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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This First Office action is in reply to the application and amendment filed on 07 April 2025.
Original filed Claims 3-6, 9 have been amended. Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined. The Information Disclosure Statement filed 07 April 2025 has been considered by the Examiner. A signed copy is enclosed with this Office Action.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims as a whole recite certain grouping of an abstract idea and are analyzed in the following step process:
Step 1: Claims 8 and 9 are each focused to a statutory category of invention, namely “apparatus; non-transitory computer readable recording medium” sets. However “method” Claims 1-7 do not recite any computer architecture components to support the claim limitations. Despite the failure to pass Step 1, the Examiner proceeds to the next steps of the analysis.
Step 2A: Prong One: Claims 1-9 recite limitations that set forth the abstract ideas, namely, the claims as a whole recite the claimed invention as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The described operations—storing database identifiers, reading/querying associated records to create a filtered machine list, and providing/transmitting that list data to users and external parties—recite data management and informational reporting. The claims recite steps for:
“storing, in a database, an identifier for identifying each of a plurality of users, a factory identifier for identifying each of a plurality of factories that belong to each of the plurality of users, a machine identifier for identifying each of a plurality of industrial machines installed in each of the plurality of factories, and machine-related information including specifications of the plurality of industrial machines in association with each other;
reading, from the database, the factory identifier, the machine identifier and the machine-related information that are associated with the identifier of one of the users and creating a machine list including the plurality of factories that belong to the one of the users, the plurality of industrial machines that are installed in the plurality of factories and the machine-related information; and
providing the one of the users and an external party associated with the one of the users with data of the created machine list”
As detailed in the MPEP 2106 and commensurate to the two-part subject matter eligibility framework decision in the Federal court decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., (Alice), 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) and the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update), and the new “July 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, including on Artificial Intelligence”, the 2019 PEG explains that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter. The 35 U.S.C. 101 Step 2A, Prong One analysis focuses on whether a claim recites a judicial exception by evaluating if it falls into one of three specific groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity. Based on the provided steps above, the analysis for Step 2A Prong One is as follows:
Certain methods of organizing human activity –managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Managing, tracking, and reporting asset relationships (such as which factories and industrial machines belong to which user and sharing that inventory data with external third parties) equates to managing commercial interactions or organizing business/enterprise data.
Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The acts of reading records, correlating identifiers, and compiling a list of machines based on ownership can conceptually be performed in the human mind (e.g., a person looking up records in a filing cabinet or ledger to compile a list for a client).
See MPEP § 2106.04(a) III C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception.
Prong Two: Claims 1-9: With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 8, 9 recite additional elements directed to “apparatus; non-transitory computer readable recording medium” (e.g., see Applicants’ un-published Specification ¶’s 13-18). Therefore, the claims contain computer components that are cited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. Claims 1-7 do not recite any additional elements to support the claim step limitations. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (h).
Step 2B: As explained in MPEP § 2106.05, Claims 8, 9 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 nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements of “apparatus; non-transitory computer readable recording medium”, etc. are generically-recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). These additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and are merely limiting the field of use of the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (h) – Field of Use and Technological Environment). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer or improves any other technology. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. Claims 1-7 do not recite any additional elements to support the claim step limitations.
The Examiner interprets that the steps of the claimed invention both individually and as an ordered combination result in Mere Instructions to Apply a Judicial Exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (f)). These claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism used for accomplishing the result. Here, the claims utilize a computer or other machinery (e.g., see Applicants’ un-published Specification ¶’s 13-18) regarding using existing computer processors as well as program products comprising machine-readable media for carrying or having machine-executable instructions or data structures stored. “information processing method/apparatus/computer program” in its ordinary capacity for performing tasks (e.g., to receive, analyze, transmit and display data) and/or use computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice and certain methods of organization human activities) and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Software implementations are accomplished with standard programming techniques with logic to perform connection steps, processing steps, comparison steps and decisions steps. These claims are directed to being a commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer (see Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014)); Versata Dev. Group, Inc., v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 D.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and require the use of software such as via a server to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. Claims 1-7 do not recite any additional elements to support the claim step limitations. Based on all these, Examiner finds that when viewed either individually or in combination, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) that raise to the high standards of eligibility to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea exception) without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DeYoung et al. (DeYoung) (US 2017/0277920).
With regard to Claims 1, 8, 9, DeYoung teaches an information processing method/information (The identification signal indicates an identifier of the asset that can be used to retrieve information associated with the asset for display to the user. The information provides context into industrial services and software related to the equipment and can further enable location-based workflows according to the user's proximity to a particular device) processing apparatus/non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a computer program causing a computer to execute processing of (portable computing system; program instructions; computing system 101) (see at least paragraphs 6-8, 19-32): comprising:
storing (storage system), in a database, an identifier for identifying (identified) each of a plurality of users (technicians; users), a factory (industrial automation environment; network of machines; assets in an industrial operation; assets; Industrial automation environment 600 comprises an automobile manufacturing factory, food processing plant, oil drilling operation, microprocessor fabrication facility, or some other type of industrial enterprise. Machine system 620 could comprise a sensor, drive, pump, filter, drill, motor, robot, fabrication machinery, mill, printer, or any other industrial automation equipment, including their associated control systems. A control system comprises, for example, industrial controller 625, which could include automation controllers, programmable logic controllers (PLCs), programmable automation controllers (PACs), or any other controllers used in automation control. Additionally, machine system 620 could comprise other industrial equipment, such as a brew kettle in a brewery, a reserve of coal or other resources, or any other element that may reside in an industrial automation environment 600) identifier (Even once a piece of equipment has been identified, it may be challenging to correlate the equipment to the related software, logical and physical topology, status information, security access, documentation, and other content associated with the equipment) for identifying each of a plurality of factories that belong to each of the plurality of users (industrial assets), a machine identifier for identifying each of a plurality of industrial machines installed in each of the plurality of factories, and machine-related information including specifications of the plurality of industrial machines in association with each other (In an industrial automation environment, investigation is primarily dependent on available plant-wide information, which is typically accessible over a network of machines and other equipment. For example, technicians and other users commonly review tag data, trends, alarms, documentation, incident reports, chat transcripts, screen captures, and other content that is generated during the course of operating an industrial enterprise. However, this information is often not readily accessible when interacting with a machine, control system, or some other asset of the industrial operation. Thus, maintaining inventory, identifying equipment, and tracking assets in an industrial manufacturing environment can be difficult with existing solutions. Even once a piece of equipment has been identified, it may be challenging to correlate the equipment to the related software, logical and physical topology, status information, security access, documentation, and other content associated with the equipment. The techniques disclosed herein attempt to facilitate identification of industrial equipment by including micro-location devices with individual pieces of equipment and processing the identification signal transmitted by the micro-location devices to correlate the identifiers to their related assets) (see at least paragraphs 19-28, 42, 52);
reading (an apparatus to facilitate identification of industrial equipment in an industrial automation environment), from the database, the factory identifier (industrial automation environment; network of machines; assets in an industrial operation; assets; Industrial automation environment 600 comprises an automobile manufacturing factory, food processing plant, oil drilling operation, microprocessor fabrication facility, or some other type of industrial enterprise. Machine system 620 could comprise a sensor, drive, pump, filter, drill, motor, robot, fabrication machinery, mill, printer, or any other industrial automation equipment, including their associated control systems. A control system comprises, for example, industrial controller 625, which could include automation controllers, programmable logic controllers (PLCs), programmable automation controllers (PACs), or any other controllers used in automation control. Additionally, machine system 620 could comprise other industrial equipment, such as a brew kettle in a brewery, a reserve of coal or other resources, or any other element that may reside in an industrial automation environment 600), the machine identifier and the machine-related information that are associated with the identifier of one of the users and creating a machine list including the plurality of factories that belong to the one of the users, the plurality of industrial machines that are installed in the plurality of factories and the machine-related information (identifying equipment, and tracking assets in an industrial manufacturing environment can be difficult with existing solutions. Even once a piece of equipment has been identified, it may be challenging to correlate the equipment to the related software, logical and physical topology, status information, security access, documentation, and other content associated with the equipment. The techniques disclosed herein attempt to facilitate identification of industrial equipment by including micro-location devices with individual pieces of equipment and processing the identification signal transmitted by the micro-location devices to correlate the identifiers to their related asset) (see at least paragraphs 6-7, 19-28, 42, 52);
providing the one of the users and an external party associated with the one of the users with data of the created machine list (the bar codes 115-118 may be designed to contain the identifying information for the associated asset 105-108. For example, the bar codes 115-118 may contain asset identification (ID) information, asset operation information, asset parameter information, and the like. In another embodiment, the bar codes 115-118 may provide an identifier information to computing system 101, which may then access an internal database or an external database (e.g., via communication link 121 and communication network 120 to an external database on application server 130) to acquire the information for the industrial asset 105-108) (see at least paragraphs 5-7, 19-28, 41-43, 52).
With regard to Claim 2, DeYoung teaches wherein the machine-related information includes information indicating a condition of the industrial machines (see at least paragraph 43; Claims 2,3).
With regard to Claim 3, DeYoung teaches wherein the machine- related information includes a repair history of the industrial machines (repair), technical information of the industrial machines or a maintenance and management method of the industrial machines (see at least paragraphs 5-7, 19-28, 41-43, 52).
With regard to Claim 4, DeYoung teaches:
storing in the database an ordering status and a delivery date of a component constituting the plurality of industrial machines in association with the identifiers of the plurality of users (see at least paragraphs 5-7, 19-28, 41-43, 52);
reading the ordering status and the delivery date associated with the identifier of the one of the users and creating an ordering list of the ordering status and delivery date of the component for the one of the users (see at least paragraphs 5-7, 19-28, 41-43, 52);
providing the one of the users and an external party associated with the one of the users with data of the created ordering list (see at least paragraphs 5-7, 19-28, 41-43, 52).
With regard to Claim 5, DeYoung teaches:
acquiring physical quantity data related to a condition of a component constituting the industrial machines of the one of the users (see at least paragraphs 5-7, 19-28, 41-43, 52);
inferring a remaining life or an abnormality degree of the component based on the acquired physical quantity data (see at least paragraphs 5-7, 19-28, 41-43, 52);
providing the one of the users of the industrial machines and an external party of the user with a generated inference result (see at least paragraphs 5-7, 19-28, 41-43, 52).
With regard to Claim 6, DeYoung teaches providing the machine list and the inference result via a first site for displaying the machine list and a second site for displaying the inference result (see at least paragraphs 5-7, 19-28, 41-43, 52).
With regard to Claim 7, DeYoung teaches wherein the first site includes a link for making a transition from a page associated with the machine list to a page associated with the inference result of the second site, and the second site includes a link for making a transition from a page associated with the inference result to a page associated with the machine list of the first site (links) (see at least paragraphs 5-7, 19-28, 41-43, 52).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Mehrotra et al (US 2022/01000173)
Anido et al. (US 2026/0120053)
Bliss (EP 3203703A1)
Hossayni, Hicham, et al. "SemKoRe: Improving machine maintenance in industrial iot with semantic knowledge graphs." Applied Sciences 10.18 (2020): 6325.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS L MANSFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1904. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs, alt. Fri. (9-6).
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
THOMAS L. MANSFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/THOMAS L MANSFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights