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 .
Claim Interpretation
Applicant’s specification, ¶ 2 discloses “The system and method may determine if the data for any element exceeds a threshold in comparison to its baseline”. During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard. The claim language “The updated conditions of one of the element determined to be (or not to be) materially different than the baseline conditions” is considered to include any comparison of data points, including a threshold, baseline, range, target, outlier, etc., that is determined to be displayed in a report. Whether or not data is “materially different” as claimed is subjective.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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. The term “materially different” in claims 1-20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “materially different” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are directed to statutory methods and systems under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. However, the claims are further directed toward a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility analysis, namely an abstract idea. Under Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, the claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because nothing in the asserted claims purports to improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of “determining if the updated conditions of the elements of the physical assets are materially different than the baseline conditions of the elements of the physical assets” which is considered to be a mental process. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011), (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. MENTAL PROCESSES). In this case a human can easily determine whether the updated conditions of the elements of the physical assets are materially different than the baseline conditions of the elements of the physical assets, by establishing a baseline and comparing it to a threshold. This is similar to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Claims to "comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations," where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 763, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract
idea per se include artificial intelligence. This amount(s) to no more than implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer system, (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(1)). The additional elements such as artificial intelligence in the claims does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., “artificial intelligence") and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity recited at a high level of generality, (see MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham et al., US 20260148199 A1.
1. A computerized method of tracking conditions of physical assets comprising:
establishing a baseline condition of elements of the physical assets, (see Abraham, ¶ 137 “Based upon the correlated electrical activity, the structure electrical profile may depict, for example, average electricity operation/usage, baseline electricity operation/usage, and/or expected electricity operation/usage/consumption. In effect, the structure electrical profile, based upon electrical activity about the structure, may set forth what is “normal” operation and usage of electricity about the structure.”);
receiving updated condition for the elements of the physical assets after a period of time, (see Abraham, ¶ 65 “The system may continually update the recommendations based on newly received data, feedback received from homeowners, and/or decisions made by homeowners based upon previous recommendations. The newly received data may also be used to update the predicted remaining lifetime.);
determining if the updated conditions of the elements of the physical assets are materially different than the baseline conditions of the elements of the physical assets, (see Abraham, ¶ 66 “feedback may be used to continually update and re-train the AI model to continually refine and improve the AI model.”, ¶ 181 “causing adjustments in the model parameters, until the error between the at least one output and the at least one result data field falls below a suitable threshold”);
in response to the updated conditions of one of the elements being determined to be materially different than the baseline conditions; adding the updated conditions of one of the element determined to be materially different than the baseline conditions to a report, (see Abraham, ¶ 66 “new data relating to lifetimes of appliances, insurance and/or warranty claims relating to appliances, feedback received from homeowners, decisions made by homeowners based upon previous recommendations, and/or other information may be used to update the AI model.”);
in response to the updated conditions of one of the element being determined not to be materially different than the baseline, not adding the updated conditions of the element determined to be materially different than the baseline conditions to a report, (see Abraham, ¶ 181 “causing adjustments in the model parameters, until the error between the at least one output and the at least one result data field falls below a suitable threshold”); and
Abraham fails to expressly disclose displaying the report to a supervisor. However Abraham discloses at ¶ 352 “(a) cause a user device to display a user interface prompting a selection of an appliance; (b) receive, from the user device, a selection of a first appliance; (c) retrieve appliance data relating to the first appliance; (d) compute, using an artificial intelligence model, a predicted remaining lifetime of the first appliance based upon the retrieved appliance data of the first appliance, wherein the artificial intelligence model is trained based upon historical appliance data including data associated with historical lifetimes of similar appliances; (e) generate a recommendation to repair or replace the first appliance based upon the predicted remaining lifetime; and/or (f) cause the user interface to display at least the predicted remaining lifetime of the first appliance and the generated recommendation”. Abraham also discloses supervised learning at ¶ 291.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to consider displaying supervised learning recommendations to be a form of displaying the report to a supervisor. The motivation to modify the prior art would have been to predict remaining a life expectancy of home appliances and generating AI-based recommendations for improving the remaining life expectancy of home appliances, (see Abraham, ¶ 20).
This rationale of obviousness is applied to all claim rejections below herein by reference.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein establishing a baseline comprises: collecting data over a significant period of time; utilizing artificial intelligence on an analysis system to analyze the data over time to determine patterns; and setting a baseline for a time period based on the analysis, (see Abraham, ¶ 139 “EF data regarding an appliance 312 may include, for example, historical data indicating the appliance's past operation patterns or trends”, ¶ 60 “countdown value that decreases as time progresses indicating how much of the appliance's life cycle remains”).
3. The computerized method of claim 1, wherein the report includes the time of the updated conditions were received and the manner of receiving the communication, (se Abraham, ¶ 59-60, “updated conditions”).
4. The computerized method of claim 1, wherein the report may be edited with comments by the supervisor, (see Abraham, ¶ 293-94 “output display” “user-defined reward signal definition”).
5. The computerized method of claim 1, wherein the number of consecutive times the element has been on the report is displayed on the report, (see Abraham, ¶ 294-95 “display pattern”).
6. The computerized method of claim 1, wherein the number of times the element has been displayed on the report during a period of time is displayed, (see Abraham, ¶ 294-95 “display pattern”).
7. The computerized method of claim 1, wherein previous reports regarding the element determined to be materially different than the baseline conditions during a period of time are displayed, (see Abraham, ¶ 294-95 “display pattern”).
8. The computerized method of claim 1, wherein data is added to a database to create a baseline for the element, (see Abraham, ¶ 137).
9. The computerized method of claim 1, wherein the data on the element is formatted according to a protocol for the element and is communicated to a service provider for the element, (see Abraham, ¶ 7 “electronic or electrical components, which may be in wired or wireless communication with one another”).
10. The computerized method of claim 8, wherein a follow up task is added for the element, (see Abraham, ¶ 278 “This information may include a bar representing how many of these recommended tasks have been completed for the corresponding system”).
11. The computerized method of claim 8, wherein a solution to place the element back into the baseline condition is added to the database, (Abraham, ¶ 352).
12. The computerized method of claim 8, wherein the report includes the cost to place the element back into baseline condition, (see Abraham, ¶ 56 “types of repairs and associated costs for the different appliances along with any detectable data associated with the current operation of the appliances at the time”).
13. The computerized method of claim 8, wherein reports for several lodgings are accumulated to create a master report, (see Abraham, FIG. 21A).
14. The computerized method of claim 8, wherein the master report includes accumulated solutions and the accumulated costs, (see Abraham, ¶ 56 “types of repairs and associated costs for the different appliances along with any detectable data associated with the current operation of the appliances at the time”).
15. The computerized method of claim 13, wherein artificial intelligence analyzes the master report of problems and solutions and determines maintenance procedures and schedules to reduce future problems, (see Abraham, Abstract).
Claims 16-20 contain the same or similar features as claims 1-15 rejected above, and therefore these remaining claims are rejected on the same basis and rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: WO-2025223683-A1, CN-116451876-A, CN-119047801-A, WO-2023166021-A1, CN-118917837-A, IT-202300027954-A1, CN-118709008-A, US-20250117756-A1, US-20200394351-A1, US-20230222454-A1, US-20200331636-A1, US-20260004670-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL S GLASS whose telephone number is (571)272-7285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5.
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, FLORIAN ZEENDER can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/RUSSELL S GLASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights