6DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This communication is a non-final action in response to amendments filed on 8/28/2026. Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 1-5 and 7-12 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), without providing a practical application integration and without providing significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 11 is directed to and a method which is within the four statutory categories of invention. Claim 1-5 and 7-10 and 12 are directed to a system (apparatus) which is within the four statutory categories of invention.
As per Step 2A-Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claims 1 and 11 are directed specifically to the abstract idea of operation notification by a determination step of determining whether there is a remote operation to be performed by a worker of a board work machine; and a notification step of [providing] an executable notice to the first [worker/area/station] and the second [worker/area/station] when it is determined that there is a remote operation to be performed on the board work machine wherein when the first [worker/area/station] receives the executable notice, the first [area/station] to display a work screen of the remote operation and enter a state in which a specific worker of the board work machine, who is the worker who performs the remote operation on the board work machine, can perform the remote operation, and wherein when the second [worker/area/station] receives the executable notice, the second [worker/area/station] to display the specific worker is performing the remote operation on the board work machine to a general worker, who is the worker other than the specific worker, displays indicating that the remote operation is being performed by specific work after the notification section provides the executable notice to the first [worker/area/station] and the second [worker/area/station]; which include mental processes (observing and evaluating data related to an operation/task for a judgement or opinion of notifying the specific worker or other workers), and certain methods of organizing human activity based on fundamental economic practice (managing operations/tasks in a business), and managing personal behavior and interactions between people (following rules and instructions to managing, facilitating operation notification to workers in a work environment). Claims 2-5 and 7-10 and 12 are directed to the abstract idea of claim 1 with further details on the parameters/attributes of the abstract idea which includes mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity for similar reasons as provided above for claim 1. After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As per Step 2A-Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, while the claims 1-5 and 7-12 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements, such as a board work machine configured to perform predetermined work on a board, the board work machine including a display; first/second/third screens; {warning} sound; first mobile terminal; a second mobile terminal; these limitations are not enough to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, while the claims 1-5 and 7-12 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements, such as a board work machine configured to perform predetermined work on a board, the board work machine including a display; first/second/third screens; {warning} sound; a first mobile terminal; a second mobile terminal; these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-5 and 7-12 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
All arguments have been considered. Details are provided below.
Arguments on rejections under 35 USC 101:
No new argument specific to any claim limitation was provided. New and updated rejection have been provided based on applicant’s extensive amendments to the claim.
Arguments on rejections under 35 USC 103:
Rejections under this section have been withdrawn. Closest prior art to the claims include Takuya et al (JP2018200654), Ranaan (US 20150262112 A1), Brown et al (US 20070036300 A1). None of the prior art alone or in combination teaches the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Additional relevant art not relied upon includes:
Hastings (US 20170270763 A1), regarding “A monitoring device that serves as a remote notification system and provides communication between a medical device and a remote computing device. The monitoring device is installed in the medical device and has a microcontroller that is synched with a main board of the medical device, allowing signals and commands to be transmitted between the microcontroller and the main board. A transceiver is electrically connected to the microcontroller and allows for communication between the microcontroller and the remote computing device over a wireless network. The microcontroller monitors the medical device and sends an alert to the remote computing device when an undesirable states is detected. A dashboard application on the remote computing device allows a user to view alerts and initiate a plurality of medical device functions from a remote location.”
Skillsäter et al (US 12054909 B2), regarding “A system and a method for remote operation of a working machine comprising a tool is provided. The system includes an on-board controller configured to receive signals from a remote control station remotely controlling the operation of the working machine, and to obtain and send camera images to an off-board controller. The system also includes an off-board controller configured to receive the camera images from the on-board controller. The off-board controller identifies at least one visual tag in the camera images located on a load carrier, determines at least one distance between the tool and the load carrier based on the identified at least one visual tag, and provides, to the on-board controller and/or to an operator of the working machine, information based on the determined at least one distance between the tool and the load carrier in order to support the remote operation of the working machine.”
Ferguson et al (US 20060047377 A1), regarding “Systems and methods are disclosed that enable one or more work machines to control operations of one or more remote work machines. In one embodiment, the systems and methods perform a process including determining a first type of first work machine performing first operations in a work environment and determining a second type of second work machine performing second operations in the work environment. Based on the first and second type of the first and second work machines, a selected second operation that the first work machine can control is determined. Subsequently, the first work machine may adjust the selected second operation while the first work machine performs the first operations.”
Takahiro et al (JP 2015097224 A), regarding “In the component mounting system 1, the mounting device which is connected with the tablet PC can be remotely operated. In the component mounting system 1, the tablet PC 4 is configured to perform connection request to the mounting device selected by an operation performed on a display/operation screen of the tablet PC 4, then receive a response from the mounting device of the connection request destination and control itself to be connected with the mounting device, and the selected mounting device is configured to reply to the connection request and control itself to be in the connected state. Also, the component mounting system 1 directly notifies an operator that the mounting device is in the connected state by an acoustic device or signal device 7.”
Keita et al (JP 2021012937 A), regarding “To provide a remote operation system such that an operator of a remote monitor part can start an operation for error recovery without entering a wait state after being informed of error occurrence.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHMET YESILDAG whose telephone number is (571)272-3257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
Sincerely,
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights