applying the first information and the second information that are included in the service record information to the first rule that is included in the evaluation criterion information, and
acquiring the evaluation value of each of at least the subset of facilities provided in the specific building by applying the acquired operational period to the second rule that is included in the evaluation criterion information,
the one or more storage devices storing part information about parts of the facilities, the parts being possible to replace through part replacement services,
the part information including availability information that indicates whether or not the parts are available,
the first rule including at least a subset of first rules that include a rule according to which, in a case where the parts include a part that is indicated to be unavailable by the availability information, an upper limit on the operational period is set in accordance with an average part lifespan of the part and a use-start time of the part,
the first step including acquiring, in the case where the parts include the part that is indicated to be unavailable by the availability information included in the part information, the operational period of each of at least the subset of facilities provided in the specific building, the operational period being shorter than the upper limit in accordance with the average part lifespan of the part and the use-start time of the part.
Claim 10 adds the following elements (highlighted below) that describe evaluating stored service record information for facilities and evaluating certain criteria based on specified rules and further define the abstract idea:
the second rule including at least a subset of second rules that include a rule according to which the evaluation value in accordance with a proportion of the operational period that has been determined with regard to the one facility relative to an average facility lifespan of the one facility is determined on the basis of the operational period that has been determined with regard to the one facility,
the first step including acquiring the evaluation value in accordance with the proportion of the operational period relative to the average facility lifespan by applying the operational period to the second rule, the operational period having been acquired with regard to each of at least the subset of facilities provided in the specific building.
Claim 11 adds the following elements (highlighted below) that describe evaluating stored service record information for facilities and evaluating certain criteria based on specified rules and further define the abstract idea:
the second rule including at least a subset of second rules that include a rule according to which the evaluation value in accordance with a proportion of the operational period that has been determined with regard to the one facility relative to an average facility lifespan of the one facility and with a facility installation cost required for installation of the one facility is determined on the basis of the operational period that has been determined with regard to the one facility,
the first step including acquiring the evaluation value in accordance with the proportion of the operational period relative to the average facility lifespan and with the facility installation cost by applying the operational period to the second rule, the operational period having been acquired with regard to each of at least the subset of facilities provided in the specific building.
Claim 12 adds the following elements (highlighted below) that describe evaluating stored service record information for facilities and evaluating certain criteria based on specified rules and further define the abstract idea:
the second rule including at least a subset of second rules that include a rule according to which the evaluation value in accordance with a proportion of the operational period that has been determined with regard to the one facility relative to an average facility lifespan of the one facility, with a facility installation cost required for installation of the one facility, and with a maintenance management cost required for maintenance management of the one facility is determined on the basis of the operational period that has been determined with regard to the one facility,
the first step including acquiring the evaluation value in accordance with the proportion of the operational period relative to the average facility lifespan, with the facility installation cost, and with the maintenance management cost by applying the operational period to the second rule, the operational period having been acquired with regard to each of at least the subset of facilities provided in the specific building.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claims 9 – 12 recite only the following additional elements:
a facility evaluation apparatus, being capable of making access to one or more storage devices;
a processing unit;
non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that records a program including a command which can be executed;
a display device.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, at Specification [0021-0022, 0025-0026, and 0028], and Figure 1, as filed. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea within a computer environment to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: (a facility evaluation apparatus; one or more storage devices; a processing unit; non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that records a program including a command which can be executed), amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and a results-oriented solution that lacks detail of the mechanism for accomplishing the result and is equivalent to the words “apply it,” per MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 13 – 16 contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claim 9. They recite certain information (second information) and method steps (part replacement, operational period) directly germane to service record information collected and further descriptive of the interacting with a supplier. Therefore, the claims recite a commercial interaction and an abstract idea. Further, these claims rely on mere instructions to apply the exception within a computer environment (a facility evaluation apparatus, non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that records a program including a command which can be executed) as defined above. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04)(d). The claims are directed to an abstract idea and do not provide for significantly more.
Newly added claims 17 – 20 contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claim 9. Recitations to displaying values are directed to record information for facilities that is evaluated and includes a final insignificant step of displaying data on a generic device. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(g). These claims are directed to the abstract idea and do not provide for significantly more.
Therefore, for the reasons set above, claims 9 – 20 are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments discuss rejection of prior claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See page 20. Applicant argues that the claimed subject matter “…provides an improved, computer-based process for valuating buildings by evaluating values of facilities provided in the buildings.” See page 21. Applicant adds that no judicial exception is “actually recited” for Step 2A, Prong One analysis. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
First, it is noted that a claim recites a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The instant claims describe a method for valuating facilities within a building based on evaluation techniques that take into account certain maintenance-management services and activities provided. These activities include part replacement and availability, lapse of time since repair or replacement, frequency of maintenance, and lifespan of parts and buildings. These activities are inherent within a commercial interaction of those who maintain a building and the those who wish to value the land and the building. This commercial interaction is included within the certain method of organizing human activity categorization of abstract idea.
The claims further include method steps of concepts performed in the human mind, including: observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. These are set forth when reciting reviewing maintenance dates, condition information, assessing facility conditions, determining operational periods, deciding facility values based on maintenance history, and comparing maintenance frequency to standards. These steps then describe mental processed, which is also an abstract idea. Because these steps and ancillary to the method for evaluating stored service record information for facilities and evaluating certain criteria based on specified rules, the information related to maintenance services and operational data within a facility, they form a base and are included within an abstract idea of commercial interaction among facility owners/managers and the service or part providers, whom are interested in the economic value of the building. The claims describe an abstract idea and Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Next, as Applicant alludes to in remarks, the instant method describes a “…computer-based process for valuating buildings by evaluating values of facilities provided in the buildings.” This argument merely states how the instant claims merely recite the using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. As discussed at MPEP 2106.05(f), this does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant next points to Examples 37, 38, and 39, as illustrating similar claims which do not recite abstract ideas. See page 22. The Examiner respectfully with Applicant. First, certain claims within those examples did recite abstract ideas, thereby refuting Applicant’s argument. Second, those claim elements within the examples that did not recite abstract ideas, were, merely involving an exception, and were concluded to be eligible. The examples included, a gui receiving a signal, a processor tracking data, analog circuits simulating digital representation, and neural networks applying digital transformations. The recitation of the claims within these examples do not recite abstract ideas.
Second, the instant claims are differentiated from the Examples because the instant recitations include: evaluating values, storing data, evaluating criteria based on rules, obtaining service record information of parts, maintenance, availability, and operational periods, among others; which describe and are directed to an abstract idea. These elements are detailed above and therefore, describe a commercial interaction, which is a certain method of organizing human activity. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant next remarks on analysis at Step 2A, and a practical application. See page 24. This would direct the arguments to Prong Two, and requires the use of the considerations set forth at MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), and MPEP 2106.05(e) through (h). As noted above, the additional elements within the instant claims include: a facility evaluation apparatus, being capable of making access to one or more storage devices; a processing unit; non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that records a program including a command which can be executed; a display device.
These elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, at Specification [0021-0022, 0025-0026, and 0028], and Figure 1. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The Examiner adds that certain argued improvements, as argued by Applicant, include: “…eliminates the need for manual cross-checking of maintenance histories, and replacement part records, improving the ease and accuracy of facility valuation.” (Emphasis added). Improving the valuation method is not an improvement computer or any technical field. As remarked, this method - applied on a computer – improves a human’s cross-checking process, thus improving a certain method of organizing human activity. The specification’s “Advantageous Effects” state only: “…it is possible to provide the method…that enable evaluation of values of facilities”. Specification [0088]. This describes an improvement to the abstract idea itself (better valuation methods), not to computer technology. Because no improvement t is shown within the instant claims as required at Step 2A, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629