DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This is in reply to communication filed on 04/17/2026.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13-15 and 17-20 have been amended.
Claims 21-22 have been added.
Claims 6 and 16 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-5, 7-15 and 17-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant Arguments /Remarks made in an amendment filled on 04/17/2026:
Regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101” in pages 9-13, that:
“Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more … Step 1: Claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Step 1 of the test for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 outlined in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance asks whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, page 15. Applicant notes that independent claim 1 is directed to a "method" and independent claim 10 is directed to a "system," which have both been deemed by the Patent Office to fall within the statutory categories. As such independent claims 1 and 11, and the claims depending therefrom, satisfy Step 1. Thus, Applicant proceeds to Step 2A of the test for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claims do not recite a judicial exception … In the pending rejection, the Office Action alleged that independent claims 1 and 11 are directed to a "mental process of data collection-analysis-display." Office Action p. 3. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Independent claim 1 recites, among other eligible recitations: … Applicant respectfully submits that the interpretation of claim 1 as directed to a mental process is an overbroad characterization of claim 1 that fails to consider the claim as a whole. Indeed, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention cannot be performed by a set of human operators or in the human mind. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
(II)(A) … Step 2A Prong 2: Claims recite features that integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application and recites an inventive concept outside of any alleged judicial exception.
If the Office maintains the position that the claims recite a judicial exception (a point that Applicant does not concede, as discussed above), Applicant submits that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application … claim 1 "integrates [the] judicial exception into a practical application [that] . . imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.;" See MPEP 2106.05(a). Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter, and requests that the rejection be withdrawn.
Step 2B: Claims provide an inventive concept.
Under Step 2B of the test outlined in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, if additional elements recited by the claims amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception, then the claim is eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 … For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 and the claims depending therefrom are not directed to a judicial exception without significantly more and, therefore, are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant notes that independent claims 10 and 16 have been amended similarly to claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 19 and 16, and the claims depending therefrom, are directed to patent eligible subject matter for at least the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the foregoing rejection”
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and emphasizes none of the accessing, analyzing, generating, generating, identifying, updating, displaying steps, whether taken individually or collectively, have been shown to affect any form of technical change or improvement whatsoever. Applicant's claims have not been shown to modify, reconfigure, manipulate, or transform the computer, computer software, or any technical elements in any discernible manner, much less yield an improvement thereto. There is simply no showing of implementing any of the claim steps, individually or in combination, amounts to a technological improvement, nor the alleged “improved method performed by structured components (e.g., a "connected assets") that perform operations in the real world and have tangible and measurable impacts on the real world and simultaneously improve the functioning of the associated computing devices” suggested by Applicant.
Claims 1, 11 and 22 recite operations including: “accessing data for a plurality of connected assets”; “analyzing … the data using a preventative algorithm and a planning algorithm”; “generating a real time status”; “generating an insight”; “identifying a repair.” These limitations collectively recite receiving information, evaluating the information, and generating conclusions or recommendations based on the information. Such activities correspond to observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, which are identified as mental processes under the MPEP2106.04(a)(2). A human operator, such as an equipment engineer or maintenance planner, could review operational data, estimate wear, determine equipment status, infer maintenance needs, and decide on repairs using mental judgment or pen-and-paper techniques. The recitation of a machine learning model merely automates these otherwise abstract evaluations.
The mere recitation of “machine learning models,” “preventative algorithms,” or “planning algorithms” does not remove the claim from the abstract idea category. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that implementing abstract processes using generic computer technology does not render claims non-abstract. See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167–68 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (advanced mathematical analyses remain abstract); University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. v. General Electric Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Applicant further asserts that the claimed invention improves computing devices. However, the claims do not recite any specific improvement to computer functionality itself, such as improvements to data structures, network operations, processor architecture, or machine learning model operation. Instead, the computer components merely perform their ordinary functions of receiving, analyzing, and outputting information. Such use of generic computing technology does not constitute an improvement to computer functionality under Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, claims 1, 11 and 22 recite an abstract idea in the form of mental processes and, alternatively, certain methods of organizing human activity involving maintenance and inventory management decisions.
Furthermore, the recited: system, a machine learning model, an algorithm, a user interface, processor, memory this recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Further, the limitation of “manufacturing the items” broadly recites an idea of a solution or desired outcome without reciting the technological details of how the manufacturing is achieved. Such result-oriented language does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f); Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337–39 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Similarly, “repairing the connected asset” merely applies the output of the abstract analysis to a real-world environment without improving the functioning of the underlying technology itself. The Federal Circuit has explained that merely using information to trigger actions in a field of use does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354–55.
The claims therefore do not effect a particular machine transformation, improve computer functionality, or improve another technology in a manner contemplated by MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c). Instead, the additional limitations merely use the results of abstract data analysis in a conventional industrial setting.
Accordingly, the claims fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Further under Step 2B: to the extent Applicant argues that the combination of machine learning analysis with manufacturing and repair operations constitutes an inventive concept, such arguments are also unpersuasive.
The additional elements recited in the claims-such as generic computing components, machine learning models, inventory systems, and conventional maintenance activities-perform their ordinary and expected functions. The claims do not recite any unconventional machine learning architecture, specialized hardware, or non-conventional manufacturing technique.
Therefore, claims 1, 11 and 22 do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception and remain directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments submitted under the title “Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103” in pages 14-15, with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response, the Examiner first emphasizes that the newly amended limitations are narrower in scope than the features previously presented in claims (1, 11 and 22). Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended limitations has been considered, however the argument is primarily raised in support of the amendments to independent claims 1, 11 and 22, and therefore is believed to be fully addressed via the new ground of rejection under §103 set forth below, which incorporates new references, Huang et al. (US 20210148791 A1) and Worthing et al. (WO 2020159432 A1) to teach the new limitations of claims 1, 11 and 22. Accordingly, the amendment and supporting arguments are believed to be fully addressed via the new ground of rejection set forth under §103 below.
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 1-5, 7-15 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-5, 7-10 and 21 recite a method, which is directed to a process.
Claims 11-15 and 17-20 recite a system, which is directed to a machine.
Claim 22 recite a tangible and non-transitory machine readable medium, which is directed to a manufacture.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The independent claims 1, 11 and 22 recite the abstract idea of inventory management, maintenance planning, repair scheduling and manufacturing coordination in an oil and gas operation.
1) These claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite a certain method of organizing a human activity to collect, analyze and display inventory data. The claims are directed to inventory management, maintenance planning, repair scheduling and manufacturing coordination in an oil and gas operation. Which are concepts of managing personal behavior or relationships or interaction between people by following rules or instructions to manage inventory data as activities constitute commercial or industrial management practices.
2) These claims recite a mental process. The claims recite a mental process of data collection-analysis-display (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III); Electric Power Group v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350). The claims recite mental process because it includes concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and decision making. Such as the limitations of “analyzing … the data using preventative algorithm and a planning algorithm”, “generating a real time status”, “generating an insight … using a wear estimation”, “identifying a repair” and “updating the real status” recitation be similar to a claim of "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind or by paper and pen, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which the courts have also found to recite a mental process.
The exceptions arise from organizing human activity and mental-process style data handling/presentation.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims satisfy the following criteria, which indicate that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application:
The claimed additional limitations are:
Claim 1: system, a machine learning model, algorithm(s), a user interface,
Claim 11: a memory to store data and instructions; and a processor operable to communicate with the memory, system, a machine learning model, algorithm(s), a user interface,
Claim 22: a tangible and non-transitory machine readable medium comprising instructions to cause a processing system, system, a machine learning model, algorithm(s), a user interface,
The additional limitations are directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea to receive data, analyze the data, update records and displaying results, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 11 and 22 recite the limitation of “responsive to the consumption of the items, manufacturing the items” merely states a desired result or idea of a solution without reciting how the manufacturing is technologically performed. The claims do not specify any manufacturing process, fabrication technique, machine operation, or technological improvement to manufacturing. Thus, the limitation merely instructs one to apply the abstract idea by manufacturing replacement items when needed, which is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). Similarly, the limitation “responsive to manufacturing the items, repairing the connected asset” merely recites a result-oriented activity without performing the repair. The claims therefore do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Although the claims recite physical activities such as manufacturing and repairing, those activities are recited functionally and at a high level of abstraction, without any technological implementation details. Consequently, the claims merely links the abstract ideas to a particular field of use, namely oil and gas operations, which do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for Step 2B analysis, knowing the consideration is overlapping with Step 2A, Prong 2. The Step 2B considerations have already been substantially addressed under Step 2A Prong 2, see Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above. As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept. as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208,223-26 (2014).
The claims are further analogous to Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017), where claims reciting desired results without specifying how to achieve those results were held ineligible, and Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018), where functional claiming at a high level generality was found insufficient to confer eligibility.
When considered individually and as ordered combination, the additional elements amount to no more than applying the judicial exceptions using generic computer technology and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea themselves.
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17-21 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 11 and 22 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17-21 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 11 and 22 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional limitations:
Claims 2, 12: a network, database,
Claim 15: processor,
Claim 18: processor,
Claim 19: processor,
Claims 10, 20: the user interface, processor (claim 20),
However, the examiner finds each of these additional elements to be directed to merely “apply it” or applying a generic technology to perform the recited abstract idea of collecting data, analyzing the data and displaying results to manage inventory data, the recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 1-5, 7-15 and 17-22, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-15, 17-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Chillar et al. (US 20230266733 A1, hereinafter “Chillar”) in view of McClintic et al. (US 20160078695 A1, hereinafter “McClintic”) further in view of Huang et al. (US 20210148791 A1, hereinafter “Huang”) furthermore in view of Worthing et al. (WO 2020159432 A1, hereinafter “Worthing”).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 22. Chillar discloses a method, comprising:
accessing data for a plurality of connected assets in an oil and gas inventory system, wherein the data for the plurality of connected assets includes operation data collected from an oil and gas operation; (Chillar teaches collecting and aggregating asset data from monitored assets through an Asset Performance Optimization System (APS), including sensor data and asset functionality data, see asset monitoring, data collection, sensors [0021-0025], such as [0024]; “assets 104 may include one or more sensors 106A, 106B (referred to generally as sensor 106 or sensors 106) … the sensor 106A may include fill level, flow rate, pressure, and/or temperature sensors. Or, for example, if asset 104B is a bulldozer, sensor 106B may include oil, gas, speed, acceleration, RPM (revolutions per minute), mileage, and engine temperature”, see dashboard visualization and centralized database [0045-0048])
analyzing, the data using a[[n]] preventative algorithm and a planning algorithm; (Chillar teaches analysis of asset data using metrics engines and prioritized actions. Such as Metrics engines and optimization: [0031]-[0036] and recommendation engine and software packages: [0045]-[0050])
generating a real time status of the plurality of connected assets in response to analyzing the data; [[and]] (Chillar teaches dashboard visualization and asset status displays. Dashboard visualization [0045-0048] and prioritized actions and monitoring [0031-0036], figs 7, 13 and 16 display asset status information)
and displaying, on a user interface, an inventory list of the plurality of connected assets with the real time status of the plurality of connected assets. (Chillar, [0079]; “a user 124 may have access to a head-mounted device (HMD) such as augmented reality (AR)/virtual reality (VR) glasses, goggles, or a headset. APS 102 may connect to the HMD and may allow the user 124 to visualize the assets 104 in the facility with visual indicators that indicate which assets 124 are in need of repair, replacement, or maintenance activities. In some embodiment, the virtual display in the HMD provided by APS 102 may include an approximated cost of performing the indicated repair, replacement, or maintenance activities. In some embodiments, the display may indicate the benefit or savings associated with the maintenance, repair, or replacement activities, in terms of avoiding future maintenance, repair, or replacement activities, increased efficiency, or an extended life of the asset 104. This HMD connected to APS 102 may allow the user 124 to visually see the various costs associated with maintaining the different assets 104 in a particular facility”)
Chillar substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Chillar fails to explicitly disclose the “responsive to the wear estimation, identifying a repair for the connected asset of the plurality of connected assets, the repair including a consumption of items from the oil and gas inventory system; responsive to repairing the connected asset of the plurality of connected assets, updating the real time status of the connected asset of the plurality of connected assets;”. However, McClintic teaches
responsive to the wear estimation, identifying a repair for the connected asset of the plurality of connected assets, (McClintic, expressly teaches identifying repairs based on sensor data and historic repair information, such as Failure prediction and maintenance planning: [0009], Repair recommendation based on sensor and historic data: [0010-0013], Repair indication based on sensor data: Fig. 21, and Future repair determination: [0011]) the repair including a consumption of items from the oil and gas inventory system; (McClintic expressly teaches parts inventories and maintenance logistics, such as Parts inventory and repair facilities: [0035], Maintenance planning using repair resources: [0009], Coordination of service centers supplying parts and labor: [0003], Work orders and repair operations: Fig. 9 and Reserve material and equipment: Fig. 8)
responsive to repairing the connected asset of the plurality of connected assets, updating the real time status of the connected asset of the plurality of connected assets; (McClintic teaches post-repair monitoring of monitoring performance after repair: Fig. 8, step 147, Real-time data collection: [0009] and Fleet management updates: [0008]-[0009], [0085]; “The database can be continually updated and may be stored in the memory of the shop computer or off-site at data center 18 where the database may be accessed on-line via the network 15 of FIG. 1”, [0039]; “information regarding the results of the inspection and maintenance activities may be used to update the database 39 for that particular truck 26”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Chillar to include responsive to the wear estimation, identifying a repair for the connected asset of the plurality of connected assets, the repair including a consumption of items from the oil and gas inventory system; responsive to repairing the connected asset of the plurality of connected assets, updating the real time status of the connected asset of the plurality of connected assets, as taught by McClintic, where this would be performed in order to effectively manage a fleet of mobile assets, it may be desired to avoid unexpected equipment failures and to accomplish maintenance and repair activities in a time efficient manner. See McClintic [0035].
The combination of Chillar in view of McClintic substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fail to explicitly disclose the “using a machine learning model, generating an insight for a connected asset of the plurality of connected assets using a wear estimation generated by the machine learning model in response to analyzing the operation data”. However, Huang teaches
using a machine learning model (Huang teaches machine-learning analysis for predictive maintenance. Such as, Feature extraction and machine learning: [0019]-[0022], Remaining useful life estimation: [0042-0045] and failure prediction and prognostics [0046-0052]),
generating an insight for a connected asset of the plurality of connected assets using a wear estimation generated by the machine learning model in response to analyzing the operation data; (Huang expressly teaches degradation estimation and remaining useful life estimation. Fault detection and degradation analysis: [0019-0022], Remaining useful life estimation: [0042-0045], and Predictive maintenance using Machine Learning: [0046]-[0052])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Chillar to include using a machine learning model, generating an insight for a connected asset of the plurality of connected assets using a wear estimation generated by the machine learning model in response to analyzing the operation data, as taught by Huang, where this would be performed in order to conduct predictive maintenance. See Huang [0001].
The combination of Chillar in view of McClintic further in view of Huang substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “responsive to the consumption of the items, manufacturing the items; responsive to manufacturing the items, repairing the connected asset of the plurality of connected assets with the items”. However, Worthing teaches
responsive to the consumption of the items, manufacturing the items; responsive to manufacturing the items, (Worthing teaches additive manufacturing of repair structures. Additive manufacturing repair process: [0017]-[0022], Depositing repair material: [0030]-[0038] and Manufacturing repair structures: [0040]-[0047]) repairing the connected asset of the plurality of connected assets with the items; (Worthing further teaches repairing components using the manufactured structures, of Repair of worn components: [0017]-[0022] and Restoring components to service: [0040]-[0047])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Chillar to include responsive to the consumption of the items, manufacturing the items; responsive to manufacturing the items, repairing the connected asset of the plurality of connected assets with the items, as taught by Worthing, where this would be performed in order to performing such repair or rebuild procedures. See Worthing [0001].
Regarding claim 2 and 12.The combination of Chillar in view of McClintic further in view of Huang furthermore in view of Worthing disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the data is in a knowledge graph, a network, or a relational database and each connected asset is associated with the knowledge graph, the network, or the relational database. (Chillar, [0033]; “asset data 116 may be retrieved through communications between APS 102 and control system 108 or monitoring software 110 … Telemetry data 118 may include data received from the various sensors 106 used to monitor an asset 104”, [0099]; “The IoT platform 1425 also includes a core services layer 1535 and an extensible object model (EOM) 1550 comprising one or more knowledge graphs 1551”)
Regarding claim 3 and 13. The combination of Chillar in view of McClintic further in view of Huang furthermore in view of Worthing disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the data is structured data or unstructured data of various types obtained from a plurality of data sources of [[the]] an oil and gas industry. (Chillar, [0127]; “the data aggregation component 304 aggregates the asset data 1614 into a centralized control database 1618 configured as a database structure”, [0094]; “any type of entity, facility, or vehicle, such as, for example, companies, divisions, buildings, manufacturing plants, warehouses … oil and gas facilities, or any other type of entity, facility, and/or entity that includes any number of local devices”)
Regarding claim 4 and 14. The combination of Chillar in view of McClintic further in view of Huang furthermore in view of Worthing disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the data is used to track a status of the plurality of connected assets and provide any changes or modifications to the plurality of connected assets. (Chillar, [0025]; “a control system 108 may monitor or receive data from the sensors 106 across one or more assets 104. Control system 108 may include a computing system or control panel that is communicatively coupled to receive or retrieve data from the various sensors 106 across one or more assets 104, either in real-time or periodically. Control system 108 may include an interface that enables a user 124, such as a facilities manager, to monitor the operational statuses of one or more assets 104. In some embodiments, control system 108 may enable user 124 to adjust the operational or functional settings of assets 104”)
Regarding claim 5 and 15. The combination of Chillar in view of McClintic further in view of Huang furthermore in view of Worthing disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating a recommendation (Chillar, [0117]; “Recommendation summaries give users prioritized actions”) with an action to take for [[a]]the connected asset of the plurality of connected assets in response to analyzing the data, wherein the recommendation includes repairing the connected asset of the plurality of connected assets; (Chillar teaches APS 102 may analyze telemetry data 118 and asset data 116 to generate or identify one or more maintenance or repair actions, to be provided as part of recommendation 114 see [0044]) and
displaying the recommendation with the action to take for the connected asset. (Chillar teaches presenting generated insights, alerts, maintenance actions, and recommendations to users through a graphical user interface [0054-0058] and [0068-0070])
Regarding claim 7 and 17. The combination of Chillar in view of McClintic further in view of Huang furthermore in view of Worthing disclose the method of claim [[6]]5, wherein the action [[is]]includes
Chillar substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Chillar fails to explicitly disclose the “at least one of ordering the items, initiating an inspection of the connected asset of the plurality of connected assets or transferring the connected asset to a new location”. However, McClintic teaches
at least one of ordering the items(McClintic teaches determining maintenance and repair operations and reserving resources required pr perform such operation. Specifically, McClintic [0084]; “determine which maintenance and repair operations are required, advisable, and/or optional 143”, [0094]; “receives information about the necessary repair, team members gather or reserve the parts, equipment and personnel needed to perform the corrective action 145”, see Fig. 8; “reserve material, equipment, personnel 145”) initiating an inspection of the connected asset of the plurality of connected assets (McClintic teaches utilizing “inspection Reports 42” and “Maintenance Records 44” in generating a “Maintenance Recommendation 60”. See Fid, 2 the use of inspection reports necessarily requires initiating or performing inspections of the asset to obtain inspection data)ortransferring the connected asset to a new location. (McClintic teaches use of asset “Location 34” and “Location Map 52” information for asset managements and maintenance planning see Fig. 2. Further teaches geographic monitoring and proximity analysis of assets relative to repair facilities and destinations, evidencing movement or relocation of assets for maintenance purposes. See Fig. 10-11)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Chillar to include at least one of ordering the items, initiating an inspection of the connected asset of the plurality of connected assets or transferring the connected asset to a new location, as taught by McClintic, where this would be performed in order to effectively manage a fleet of mobile assets, it may be desired to avoid unexpected equipment failures and to accomplish maintenance and repair activities in a time efficient manner. See McClintic [0035].
Regarding claim 8 and 18. The combination of Chillar in view of McClintic further in view of Huang furthermore in view of Worthing disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
displaying the insight for the connected asset of the plurality of connected assets; (Chillar, [0146-0147]; “the dashboard visualization component 1608 performs one or more actions based on the metrics. For instance, in one or more embodiments, the dashboard visualization component 1608 generates dashboard visualization data 1622 associated with the one or more actions … an action includes generating a user-interactive electronic interface that renders a visual representation of the prioritized actions” and Chillar teaches displaying asset insights, recommendations, predicted failures, and asset status information through dashboard interfaces and recommendation views for individual assets, see Figs. 3, 5, 7, and 8)
Chillar substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Chillar fails to explicitly disclose the “receiving a request in response to the insight; and using [[a]]the real time status of the connected asset of the plurality of connected assets to provide a response to the request”. However, McClintic teaches
receiving a request in response to the insight (McClintic teaches user interfaces through which users request asset information and maintenance actions, including a “Webpage 58” and Search 701, and “User interaction” functionality in Fig. 2, [0093]; “The service recommendation automatically triggers the creation of an electronic work order 172 within a service shop management system. A notification is then sent, such as via an e-mail message or by providing information on an Internet web page, to the service team detailing the parts and labor necessary for a timely and accurate repair”, [0174]; “dusting a manufacturer suggested indicator to perform a repair based on at least one of the portion of sensor data or the portion of historic data”); and using [[a]]the real time status of the connected asset of the plurality of connected assets to provide a response to the request. (McClintic teaches monitoring asset data, identifying faults, predicting failures and generating responses indicating corrective actions including (1) whether to correct the fault prior to scheduled maintenance of the vehicle, (2) when to correct the fault, (3) what fault to correct (which may include what parts or components of the vehicle to repair), see [0082], based on monitored asset conditions, see Fig. 7. Further McClintic teaches collecting operational parameters, determining values of the operational parameters, and generating repair recommendations based on asset conditions, see Fig. 4, all make McClintic teaches proving responses based on the current status of a monitored asset).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Chillar to include receiving a request in response to the insight; and using the real time status of the connected asset of the plurality of connected assets to provide a response to the request, as taught by McClintic, where this would be performed in order to effectively manage a fleet of mobile assets, it may be desired to avoid unexpected equipment failures and to accomplish maintenance and repair activities in a time efficient manner. See McClintic [0035].
Regarding claim 9 and 19. The combination of Chillar in view of McClintic further in view of Huang furthermore in view of Worthing disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a request from a user relating to the inventory list (Chillar, [0068]; “At 1010, asset data indicating one or more assets that are being monitored by a control system is received” … [0071]; “At 1040, a problem with the first asset is identified” … [0072]; “At 1050, one or more software packages that are configured to address the problem with the first asset identified”); and using the real time status of the plurality of connected assets to provide a response to the request. (Chillar, [0072]; “recommendation engine 114 may identify one or more software packages 126 from marketplace 132 which are directed to solving or improving the situation associated with the identified user intent 120 or problem”)
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Chillar in view of McClintic further in view of Huang furthermore in view of Worthing in view of Klim et al. (US 20070156543 A1, hereinafter “Klim”).
Regarding claims 10 and 20. The combination of Chillar in view of McClintic further in view of Huang furthermore in view of Worthing disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
The combination substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fail to explicitly disclose the “receiving, using the user interface, a request from a user relating to the inventory list; determining, using the real time status of the plurality of connected assets, if an available connected asset of the plurality of connected assets is available for the request; assigning the available connected asset of the plurality of connected assets to the request in response to determining the available connected asset of the plurality of connected assets is available for the request; and automatically ordering [[an]]one of the items of inventory for the request in response to determining the plurality of connected assets are unavailable for the request”. However, Klim teaches
receiving, using the user interface, a request from a user relating to the inventory list; (Klim, Fig. 2, [0026]; “scanning a barcode or RFID tag associated with each part that is stored in the inventory stores of the facilities. Parts can be similarly scanned as they enter or leave the facilities, or are moved from inventory stores to actual use in processes. Other data entry means may be utilized as well. The identification of parts and determination of current inventory level and distribution is represented generally at step 100 of FIG. 2”)
determining, using the real time status of the plurality of connected assets, if an available connected asset of the plurality of connected assets is available for the request; (Klim, Fig. 2, [0041]; “Once a demand forecast has been obtained, at step 120 as illustrated in FIG. 2, part ordering criteria such as required parts availability, lead times, and economic considerations as discussed above are considered according to rules specified by parts management personnel”)
assigning the available connected asset of the plurality of connected assets to the request in response to determining the available connected asset of the plurality of connected assets is available for the request; and (Klim, Fig. 2, [0041]; “Assuming no exceptions, the final step as illustrated at 140 is for parts orders or other instructions to be generated. For instance, parts can be … transferred between facilities”, [0043]; “parts that are produced near facility 14 and not subject to high system-wide demand can be delivered for storage at facility 14, and then allocated for transfer of some units to the central store 10 and/or other facilities rather than direct shipment from the parts manufacturer to facility 10”)
automatically ordering [[an]]one of the items of inventory for the request in response to determining the plurality of connected assets are unavailable for the request. (Klim, Fig. 2, [0041]; “Assuming no exceptions, the final step as illustrated at 140 is for parts orders or other instructions to be generated. For instance, parts can be ordered from OEMs”, [0034]; “evaluate parts demand and provide for reordering parts once the stock level has reached a theoretical reordering point”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Chillar to include receiving, using the user interface, a request from a user relating to the inventory list; determining, using the real time status of the plurality of connected assets, if an available connected asset of the plurality of connected assets is available for the request; assigning the available connected asset of the plurality of connected assets to the request in response to determining the available connected asset of the plurality of connected assets is available for the request; and automatically ordering one of the items of inventory for the request in response to determining the plurality of connected assets are unavailable for the request, as taught by Klim, where this would be performed in order to ensure that sufficient spare parts inventory is on-hand to meet projected breakdown demand. See Klim [0034].
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Chillar in view of McClintic further in view of Huang furthermore in view of Worthing in view of Breier et al. (US 20220358428 A1, hereinafter “Breier”).
Regarding claim 21. The combination of Chillar in view of McClintic further in view of Huang furthermore in view of Worthing disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising,
The combination substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fail to explicitly disclose the “responsive to manufacturing of the items being complete and the repair being complete, generating a notification to an operating team of the items and the repair”. However, Breier teaches
responsive to manufacturing of the items being complete and the repair being complete, generating a notification to an operating team of the items and the repair. (Breier, [0060]; “Notification 126 may be an alert, message, email, voicemail, pop-up, or other electronic communication provided to one or more accounts or devices 108 associated with a particular user 106 indicating an action update. The action update may include an indication that an action has been performed by another user 106”, [0039]; “action 114 may be ‘change radiator,’”, [0040]; “the action 114 may be a one-time or recurring maintenance action for maintaining some company equipment or asset 118”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Chillar to include responsive to manufacturing of the items being complete and the repair being complete, generating a notification to an operating team of the items and the repair, as taught by Breier, where this would be performed in order to improve the employee's own performance within the company. See Breier [0022].
Conclusion
1. 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.
2. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIA SALMAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/AVIA SALMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights