DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
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 .
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 1-9, 12-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to judicial exception involving abstract ideas, mental concepts without significantly more.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Claims 1-13 are directed to a method.
Claims 14-20 are directed to a system, i.e. a machine.
Therefore, claims 1-20 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong I (MPEP § 2106.04)
Step 2A, Prong I of the 2019 Patent Examiner’s Guide (PEG) analyzes the claims to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls into one of the following groups of abstract ideas:
a) mathematical concepts
[Symbol font/0xB7] mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations
b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or
[Symbol font/0xB7] fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
[Symbol font/0xB7] commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
[Symbol font/0xB7] managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
c) mental processes.
[Symbol font/0xB7] concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The following claims include limitations that recite an abstract idea and will be used to represent additional claims that merely elaborate on the recited abstract ideas for the remainder of the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas:
A method of servicing equipment comprising:
performing at least one of inspection and repair associated with a workscope of the equipment, wherein the at least one of inspection and repair comprises a queue of tasks to be performed;
terminating the at least one of inspection and repair prior to completion of the queue; marking a stopping point identifying a location of termination relative to the queue and the equipment; and resuming at least one of inspection and repair beginning at the location of termination relative to the queue and equipment.
Claim 14 recites similar abstract ideas.
Regarding Claims 1 and 14:
The limitation “A method/sysetm of servicing equipment comprising: performing at least one of inspection and repair associated with a workscope of the equipment, wherein the at least one of inspection and repair comprises a queue of tasks to be performed; terminating the at least one of inspection and repair prior to completion of the queue; marking a stopping point identifying a location of termination relative to the queue and the equipment; and resuming at least one of inspection and repair beginning at the location of termination relative to the queue and equipment,” describes managing and tracking progress of tasks in a work queue including stopping and resuming performance.
The concept of organizing, tracking and resuming tasks constitutes:
certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. managing workflow, task scheduling and work progress) and/or
a mental process (i.e. steps that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper).
Dependent Claims 2-9, 12-13, 15-18 and 20 further elaborate upon the recited abstract ideas in Claim 1 and 14.
Accordingly Claims 1-9, 12-18 and 20 recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong II (MPEP § 2106.04)
Step 2A, Prong II of the 2019 PEG analyzes the claims to determine whether the claim recites any additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The following claims recite additional limitations:
Claim 1 does not recites any additional limitations and hence do not integrate the aforementioned abstract ideas into a practical application.
Claim 14 does recite following additional limitations: robotic assembly and a computer device.
Regarding Claim 14, the additional limitations robotic assembly is used as a tool to execute inspection/ repair tasks and are examples of mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a generic computer and a generic robotic device and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the additional limitations of claim 14 are recited at a high level of generality, defined by function, such that the machine is not an integral part of the claim (MPEP § 2106.04(d).I.). The additional limitations do not:
• Reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field – (MPEP § 2106.05(a))
• Apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
• Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – (MPEP § 2106.05(b))
• Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – (MPEP § 2106.05(c))
• Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – (MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Dependent claims 2-9, 12-13, 15-18 and 20 further elaborate upon the recited abstract ideas in claims 1 and 14, but do not provide additional elements, and so do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-9, 12-18 and 20 do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
101 Analysis: Step 2B (MPEP § 2106.05)
Step 2B of the Revised Guidance analyzes the claims to determine if the claims recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations of claims 1-9, 12-18 and 20 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of outlined in Step 2A performing functions as designed simply accomplishes execution of the abstract ideas.
Further, the additional limitation of “a robotic assembly and a computer device” in claim 14 does not amount to significantly more (there is no inventive concept in the claim).
Therefore, the additional limitations of claims 1-9, 12-18 and 20 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, claims 1-9, 12-18 and 20 recite abstract ideas with additional elements rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The rejection could be overcome by incorporating Claim 10 to Claim 1 and Claim 19 to Claim 14 which was suggested as Examiner’s amendments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Lepage (US2023/0278225A1) discloses a method of inspection and repair of a robotic operation is provided. The robotic operation preferably includes dispensing material onto a surface of a component. A camera is used to capture an image of the robotic operation and identify defects in the robotic operation in the captured image. The locations of the defects are then transformed from the image coordinate system to the robot coordinate system. The robot may then be moved to the defect locations in the robot coordinate system to repair the defects, e.g., by dispensing additional material at the defect.
Voorhies (US 11092973) discloses coordinated operation of two or more autonomous robots is based on a clustered partitioning of a collective set of operations and/or tasks that the robots perform simultaneously. The clustered partitioning may include generating a set of clusters with each cluster of the set of clusters allocating a different subset of the collective set of operations and/or tasks to a different robot such that the set of clusters results in a least amount of cumulative distance that the robots traverse in performing each operation and/or task of the collective set, and a maximum amount of distance separating the robots when performing each operation and/or task. Each cluster may be assigned to a different robot with the collective set of assigned clusters causing the robots to operate and move in a coordinated efficient and nonconflicting manner.
Rusanu (US 20210094176) discloses a computer system that generates a universal resource locator (URL). The URL is associated with resuming at least one automated process of a running workflow process that includes a plurality of automated processes. The URL is provided to an external system/application. An input of the URL is received from the external system/application, in response to a trigger event at the external system/application. Based on the input of the URL, the at least one automated process is resumed by at least one headless robot.
Boult et al. (US20140039648A1) discloses a computerized inspection and maintenance system. The system comprises a plurality of software modules which are both interactive with inspectors and maintenance personnel and which interact with one another, to provide an improved, more versatile, more accurate, system. The invention further provides uniformity in inspection and maintenance procedures, and in the reporting, processing, and record keeping of such procedures.
Lane (US20030130820) discloses a databased work order system for maintaining and analyzing maintenance records, including work orders, technicians assigned, data from the maintenance performed, including the time required to perform the maintenance and any other desired information related to each work order. The system can analyze the data entered to perform various desired functions, such as comparing the time taken to perform a specific type of work order with a standard benchmark time for a comparable work order. The system can electronically interactively interact with the service technician as the work order progresses. The service technician can enter the actions taken into a system database, such as the start time, pauses, parts replaced or ordered, completion or non-completion. The system can provide the technician with an electronic decision hierarchy from an inventoried set of pre-identified work order problem solutions, which the technician can utilize to select solutions to the problems identified by the technician as the maintenance is completed. The data can be analyzed to update, develop or compare benchmarks for a specific type of work order; to provide information specific to the skills of each specific technician and to indicate where training is warranted for specific types of work orders, such as from a comparison with the relevant work order benchmark; the data can be analyzed to spot trends and problems associated with specific types of equipment or specific sites or apartment units; and the database can be utilized to generate reports.
However, none of the prior art listed above seems to teach the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDHESH K JHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:0800-1700.
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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
/ABDHESH K JHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668