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
Claims 1-20 filed December 10, 2024 are pending and are hereby examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
5. Step 1 Statutory Category: Claims 1-16 are directed to a method, and claims 17-20 are directed to a system, all of which are statutory classes of invention.
6. Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claims 1 and 17 recite an abstract idea of tracking communications regarding elements of an asset.
The independent claims 1 and 17 recite the following limitations which fall under commercial or legal interactions:
receiving a communication regarding an element of an asset;
adding the communication to a…;
analyzing the communication to determine elements involved in the communication;
determining if there are issues with elements in the communication;
adding the elements to a…;
if the element needs service, formatting the element details into a protocol;
communicating the elements details to a service provider according to an…;
adding the element details on a…;
periodically collecting the elements details into a report; and
communicating the report to an authority.
7. According to the MPEP, "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Clearly, tracking communications regarding elements of an asset falls under sales activities, therefore commercial or legal interactions. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
8. Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely recites tracking communications regarding elements of an asset with generally recited computer elements such as a database and API which in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and are merely invoked as tools for tracking communications regarding elements of an asset. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the Commercial or Legal Interactions subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
9. Step 2B – Inventive Concept: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a database and API, perform these steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
10. Regarding dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 19, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of tracking communications regarding elements of an asset, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
11. Regarding dependent claims 3, 10, 13, and 20, although these claims recite a generally recited database, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of tracking communications regarding elements of an asset, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
12. Regarding dependent claims 6, 16, and 18, although these claims recite a generally recited artificial intelligence engine, these claims merely narrow the abstract idea of tracking communications regarding elements of an asset, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
13. Therefore, the limitations of the claims, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
18. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Arumugam et al (US 2021/0257085) in view of Abraham et al (US 2026/0148199).
19. Re Claims 1, 17: Arumugam discloses comprising:
receiving a communication regarding an element of an asset (see [0065] send and receive digital information with plurality of devices);
adding the communication to a database (see [0074] changes in data information stored in one or more databases);
analyzing the communication to determine elements involved in the communication (see [0069] analysis of data relating to facility operations);
determining if there are issues with elements in the communication (see [0057] identifies issues);
if the element needs service, formatting the element details into a protocol (see [0157] MQTT protocol);
communicating the elements details to a service provider according to an API (see [0024] dashboard interface);
periodically collecting the elements details into a report (see [0096] issue reports); and
communicating the report to an authority (see [0100] staff member may report issues, [0111] report to property owners or facility managers).
However, Arumugam fails to disclose the following explicitly. Meanwhile, Abraham teaches:
adding the elements to a database (see [0267] add information to dashboard);
adding the element details on a database (see [0267] add information to dashboard).
From the teaching of Abraham, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Arumagum’s connected facility system with Abraham’s teaching of adding elements “… to predict an end-of-life and/or suggested maintenance for home appliances and other machines or components… (see Abraham [0003]).”
20. Re Claim 2: Arumagum discloses wherein the time of the communication, the length of the communication and the time for the communication to be answered are stored in the
database (see [0128] data stored in memory of database).
21. Re Claim 3: However, Arumagum fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Abraham teaches wherein the number of calls during a time period, the number that were answered and the number that were not answered are added to the database (see [0267] add information to dashboard). From the teaching of Abraham, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Arumagum’s connected facility system with Abraham’s teaching of adding elements “… to predict an end-of-life and/or suggested maintenance for home appliances and other machines or components… (see Abraham [0003]).”
22. Re Claim 4: Arumagum discloses wherein the communication is a request for an item to be inspected (see [0082-0083] room service, maintenance, or cleanup request).
23. Re Claim 5: Arumagum discloses wherein the asset is a place of lodging and the asset has a plurality of elements (see [0062] lodging).
24. Re Claims 6, 18: However, Arumagum fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Abraham teaches wherein an artificial intelligence engine analyzes the database to determine elements that are out of service more than a standard deviation (see [0076] artificial intelligence). From the teaching of Abraham, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Arumagum’s connected facility system with Abraham’s teaching of artificial intelligence “… to predict an end-of-life and/or suggested maintenance for home appliances and other machines or components… (see Abraham [0003]).”
25. Re Claim 7: However, Arumagum fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Abraham teaches wherein the frequency of the elements being reported is added to the report (see [0267] add information to dashboard). From the teaching of Abraham, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Arumagum’s connected facility system with Abraham’s teaching of adding elements “… to predict an end-of-life and/or suggested maintenance for home appliances and other machines or components… (see Abraham [0003]).”
26. Re Claim 8: However, Arumagum fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Abraham teaches wherein past reports of the elements are included on the report (see [0267] add information to dashboard). From the teaching of Abraham, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Arumagum’s connected facility system with Abraham’s teaching of adding elements “… to predict an end-of-life and/or suggested maintenance for home appliances and other machines or components… (see Abraham [0003]).”
27. Re Claims 9, 19: Arumagum discloses wherein elements that are inspected and addressed are removed from the current report (see [0096] issue reports).
28. Re Claim 10: However, Arumagum fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Abraham teaches wherein data is added to a database to create a baseline for the element (see [0267] add information to dashboard). From the teaching of Abraham, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Arumagum’s connected facility system with Abraham’s teaching of adding elements “… to predict an end-of-life and/or suggested maintenance for home appliances and other machines or components… (see Abraham [0003]).”
29. Re Claim 11: Arumagum discloses 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 [0157] MQTT protocol).
30. Re Claim 12: Arumagum discloses wherein a follow up task is added for the element (see [0097] specific task assigned).
31. Re Claims 13, 20: However, Arumagum fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Abraham teaches wherein a report of the solution to place the element back into the baseline condition is added to the database (see [0267] add information to dashboard). From the teaching of Abraham, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Arumagum’s connected facility system with Abraham’s teaching of adding elements “… to predict an end-of-life and/or suggested maintenance for home appliances and other machines or components… (see Abraham [0003]).”
32. Re Claim 14: Arumagum discloses wherein the report includes the cost to place the element back into baseline condition (see [0192] prices).
33. Re Claim 15: Arumagum discloses wherein reports for several lodgings are accumulated to create a master report wherein the master report includes accumulated solutions and the accumulated costs (see [0151] analyze data collected from one or more facilities).
34. Re Claim 16: However, Arumagum fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Abraham teaches wherein artificial intelligence analyzes the master report of problems and solutions and determines maintenance procedures and schedules to reduce future problems (see [0267] add information to dashboard). From the teaching of Abraham, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Arumagum’s connected facility system with Abraham’s teaching of artificial intelligence “… to predict an end-of-life and/or suggested maintenance for home appliances and other machines or components… (see Abraham [0003]).”
Examiner Notes
35. The Examiner suggests expounding upon what elements are and what element details are as well as protocol. The Examiner then suggests incorporating claims 6 and 16 (dependent on 15) together into the independent claims. The Examiner suggests incorporating how the AI engine is trained or re-trained uniquely. Finally, the Examiner suggests incorporating more hardware from the Specification and any unique arrangements of hardware, unique hardware, or unique ways the hardware is communicating. The aforementioned claim suggestions, in combination together, is suggested to help advance prosecution forward, although further search, examination, and consideration is required.
Conclusion
36. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Aceto et al (A Survey on Information and Communication Technologies for Industry 4.0: State-of-the-Art, Taxonomies, Perspectives, and Challenges, NPL) is found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
37. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAWAAD HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7178. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 AM to 5 PM.
38. 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.
39. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached on 571-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
40. 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.
/FAWAAD HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights