DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 .
2. Status of Application and Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-9 and 11-24 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 5, 11, 13 and 20-24 were amended and/or newly added in the Applicant’s filing on 5/15/2025.
Claims 4 and 10 were cancelled in the Applicant’s filing on 5/15/2025.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant's filing(s) on 5/15/2025.
3. Minor Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: lack of antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites “said database structure” However, there is no earlier recitation of a database or a database structure.
Claim 21 also recites “the database structure.”
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: lack of antecedent basis. Claim 11 recites “the usage status.” However, there is no earlier recitation of “a usage status.”
Claims 15-16, which are dependent upon Claim 11, are objected to because of the following informalities: lack of antecedent basis. Claims 15-16 recite “the service history.” However, there is no earlier recitation of “a service history.”
4. Claim Interpretation
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Specifically, the “broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” See MPEP §2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim.” See MPEP §2111.01, citing Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See MPEP §2111, citing In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
As such, claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if, may, might, can, could” are treated as containing optional language. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. see MPEP §2111.04(II). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See MPEP §2143.03, citing Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009);
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble. See MPEP §2111.02;
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby.” See MPEP §2111.04;
Contingent limitations. See MPEP §2111.04(II);
Printed matter. See MPEP §2111.05; and
Functional language associated with a claim term. See MPEP §2181.
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is not necessarily an exhaustive list of claim language that is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention. Applicant should review all claims for additional claim interpretation issues.
Claim 1 recites a system wherein asset data for each of said physical assets comprises:
i) the unique universal identification code of the asset tag associated with each physical asset;
ii) one or more of an asset type, asset identification information, asset configuration information, other unique IDs used by manufacturer, maintainer, operator, or owners, and asset activity history information;
iii) an asset type, said asset type being selected from a harmonization table stored in said memory, the harmonization table providing a concordance between a determined list of types of assets and names for the asset provided by manufacturers and/or asset certifying authorities, wherein the asset type for each asset is selected from the asset harmonization table;
Claim elements pertain to nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See MPEP §2111.05 (III).
Claims 7-9, 11, 15, 16 and 18-20 have similar issues.
Claim 1 recites a system wherein asset data for each of said physical assets comprises:
i) the unique universal identification code of the asset tag associated with each physical asset;
ii) one or more of an asset type, asset identification information, asset configuration information, other unique IDs used by manufacturer, maintainer, operator, or owners, and asset activity history information;
iii) an asset type, said asset type being selected from a harmonization table stored in said memory, the harmonization table providing a concordance between a determined list of types of assets and names for the asset provided by manufacturers and/or asset certifying authorities, wherein the asset type for each asset is selected from the asset harmonization table;
A system claim is defined the method steps that the structural elements of said system are configured to perform or, when the system is executing stored instructions, the method steps to be performed by the structural elements of said system.
However, method steps performed outside the recited system have no patentable weight. The structural elements are not configured to perform the method steps (i.e., system is not configured to select from a harmonization table …) nor are the structural elements of said system performing the method steps (i.e., selecting from a harmonization table) when the system is executing the stored instructions.
Claim 20 has similar issues.
Claim 14 recites a method wherein:
said step of notifying users comprising issuing messages regarding the change of status or displaying icons in an app indicative of the change of status, preferably, wherein said messages are delivered via email or text messaging (such as SMS text messages).
Claim 14 recites an immaterial claim limitation, as such claim language indicates that the recited steps are optional, in that they may or may not be performed. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). Claim language such as “preferably” is deemed to be optional claim language (i.e., email and text messaging is preferred but not necessary). As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted. Therefore, such a claim limitation is immaterial as it neither expands nor narrows the scope of the claim(s), and such claim language fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the invention.
5. 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 1-3, 6-9 and 11-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1
The claimed invention falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter). See MPEP §2106.03.
STEP 2A – PRONG ONE
Claim 1 recite(s) a system comprising:
asset tags adapted to be applied to the physical assets, each said asset tag comprising a unique human or machine-readable universal identification code which identifies the particular asset with which it is associated;
a … for managing the compliance activities of the physical assets;
… a data structure comprising asset data for the physical assets; and
a user … to receive the universal identification code of the asset tag and transmit the universal identification code to … ;
wherein said asset data for each of said physical assets comprises:
i) the unique universal identification code of the asset tag associated with each physical asset;
ii) one or more of an asset identification information, asset configuration information, other unique IDs used by manufacturer, maintainer, operator, or owners, and asset activity history information;
iii) an asset type, said asset type being selected from a harmonization table stored in said memory, the harmonization table providing a concordance between a determined list of types of assets and names for the asset provided by manufacturers and/or asset certifying authorities, wherein the asset type for each asset is selected from the asset harmonization table;
iv) a quality assurance schedule providing the cadence for compliance activities, including testing, calibrating, maintaining, and/or servicing each asset;
v) operational availability, maintenance and/or repair history and/or testing/calibration history; and
vi) usage category or operability status;
wherein said … is configured and adapted to:
receive from said user … the unique identification code for a selected asset contained on the asset tag for the selected asset;
provide a user … access to a record for said selected asset in response to receipt of said unique identification code to view and modify the record for said selected asset;
receive from a user, and save in said … structure, information regarding testing, calibration, maintenance and/or servicing of said selected asset; and
receive from a user, and save in said … structure, information regarding a change in usage category and/or the operability the status of each selected asset;
… update the quality assurance schedule for said selected asset in response to the receipt of information regarding testing, calibration, maintenance, or servicing for said selected asset; and
provide … notifications to stakeholders regarding (i) upcoming or overdue quality assurance activities or (ii) changes in category or operability status for an asset.
Claim 11 recite(s) a method comprising:
storing in a data structure data relating to assets wherein each individual asset is assigned a unique identification code;
said data further comprising, for each asset, asset manufacturer information, model name or number, serial number, status history, and service and/or maintenance history;
providing access to said data structure to users;
receiving service information from said users regarding an operability status, calibration, test, service and/or maintenance for a particular asset and/or change the usage category of an asset;
aggregating data for said assets from said service information for said;
providing access to said data structure to an asset manufacturers manufacturer and enabling the asset manufacturer to view the aggregated data; and
receiving from said asset manufacturer updated information regarding asset models and/or providing to said asset manufacturer said aggregated data for assets manufactured by said asset manufacturer to enable the asset manufacturer to learn of potential issues relating to their assets.
Claim 20 recites a system comprising:
…
wherein said asset data comprises:
for each asset, a unique universal identification code and one or more of an asset type, asset identification information, asset configuration information, other unique IDs used by manufacturer, maintainer, operator, or owners, and asset activity history information; and
an asset type for each asset; said asset type being selected from a harmonization table …, the harmonization table providing a concordance between a determined list of types of assets and names for the asset provided by manufacturers and/or asset certifying authorities, wherein the asset type for each asset is selected from the asset harmonization table;
wherein said … is configured to:
receive input containing information regarding a new asset and save said information in said data structure; said information comprising asset data and a quality assurance cadence for said asset, said quality assurance cadence including a schedule for at least one of status checks, testing, and maintenance for the asset;
receive input containing activity history information data regarding status, testing, calibration, maintenance and/or servicing of a selected asset; and
receive input regarding a change in usage category and/or the operability status of a selected asset;
wherein, when activated, said … instructions cause the … to:
store in the data structure data the asset data;
provide access to said data structure to users;
enable users to generate status records, calibration records, test records, service records and/or maintenance records for a particular asset and/or change the status of an asset;
aggregate data for said assets from said service records, calibration records, and/or test records for said assets;
provide access to said data structure to asset manufacturers; and
enable said asset manufacturers to (1) provide updated information regarding asset models and/or (2) receive said aggregated data for assets manufactured by said asset manufacturer to enable the asset manufacturer to learn of potential issues relating to their assets.
These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest interpretation, covers a series of steps instructing how to perform asset management which is a method that can be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions) which are mental process, a second enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Examiner notes that “’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” is a court-provided example of a mental process. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Electric Power Group v. Alstom, SA. (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A – PRONG TWO
The claimed invention recites additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of a computer system (Claim(s) 1), a communication module (Claim(s) 1), a processor/processing unit (Claim(s) 1 and 20), a memory (Claim(s) 1 and 20), a user device (Claim(s) 1), a database (Claim(s) 1), computer instructions (Claim(s) 20) and performing functions automatically (Claim(s) 1).
The claimed invention, as recited in Claim 11, does not recite additional elements (i.e., computer elements).
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; are not applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine; are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Alternately, the additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional element(s), when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
STEP 2B
Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to (i) adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.07(a)(II). The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Dependent Claim(s) recite additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of an email or text messaging (Claim(s) 14).
In each case, the additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality such that these additional element(s) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the judicial exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
Accordingly, the dependent claim(s) are also not patent eligible.
Appropriate correction is requested.
6. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(A)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §2163.02 and §2181 (IV)(I).
In the instant case, Claim 11 recites a method comprising “providing access to said data structure to an asset manufacturer and enabling the asset manufacturer to view the aggregated data” but the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail.
For example, does the method include the asset manufacturer (actually) viewing the aggregated data? Or does the method just enable (i.e., help or make possible) the asset manufacturer to view the aggregated data?
Examiner notes that enabling a function is less than actual performance of the function. For example, if the method aggregates the data, the manufacturer has enabled (i.e., helped or made possible) the manufacturers potential viewing of the aggregated data.
Claim 20 has similar issues.
Appropriate correction is requested.
7. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(B)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites a method comprising:
aggregating data for said assets from said service information for said assets.
Is the claimed invention aggregating (i.e., combining) data for said assets (i.e., data relating to the assets) with service information for said assets?
Or is the claimed invention pulling data for said assets from said service information for said assets?
Claim 22 recites a system wherein:
upon generation of a work order, to notify necessary stakeholders of the workorder.
Claim 22, as written, contains terms that are subjective or determinations of whether the claim limitations are satisfied are subjective. Specifically, said claims contain terminology such as “necessary.” Claims are indefinite in circumstances where a claim contains a term that is completely dependent on a person’s subjective opinion. See MPEP §2173.05(b)(IV). As such, claims containing the cited claim limitations are rejected under §112, 2nd paragraph.
Appropriate correction is requested.
8. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-9, 11 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNutt (US PG Pub. 2005/0258241) in view of Ballew (US PG Pub. 2008/0084334).
Regarding Claim 1, McNutt discloses an asset management system for managing compliance activities, including the monitoring, servicing, and maintaining, for a plurality of physical assets, the asset management system comprising:
asset tags (data tag) adapted to be applied to the physical assets, each said asset tag comprising a unique human or machine-readable universal identification code (unique asset data tag identification) which identifies the particular asset with which it is associated. (see 31);
a computer system (asset information center or system) adapted and configured for managing the compliance activities of the physical assets. (see para. 47);
the computer system (asset information center or system) comprising a communication module (network adapter) and a processor (CPU), said processor (CPU) being adapted to execute computer program instructions stored in a non-transitory memory and operative to cause the processor to store, in a memory (memory system) coupled with the processor (CPU), a data structure comprising asset data for the physical assets. (see para. 47 and 58-62); and
a user device (access device) adapted to receive the universal identification code of the asset tag and transmit the universal identification code to said computer system (asset information system). (see para. 37 and 46);
wherein said asset data for each of said physical assets comprises:
i) the unique universal identification code (unique asset data tag identification or serial number) of the asset tag associated with each physical asset. (see para. 29-31);
ii) one or more of an asset identification information, asset configuration information, other unique IDs used by manufacturer, maintainer, operator, or owners, and asset activity history information (a model number, a serial number, a date of manufacture, a date of installation, an asset protocol version, an asset owner name, and an asset location). (see para. 29-31);
iii) an asset type (equipment classification), said asset type being selected from a harmonization table stored in said memory, the harmonization table providing a concordance between a determined list of types of assets and names for the asset provided by manufacturers and/or asset certifying authorities (North American Association of Food Equipment Manufactures), wherein the asset type for each asset is selected from the asset harmonization table. (see para. 29-30);
iv) a quality assurance schedule (identification of one or more operating actions or events that may prompt the user to initiate a service call) providing the cadence for compliance activities, including testing, calibrating, maintaining, and/or servicing each asset. (see para. 29);
v) operational availability, maintenance and/or repair history and/or testing/calibration history (data related to a service action, service information, service performed or upgrades or changes made to asset). (see para. 29 and 45); and
vi) usage category or operability status (failure). (see para. 29);
wherein said computer system (asset data information system) is configured and adapted to:
receive from said user device (access device) the unique identification code for a selected asset contained on the asset tag (data tag) for the selected asset. (see para. 33-35);
provide a user using the user device (access device) access to a record (asset information) for said selected asset in response to receipt of said unique identification code to view and modify (update) the record for said selected asset. (see para. 33-35 and 45);
receive from a user, and save in said database structure, information (updates) regarding testing, calibration, maintenance and/or servicing (service performed) of said selected asset (see para. 45); and
receive from a user, and save in said database structure, information regarding a change in usage category and/or the operability (upgrades or changes) the status of selected asset. (see para. 45).
Mc Nutt does not teach a computer system configured and adapted to automatically update the quality assurance schedule for said selected asset in response to the receipt of information regarding testing, calibration, maintenance, or servicing for said selected asset; or provide electronic notifications to stakeholders regarding (i) upcoming or overdue quality assurance activities or (ii) changes in category or operability status for an asset.
Ballew discloses computer system configured and adapted to:
automatically update (add) the quality assurance schedule (maintenance schedule) for said selected asset in response to the receipt of information regarding testing, calibration, maintenance, or servicing (maintenance schedule) for said selected asset. (see para. 475); and
provide electronic notifications (report or alert) to stakeholders regarding (i) upcoming (closing in on scheduled maintenance call) or overdue quality assurance activities (missed maintenance event) or (ii) changes in category or operability status (status information) for an asset. (see para. 180-181, 192, 460 and 462-465).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McNutt by incorporating a maintenance notification system, as disclosed by Ballew, thereby ensuring users are kept informed of an assets’ maintenance needs and schedule.
Regarding Claim 5, McNutt does not teach a system wherein said quality assurance schedule includes one or more testing/calibrating schedules and one or more maintenance schedules for each said asset; or wherein said system is configured to notify said stakeholders if scheduled testing/calibrating or scheduled maintenance has been missed.
Ballew discloses a system wherein:
said quality assurance schedule includes one or more testing/calibrating schedules and one or more maintenance schedules for each said asset. (see para. 101); and
said system is configured to notify said stakeholders if scheduled testing/calibrating or scheduled maintenance has been missed (missed maintenance event notice). (see para. 470).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McNutt and Ballew by incorporating a maintenance notification system, as disclosed by Ballew, thereby ensuring users are kept informed of an assets’ maintenance needs and schedule.
Regarding Claim 6, McNutt does not teach a system comprising activity information comprising one or more of the following: status data, testing data, calibration data, repair data, and maintenance data (service performed). (see para. 45).
McNutt does not teach a system configured to electronically receive updated asset information regarding the assets from asset manufacturers or their representatives and to electronically distribute said updated information to users; or provide asset information and aggregated activity information regarding assets to the asset manufacturers.
Ballew discloses a system configured to:
electronically receive updated asset information regarding the assets from asset manufacturers or their representatives (manufacturers schedule maintenance) and to electronically distribute said updated information to users (buyers); and
provide asset information and aggregated activity information regarding assets to the asset manufacturers (manufacturers track the asset), the activity information comprising one or more of the following status data (asset operating schedule), testing data, calibration data, repair data, and maintenance data. (see para. 104-105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McNutt and Ballew by incorporating a manufacturer communication system, as disclosed by Ballew, thereby ensuring that the system had the most up-to-date manufacturers’ information pertaining to the asset.
Regarding Claim 7, McNutt discloses a system wherein said asset identification information includes one or more of the following: the manufacturer name, asset model, serial number, certification documents, purchase date, and installation date. (see para. 29).
Regarding Claim 8, McNutt discloses a system wherein said asset configuration information includes one or more of the following hardware version and system software version (asset protocol version), standards obtained, detection algorithm, related auxiliary hardware, and qualifications and certificates. (see para. 29).
Regarding Claim 9, McNutt discloses a system wherein said asset data further includes for each asset: location of the asset (asset location), and one or more of the following: asset manufacturer, manufacturer make, model and serial number, software version, hardware version firmware version), supported auxiliary hardware, installation date, end of life date, and manuals for the asset. (see para. 29).
Regarding Claims 11, such claim recites substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claims and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claims.
Regarding Claim 14, McNutt discloses a method wherein:
said data further includes one or more testing/calibrating schedules and one or more maintenance schedules for each said asset;
said method comprises notifying users of changes in the status of assets and/or missed maintenance or testing;
said step of notifying users comprising issuing messages regarding the change of status or displaying icons in an app indicative of the change of status, preferably, wherein said messages are delivered via email or text messaging (such as SMS text messages).
Ballew discloses a method wherein:
said data further includes one or more testing/calibrating schedules and one or more maintenance schedules for each said asset. (see para. 475)
said method comprises notifying users of changes in the status of assets (status information) and/or missed maintenance (maintenance event) or testing. (see para. 180-181, 192, 460 and 462-465).
said step of notifying users comprising issuing messages (alerts) regarding the change of status or displaying icons in an app indicative of the change of status, preferably, wherein said messages are delivered via email or text messaging (such as SMS text messages). (see para. 229 and 232).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McNutt and Ballew by incorporating a maintenance notification system, as disclosed by Ballew, thereby ensuring users are kept informed of an assets’ maintenance needs and schedule.
Regarding Claims 15-19, such claims recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claims and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claims.
Regarding Claim 21, McNutt discloses a system wherein said system being adapted to receive input from a user containing asset data and a quality assurance cadence for a new asset, the quality assurance cadence including a schedule (identification of one or more operating actions or events that may prompt the user to initiate a service call) for at least one of status checks, testing, and maintenance for the new asset whereby a user can add (initialize) a new physical asset to the database structure. (see para. 29 and 45).
Regarding Claim 20, such claim recites substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claims and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claims.
Regarding Claim 22, McNutt does not teach system wherein said system is adapted to generate work order tickets based on said quality assurance cadence and to receive data regarding a work order for unscheduled or corrective maintenance or service; and, upon generation of a work order, to notify necessary stakeholders of the workorder.
Ballew discloses a system wherein said system is adapted to generate work order tickets (work orders) based on said quality assurance cadence and to receive data regarding a work order for unscheduled or corrective maintenance or service; and, upon generation of a work order, to notify necessary stakeholders of the workorder (via issuance of the work order). (see para. 393, 397-399 and 408).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McNutt and Ballew by incorporating a work order system, as disclosed by Ballew, thereby ensuring maintenance is performed on the physical asset.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNutt and Ballew, as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Sinha (US PG Pub. 2017/0322534).
Regarding Claim 2, McNutt discloses a system wherein said data structure (asset information) comprises a plurality of distinct and separate sub-data structures (data elements, e.g., serial number, date of manufacture …), there being a sub-data structure associated with each stakeholder (asset owner) of the asset information system, wherein the data for any one asset is distributed among the sub-data structure (data elements) of the stakeholders (asset owner) for the particular asset, such that no single-data structures (data element) contains all the data related to a single asset. (see para. 29).
McNutt does not teach a system wherein one stakeholder cannot access a sub-data structure of another stakeholder.
Sinha discloses a system wherein said data structure (database) comprises a plurality of distinct and separate sub-data structures (parameters), there being a sub-data structure associated (via permission access) with each stakeholder (user or agent) of the asset information system, wherein the data for any one asset is distributed among the sub-data structure (parameters) of the stakeholders (users or agents) for the particular asset, such that no single-data structures (parameter) contains all the data related to a single asset, and wherein one stakeholder (user or agent) cannot access sub-data structure (parameter) of another stakeholder (unless permitted access). (see para. 105 and 117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McNutt and Ballew by incorporating access privileges, as disclosed by Sinha, thereby ensuring that information is not disclosed to unauthorized users.
Regarding Claim 3, McNutt discloses a system which is adapted, upon a receipt of a request from a user to view information related to an asset, to obtain the asset data for the requested asset from the relevant sub-data structures (data elements) and to transmit said data to said user to view. (see para. 29, 39 and 46).
McNutt does not teach a system whereby a user does not have direct access to the sub-data structure (parameter) of any other user.
Sinha discloses a system which is adapted, upon receipt of a request to view (read) information
(a parameter) related to an asset to obtain the relevant data for the requested asset from the relevant sub-data structures (that they have permission for) and to transmit said data to said user to view; whereby, a user does not have access to the sub-data structure (parameter) of any other user (via permissions). (see para. 57, 105, 117 and 155).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McNutt, Ballew and Sindha by incorporating access privileges, as disclosed by Sinha, thereby ensuring that information is not disclosed to unauthorized users.
Regarding Claims 12-13, such claim recites substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claims and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claims.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNutt and Ballew, as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Weaver (US PG Pub. 2009/0115609).
Regarding Claim 23, McNutt does not teach a system adapted to determine the location of a user who is updating asset information relating to the status, testing, calibration, maintenance and/or servicing of an asset, to compare the location of the user relative to the location of the physical asset, and to include an indication in the record for the physical asset if the user is not within a predetermined distance of the asset when modifying the record.
Weaver discloses a system adapted to determine the location of a user (worker) who is updating asset information relating to the status, testing, calibration, maintenance and/or servicing of an asset, to compare the location of the user (worker) relative to the location of the physical asset (target), and to include an indication (alert) in the record for the physical asset if the user is not within a predetermined distance (minimum distance) of the asset (for the required amount of time) when modifying the record. (see para. 58-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McNutt and Ballew by incorporating location data, as disclosed by Weaver, thereby ensuring that complete and accurate information is added to the record.
9. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered. Some arguments have been rendered moot based upon new references utilized in the current rejection. However, some arguments remain relevant, as they apply to a reference and/or rejection still utilized in the current rejection. Such arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive and are addressed below.
§101 Rejection
Step 2A – Prong One
Applicant argues that the claimed invention does not recite a judicial exception and, as such, satisfies Step 2A Prong One of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, pp. 31-34.
Specifically, regarding Claim 1, the Applicant argues:
These steps include the use of asset tags, user devices, and data structures that are not capable of being performed in the human mind. The claim requires the use of asset tags that are applied to the physical assets and that contain unique identification codes that identify the particular assets. The claim also requires the use of a user device that can receive the unique identification code from the asset tag (for example, by scanning the asset tag) and transmit that unique identification code to the computer system. The computer system then accesses the record for the selected asset in the data structure, and makes the record available to the user using the user device. The system further allows the user to update information regarding the device and saves that new information into the database structure. See Arguments, p. 32 – emphasis added.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
A user can read a unique identification code from the asset tag (e.g., the paper label affixed to the physical asset) and communicate that unique identification code to a person. The person can then access the record for the selected asset in the data structure (e.g., the file), and makes the record available to the user. The user to can update information regarding the device (e.g., the physical asset) and save that new information into the database structure (e.g., the file).
This is a mental process, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Examiner notes that “’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” is a court-provided example of a mental process. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Electric Power Group v. Alstom, SA. (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant emphasizes that the claimed invention is performed utilizing computing components (i.e., user devices), and, as such, cannot be classified as a mental process.
MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) recites:
In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
The claimed invention recites a mental process even though the claimed invention recites that the mental process is being performed on a computer. The claims merely recite that the “concept is performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept.”
Examiner notes that mental processes include processes that would require “the use of a physical aid, such as pen and paper.” See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B).
Examiner notes that asset tags (e.g., paper labels affixed to a physical asset) and data structures (e.g., a paper file) are not necessarily computing components but products of pen and paper.
Regardless, if the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One. The claim then requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong Two, to determine whether any additional elements (i.e., user devices) in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(f)(2).
Applicant, regarding Claims 11 and 20, further argues:
With respect to Claim 11, the Examiner appears to focus on the step of aggregating data. Applicant submits that the steps of aggregating the data and then making the data available to manufactures are not steps that can be performed in the human mind. As set forth in the application, this aspect of the system is directed to the ability of the system to aggregate date for assets made by a particular manufacturer. No single person has access to the data that will be aggregated, as this data is spread among distinct facilities. As such, these are not steps that can be performed in the human mind. See Arguments, p. 33.
In particular, Applicant notes that aggregating data (as just described), generating reports, and receiving information from manufactures based on the aggregated data are not steps that can be performed in the human mind. See Arguments, p. 34
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner directs the Applicant to the arguments and rationale pertaining to Claim 1 which are also applicable to Claims 11 and 20.
Additionally, a human being can aggregate data and make the data available to manufacturers. A human being can aggregate data, generate reports and receive information from manufacturers based on the aggregated data.
Applicant further argues:
In view of the foregoing, Claims 1, 11, a