DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action in response to communications received 6/23/2026. Claim(s) 1-10 has(have) been amended. Claim(s) 11-20 has(have) been added. Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is(are) pending and addressed below.
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 Objections
Claims 9, 10, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, “determining a remedial action to be taken to avoid the failure or the abnormality of the electronic apparatus in response to the occurrence of the failure or the abnormality of the electronic apparatus is predicted” is grammatically incorrect. The examiner suggests reverting the amendment so that it reads “when the failure … is predicted” or amending it to read “in response to the occurrence of the failure … being predicted”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 9 recite(s) the limitation(s) of “predict an occurrence of a failure or an abnormality of the electronic apparatus based on the data”, “determine a remedial action to be taken to avoid the failure or the abnormality of the electronic apparatus in response to the circuitry predicting the occurrence of the failure or the abnormality”, and “decide whether the determined remedial action can be performed by a user” in claim 1,
“predict an occurrence of a failure or an abnormality of the electronic apparatus based on the data”, “determine a remedial action to be taken avoid the failure or the abnormality of the electronic apparatus in response to the circuitry predicting the occurrence of the failure or the abnormality of the electronic apparatus”, and “decide whether the determined remedial action can be performed by a user” in claim 8, and
“predicting an occurrence of a failure or an abnormality of the electronic apparatus based on the data”, “determining a remedial action to be taken to avoid the failure or the abnormality of the electronic apparatus in response to the occurrence of the failure or the abnormality of the electronic apparatus is predicted”, and “deciding whether the determined remedial action can be performed by a user” in claim 9. This/These limitation(s), as drafted, is(are) a process (processes) that, under its (their) broadest reasonable interpretation, cover(s) performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “circuitry” and “display” in claim 1, “an electronic apparatus”, “circuitry”, and “a display” in claim 8, “one or more processors” and “an electronic apparatus” in claim 9, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic processing components does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental processes grouping.
The examiner notes that “predict an occurrence of a failure or an abnormality of the electronic apparatus based on the data” involves subjective choices as to the weights, factors, threshold of failure, and algorithm used to make the prediction and includes the concepts of evaluation, judgment, and opinion, “determine a remedial action to be taken to avoid the failure or the abnormality of the electronic apparatus in response to the circuitry predicting the occurrence of the failure or the abnormality” involves subjective choices as to the correspondence between remedial action and prediction and includes the concepts of evaluation and judgment, and “decide whether the determined remedial action can be performed by a user” involves subjective choices as to a subjective set of factors and weights as to what the decision is based upon, how the remedial action is evaluated, and what a user may perform or not and includes the concepts of evaluation, judgment, and opinion in claim 1,
“predict an occurrence of a failure or an abnormality of the electronic apparatus based on the data” involves subjective choices as to the weights, factors, threshold of failure, and algorithm used to make the prediction and includes the concepts of evaluation, judgment, and opinion, “determine a remedial action to be taken avoid the failure or the abnormality of the electronic apparatus in response to the circuitry predicting the occurrence of the failure or the abnormality of the electronic apparatus” involves subjective choices as to the correspondence between remedial action and prediction and includes the concepts of evaluation and judgment, and “decide whether the determined remedial action can be performed by a user” involves subjective choices as to a subjective set of factors and weights as to what the decision is based upon, how the remedial action is evaluated, and what a user may perform or not and includes the concepts of evaluation, judgment, and opinion in claim 8, and
“predicting an occurrence of a failure or an abnormality of the electronic apparatus based on the data” involves subjective choices as to the weights, factors, threshold of failure, and algorithm used to make the prediction and includes the concepts of evaluation, judgment, and opinion, “determining a remedial action to be taken to avoid the failure or the abnormality of the electronic apparatus in response to the occurrence of the failure or the abnormality of the electronic apparatus is predicted” involves subjective choices as to the correspondence between remedial action and prediction and includes the concepts of evaluation and judgment, and “deciding whether the determined remedial action can be performed by a user” involves subjective choices as to a subjective set of factors and weights as to what the decision is based upon, how the remedial action is evaluated, and what a user may perform or not and includes the concepts of evaluation, judgment, and opinion in claim 9. Thus, the claim(s) recite(s) a mental process, concepts that may be performed in the human mind, in this case being observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited including “acquiring data” and “displaying the remedial action” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processor performing a generic computer function. Generic processor limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The examiner notes that while “performing a remedial action” could potentially improve the functioning of a computer, it is not a particular solution to a specific problem (An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, see MPEP 2106.05(a), The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it", see MPEP 2106.05(f)), but instead a generic solution to any and all possible problems. The examiner notes that “failure” and “remedial action” are a generic problem and solution and is equivalent to “apply it”, applying a generic “remedial action” or solution to any and all “failures” or problems. The examiner also notes that the “remedial action” is not performed but simply displayed and as such does not improve the functioning of a computer. The decision of whether a user can perform the remedial action also would not change the functioning of the computer, as the following limitation simply decides whether to display the remedial action without improving the functioning of the computer itself. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements fail to improve the functionality of the computer itself.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology or effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Furthermore, the applicant’s own specification details the generic nature of the computing components, which also precludes them from presenting anything significantly more (p. 6, ln. 14 - p. 7, ln. 7, fig. 3).
Claim(s) 2-7 and 10-20 do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claim(s) 2 simply stores the remedial action not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 3 increases prediction accuracy which involves a mental process given the subjective “accuracy” and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 4 simply displays information and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 5 involves a mental process given the subjective criteria to stop the display of the remedial action and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 6 simply displays detailed information on the remedial action and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 7 simply further details the display and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 10 simply provides the medium embodiment of the method and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 11, 15, and 20 simply detail the decision of the remedial action being executable by a user and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 12 and 17 simply store the remedial action and transmits a notification and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 13 and 18 simply display the remedial action for a certain amount of time and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 14 and 19 simply display instructions and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 16 simply stores the remedial action and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 1-20 is(are) therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument (see p. 7-9 of remarks) that the amended claims recite a practical application or additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner notes that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited including “acquiring data” and “displaying the remedial action” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processor performing a generic computer function. Generic processor limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The examiner notes that while “performing the remedial action” could potentially improve the functioning of a computer, it would not be a particular solution to a specific problem (An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, see MPEP 2106.05(a), The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it", see MPEP 2106.05(f)), but instead a generic solution to any and all possible problems. The examiner notes that “failure” and “remedial action” are a generic problem and solution and is equivalent to “apply it”, applying a generic “remedial action” or solution to any and all “failures” or problems. The examiner also notes that the “remedial action” is not performed but simply displayed and as such does not improve the functioning of a computer. The decision of whether a user can perform the remedial action also would not change the functioning of the computer, as the following limitation simply decides whether to display the remedial action without improving the functioning of the computer itself. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements fail to improve the functionality of the computer itself.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA P LOTTICH whose telephone number is (571)270-3738. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 5712723655. 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.
/JOSHUA P LOTTICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights