CTNF 19/152,140 CTNF 95553 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This action is in reply to the application filed on 07/30/2025. Claims 1-6 are currently pending and have been examined. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application JP2023-092763 filed in Japan on 06/05/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings 06-22-07 AIA The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 31, 32, 33, 34, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 106, 111, 131, 132, 133, 134, 150, 151, 171, 173 . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Furthermore, the drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “91” has been used to designate both the “#” column in the table of Fig. 9, the overall table of Fig. 10, the overall table of Fig. 11, and the overall table of Fig. 12. Also, reference character “101” has been used to designate “Cause of Failure” column of Fig. 10 and the overall table of Fig. 13. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 06-36 Additionally, the drawings are objected to because Fig. 16 recites “Oil leek” in the list of symptoms when it appears it should recite “Oil leak ”, and because Fig. 17 recites “On-cite support is necessary” in the table when it appears it should recite “On- site support is necessary”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner generally notes that, throughout the specification, various features and their reference characters have punctuation errors lacking a space. For example, “memory3”, “determination section7”, “a support method determination section8”, etc. in [0015]. Examiner respectfully requests that the various features throughout the specification be amended so that the reference characters are spaced out from the corresponding features Paragraph [0015] recites “…a cost estimation section9 that estimates the costs of failure presumption based on the condition of the equipment and alarms entered…” when it appears it should recite “…a causes of failure presumption section 9 that estimates the causes of failure presumption based on the condition of the equipment and alarms entered…” to match Figure 1 Paragraph [0039] recites “Causes of failure presumption result is shown on Fig. 10” when it appears it should recite “Causes of failure presumption result is shown on Fig. 9 ” to match the Figures Paragraph [0054] recites “Each time process S002 is performed, receive the number of rows j of on-site support data and repeat the process” when it appears it should recite “Each time process S012 is performed, receive the number of rows j of on-site support data and repeat the process” to match the numbering used in Fig. 15C that is being described in paragraph [0054] Paragraph [0055] recites “…k x j times S003 to obtain M remote (S015)” when it appears it should recite “…k x j times S003 to obtain T remote (S015)” to match Fig. 15C in which T remote is calculated Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1, 3, 5, and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “an input section receives fault information…” when it appears it should recite “an input section receives failure information…” to more clearly establish antecedent basis because claim 1 later recites “based on the failure information received by the input section” Claim 3 recites “…the causes of failure presumption section presume the cause…” when it appears it should recite “…the cause[[s]] of failure presumption section presume s the cause…” to better establish antecedent basis back to “a cause of failure presumption section” in claim 1 Claim 5 is objected to for similar reasoning as discussed above regarding claim 3 Claim 6 is objected to for similar reasoning as discussed above regarding claim 1 Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “an input section” in claim 1, 4, and 6 “a cause of failure presumption section” in claims 1, 3, and 5 “a support method determination section” in claims 1 and 6 “a cost estimating section” in claims 1-2 and 4-5 “an output section” in claims 1 and 5 Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. At least paragraph [0015] of the specification recites that these sections reside on a memory and [0012] recites that the parts can be realized as hardware like integrated circuits or software. Accordingly, Examiner is interpreting the “sections” listed above as generic computing components with special programming. Regarding the corresponding programming of the “sections”, Examiner notes that Input and Output sections are shown as screens in Fig. 16 and 17, respectively, and their operations are discussed in [0036] and [0060], respectively. The cause of failure presumption section algorithm is shown in at least [0029]-[0039]. The support method determination section algorithm is recited in at least [0039]-[0045]. Finally, the cost estimating section algorithm is discussed in at least [0050]-[0061]. If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). 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. Claim 6 is 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 regards as the invention. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the input section" line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Particularly, there is no earlier mention of an input section in claim 6, and no prior mention of an input section receiving failure information. Claim 6 also recites the limitation “the support method determination section” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Particularly, there is no earlier mention of a support method determination section in claim 6, and no prior mention of support method determination section determining the support method. For the purposes of examination, Examiner is interpretation “the support method determination section” as “a support method determination section” and “the input section” as “an input section”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite comparing the costs of remote and on-site support for an identified equipment issue. As an initial matter, claims 1-5 fall into at least the machine category of statutory subject matter. Claim 6 falls into at least the process category of statutory subject matter. Therefore, all claims fall into at least one of the statutory categories. Eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A. In claim 1, the limitation of “An equipment maintenance system determines a support method to support equipment failures comprising: an asset knowledge database stores equipment failures and their causes are registered”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an equipment maintenance system” and “an asset knowledge database,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “an input section receives fault information output from the equipment, a cause of failure presumption section refers to the asset knowledge database and presumes the causes of failure based on the failure information received by the input section, a support method determination section determines the support method to support the presumed cause of failure, a cost estimating section estimates the cost required for the support method determined by the support method determination section dividing into the cost of on-site support, in which technicians visit the site where the equipment is installed, and the cost of remote support, in which technicians support the equipment remotely, and an output section outputs the support method with the lowest cost among the cost of on-site support and the cost of remote support estimated by the cost estimating section”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Additionally, claim 1 recites the concept of recommending a lowest cost repair method which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Determines a support method to support equipment failures comprising: asset knowledge stores equipment failures and their causes are registered, receives fault information output from the equipment, refers to the asset knowledge and presumes the causes of failure based on the failure information received, determines the support method to support the presumed cause of failure, estimates the cost required for the support method determined dividing into the cost of on-site support, in which technicians visit the site where the equipment is installed, and the cost of remote support, in which technicians support the equipment remotely, and outputs the support method with the lowest cost among the cost of on-site support and the cost of remote support estimated all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Finally, claim 1 also recites the estimation of costs required for support methods, which is a mathematical concept including mathematical calculations. Estimates the cost required for the support method determined by dividing into the cost of on-site support, in which technicians visit the site where the equipment is installed, and the cost of remote support, in which technicians support the equipment remotely falls into at least mathematical calculations. The claim falls into the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of an equipment maintenance system, an asset knowledge database, an input section, a cause of failure presumption section, a support method determination section, a cost estimating section, and an output section. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an equipment maintenance system, an asset knowledge database, an input section, a cause of failure presumption section, a support method determination section, a cost estimating section, and an output section amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claims 2-5 further limit the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible. In claim 6, the limitation of “An equipment maintenance method determining a support method to support equipment failures comprising: an asset knowledge database storing equipment failures and their causes are registered”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an asset knowledge database,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “receiving fault information output from the equipment, referring to the asset knowledge database and presuming the causes of failure based on the failure information received by the input section, determining the support method to support the presumed cause of failure, estimating the cost required for the support method determined by the support method determination section dividing into the cost of on-site support, in which technicians visit the site where the equipment is installed, and the cost of remote support, in which technicians support the equipment remotely, and outputting the support method with the lowest cost among the cost of on-site support and the cost of remote support estimated”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Additionally, claim 6 recites the concept of recommending a lowest cost repair method which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. An equipment maintenance method determining a support method to support equipment failures comprising: asset knowledge storing equipment failures and their causes are registered, receiving fault information output from the equipment, referring to the asset knowledge and presuming the causes of failure based on the failure information received, determining the support method to support the presumed cause of failure, estimating the cost required for the support method determined by dividing into the cost of on-site support, in which technicians visit the site where the equipment is installed, and the cost of remote support, in which technicians support the equipment remotely, and outputting the support method with the lowest cost among the cost of on-site support and the cost of remote support estimated all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Finally, claim 6 also recites the estimation of costs required for support methods, which is a mathematical concept including mathematical calculations. Estimating the cost required for the support method determined by dividing into the cost of on-site support, in which technicians visit the site where the equipment is installed, and the cost of remote support, in which technicians support the equipment remotely falls into at least mathematical calculations. The claim falls into the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of an asset knowledge database, an input section, and a support method determination section. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an asset knowledge database, an input section, and a support method determination section amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0165657, hereafter known as Li) in view of Fastner et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0413669, hereafter known Fastner) . Regarding claim 1, Li teaches: An equipment maintenance system determines a support method to support equipment failures comprising (see Figs. 1 and 3 and [0104]-[0113] and [0132]-[0133] for the overall system) an asset knowledge database stores equipment failures and their causes are registered (see [0106] "The fault database 111 keeps fault handling records, including fault feature of each fault (for example, one or more of fault description, fault code, text message, light message and indication message), steps for locating the fault, and identified cause of the fault") an input section receives fault information output from the equipment (see [0105] "the system 100 for handling a fault of an aircraft comprises various interface modules (such as onboard data interface 103, fault report interface 104, WIFI/bluetooth interface 105 and software interface 102) and a decision-making module 101. The interface modules are used to receive or acquire fault-related data and/or messages. For example, the onboard data interface 103 of the system 100 for handling a fault of an aircraft requests or receives such onboard data as real-time fault, ACMS report, QAR and fault maintenance sheet through an aviation telecommunication network/mobile communication network 108, e.g. the system 100 for handling a fault of an aircraft can be directly or indirectly connected to the aviation telecommunication network/mobile communication network 108 through a Ethernet network interface, a WIFI interface and a mobile communication interface. As an interactive interface between the system 100 for handling a fault of an aircraft and the users, the fault report interface 104 can be applied by the users to input fault report or other fault messages to the system 100 for handling a fault of an aircraft") a cause of failure presumption section refers to the asset knowledge database and presumes the causes of failure based on the failure information received by the input section (see [0106] "The fault classification and statistical module 110 classifies the fault handling records in the fault database to find out the possible fault causes for the same or similar faults and the probability of occurrence for each possible fault cause. In the course of fault diagnosis, the fault diagnosis module 106 acquires the fault message and the required fault-associated data from the interface module by interacting with users, test equipment or other software systems. The fault diagnosis module 106 can further search the aircraft configuration database 109 for acquiring the configuration data of the aircraft and based on which to find the fault statistical data corresponding to aircraft configuration and fault information from the fault classification and statistical module 110, then finding the fault cause according to the fault statistical data. In an example, the fault diagnosis module 106 is configured as: in response to the fault indication from the fault data in the interface module and the aircraft configuration data from the aircraft configuration database, search one or more fault causes corresponding to the obtained fault indication and aircraft configuration data by accessing the fault classification and statistical module 110, foster the steps for locating the fault corresponding to the potential fault cause according to the probability of occurrence relevant to each possible fault cause, and identify the fault cause" for the fault diagnosis module identifying the fault cause by referencing fault classification and statistical data obtained from the fault database. Also see [0107]-[0112]) a support method determination section determines the support method to support the presumed cause of failure (see [0113] "After the fault cause is diagnosed by the fault diagnosis module 106, the fault cause, together with the required work task, equipment and relevant Minimum Equipment List, will be sent to the solution generating module 107 for handling fault. The solution generating module 107 for handling fault generates relevant fault handling solutions according to the information provided by the fault diagnosis module 106 and sends the fault causes and solutions to the decision-making module 101" for solution generating module generating solutions to address the identified fault) an output section outputs the support method with the lowest cost among the cost of on-site support and the cost of remote support estimated by the cost estimating section (see [0105] "Regarding the field maintenance decision, a field fault report is generated and/or a fault is recorded in the ELB for maintenance personnel's reference" and [0128]-[0130] "Then compare the field maintenance cost C.sub.M with the fault retention cost C.sub.K in step S203. If C.sub.K>C.sub.M, step S204 follows and the troubleshooting decision of field maintenance is made; and If C.sub.K≤C.sub.M, step S205 follows and the troubleshooting decision of fault retention is made to continue the flight. The troubleshooting decision of fault retention to continue the flight comprises the planed time and/or place for fault maintenance that are determined by the decision-making unit based on the principle of a minimum cost" for the maintenance solution with lowest cost being output in a report) While Li teaches estimating and comparing two support methods to handle an equipment fault as discussed above, Li teaches the support methods being compared to determine the lowest cost to be field maintenance in which maintenance personnel are dispatched to the location and continuing to operate with the fault (fault retention). Therefore, Li does not explicitly teach the cost estimating section dividing costs into an on-site support method and remote support method whose costs are being compared to determine the lowest cost. Fastner teaches: a cost estimating section estimates the cost required for the support method determined by the support method determination section dividing into the cost of on-site support, in which technicians visit the site where the equipment is installed, and the cost of remote support, in which technicians support the equipment remotely (see [0163] "At 614, process 600 can determine whether the service can be performed by a user associated with the facility (e.g., whether the user is capable of performing the service, whether the user has time to perform the service, etc.) using any suitable technique or combination of techniques. In some embodiments, process 600 can receive maintenance budget information and current maintenance expenses for a time period for a facility from an appropriate database. Process 600 can optimize based on cost, budget, and scheduling to determine whether a user associated with the facility, or an outside contractor should perform the task. For example, process 600 can determine that a contractor cannot perform the task based on a likely cost of the contractor and a total maintenance budget for the facility and current maintenance expenses for a time period. In such an example, process 600 can delegate the task(s) to a user associated with the facility capable of performing the service and can adjust the tasks accordingly" for optimizing the decision of whether a repair should be performed in-house or by a contractor being optimized based on cost of the contractor and cost to fix internally. See [0165]-[0166] for remote support of ordering parts for the maintenance employee assigned to the task and providing guidance in completing the task. In combination with the cost comparison with Li, the costs being compared are internal maintenance cost and contractor maintenance costs) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the comparison of remote assistance of in-house technicians and hiring of contractors to perform on-site repairs and optimizing based on cost of Fastner into the system of Li. As Fastner states in [0002]-[0003] “a maintenance director may not be able to perform all of the service tasks that are needed, and can be responsible for hiring contractors to perform at least some services. In a senior living setting, or other setting in which health and safety are of paramount importance, properly maintaining facilities is an important task, which can result in lost revenue, fines and other adverse consequences if not facilities are not adequately maintained. This may cause maintenance employees to err on the side of hiring an outside contractor to ensure that maintenance is performed properly. Thus, facility maintenance can become a costly endeavor, especially when an operator operating many facilities does not have mechanisms for controlling costs. Accordingly, new systems, methods, and media for automatically optimizing maintenance are desirable.” While Li addresses aircraft instead of living facilities, Li also recognizes the need to optimize maintenance personnel ([0002] “As to a sudden aircraft fault, there are as yet no better way to control the cost except optimizing the maintenance personnel and their workload”) to manage maintenance where safety is paramount ([0096] for aircraft safety concerns). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the comparison of costs of on-site contractor support and guided, in-house maintenance would help Li further optimize the use of in-house maintenance personnel while further controlling maintenance costs. Regarding claim 6, Li teaches: An equipment maintenance method determining a support method to support equipment failures comprising (see Fig. 2 and [0114]-[0131] for support method determination process, see [0106]-[0113] for the process of receiving fault information) Regarding the remaining limitations of claim 6, see the rejection of claim 1 above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Fastner and Koch (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0150490, hereafter known Koch) . Regarding claim 2, the combination of Li and Fastner teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Li further teaches: wherein the cost estimating section estimates the cost of travel and time for the technician to travel to the site when estimating the cost of on-site support (see [0118] "The field maintenance cost C.sub.M is calculated by one or more of the following:...the cost of urgent maintenance in other places, and the cost of work hour for the maintenance...The cost of urgent maintenance in other places refers to cost generated in the travel by maintenance personnel between different places, and the cost of work hour for the maintenance means the time consumed by the maintenance personnel in the field maintenance" for the calculation of travel costs for maintenance personnel traveling to the site where the repair is to take place.) While Li teaches the consideration of travel costs and costs for work hours as discussed above, the combination of Li and Fastner does not explicitly teach the consideration of travel time for a technician to travel to the work site. However, Koch teaches: wherein the cost estimating section estimates the cost of travel and time for the technician to travel to the site when estimating the cost of on-site support (see [0053] "To calculate the cost for the remote service method, a service provider may determine the time of travel from the service location to the location specified by the user and back to the service location. The time of travel may be multiplied by a labor cost (e.g., the labor rate 620 or other rate) and added to a wear and tear cost for the service provider's transportation method to and from the designated location". Examiner notes that in Koch “remote” is used to indicate that the technicians are traveling to the site) One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of calculating travel costs of technicians to a site based on time of travel multiplied by an hourly labor cost of Koch to the combination of Li and Fastner would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Koch to the teaching of the combination of Li and Fastner would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such calculating travel costs of technicians to a site based on time of travel multiplied by an hourly labor cost. Further, applying calculating travel costs of technicians to a site based on time of travel multiplied by an hourly labor cost to the combination of Li and Fastner would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more accurate on-site maintenance cost calculations. Particularly, by calculating travel cost of technicians/contractors as travel time multiplied by hourly labor rate, the resulting combination gives a more accurate and flexible accounting of travel costs than Li’s flat travel cost. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the more detailed calculations of Koch would allow the resulting combination to more fully consider travel costs as part of the costs of on-site repair, as technicians would likely be compensated for time spent traveling as well as time spent actually performing the repairs. Regarding claim 3, the combination of Li, Fastner, and Koch teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above. Li further teaches: wherein the asset knowledge database stores the probability of the occurrence of the cause of failure associated with the failure information (see [0106] "The fault database 111 keeps fault handling records, including fault feature of each fault (for example, one or more of fault description, fault code, text message, light message and indication message), steps for locating the fault, and identified cause of the fault. The fault classification and statistical module 110 classifies the fault handling records in the fault database to find out the possible fault causes for the same or similar faults and the probability of occurrence for each possible fault cause...The probability of occurrence corresponding to each possible fault cause is acquired by an analysis of a large number of statistical data. Such probability of occurrence may possess a defaulted or pre-estimated initial value and is updated on a real-time basis according to the resultant location of each fault" for the storing of probabilities of possible fault causes) the causes of failure presumption section presume the cause of failure based on the probability of occurrence of the cause of failure (see [0107] "the fault diagnosis module 106 is configured to facilitate the implementation of fault location steps corresponding to each associated possible fault cause on the basis of a high-to-low probability of occurrence until the fault cause is located. For example, the fault diagnosis module 106 may be configured to identify the first possible fault cause with the highest probability of occurrence from one or more searched possible fault causes and promote the implementation of fault location steps corresponding to the first possible fault cause. If the result shows that the fault is not caused by the first possible fault cause, the fault diagnosis module 106 maybe further configured to identify the fault cause with the second highest probability of occurrence from the remaining searched fault causes and promote the implementation of fault location steps corresponding to the second possible fault cause. The procedures can be repeated until the real fault cause is found") 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Fastner, Koch, and Ernst (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2024/0320765, hereafter known Ernst) . Regarding claim 4, the combination of Li, Fastner and Koch teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above. While Li teaches weight values being used to determine estimated costs in at least [0125], and Fastner considers the importance of speed in determining the method to be taken to resolve a fault in [0138], the combination of Li, Fastner, and Koch does not explicitly teach receiving information regarding whether priority is given to cost or time to support a failure or a weight coefficient calculating section that determines weight coefficients indicating a cost/time priority when estimating costs. Ernst teaches: wherein the input section receives cost information indicating whether priority is given to the cost or time required to support a failure (see [0123] "process 600 can receive an indication of relative weights to apply to different aspects of service provider performance. For example, process 600 can receive input indicative of which of multiple aspects of service provider performance are relatively more important to the user, such as speed, quality, price, etc." for receiving a user weighting preference of speed of repair vs cost of repair. Also see [0163]-[0165] for user interface receiving weight inputs) cost estimating section is equipped with a weight coefficient calculation section that determines a weight coefficient indicating whether priority is given to cost or time used when estimating costs based on cost information (see [0148] "process 700 can determine a score based on service provider price. In some configurations, process 700 can determine a price attribute that is linearly scored based on price relative to other service providers, in which a lowest price can receive a maximum or near maximum number of points, and a highest price can receive a worst score (which can, e.g., be negative). In some configurations, a price attribute can differ between urgent and non-urgent requests in that a price can be given less relative weight (e.g., in an overall score) for urgent requests compared to a speed attribute, whereas for non-urgent requests a price attribute can be given more weight" for evaluating repair options based on relative weightings of cost and speed. In combination with Li and Fastner, the overall cost calculation would be weighted based on cost and time to determine whether to use contractor or internal personnel for maintenance. See [0200] "server 302 can use techniques described above in connection with FIG. 7" for a server being a weight coefficient calculation section) One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of calculating repair costs by weighting time and monetary costs relative to each other as input by a requesting user as in Ernst to the combination of Li, Fastner, and Koch would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Ernst to the teaching of the combination of Li, Fastner, and Koch would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such calculating repair costs by weighting time and monetary costs relative to each other as input by a requesting user. Further, applying calculating repair costs by weighting time and monetary costs relative to each other as input by a requesting user to the combination of Li, Fastner, and Koch would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for the determination of remote in-house repair or contractor repair to be made more responsive to a user’s particular needs. In other words, by being able to adjust to criteria input by a user, the resulting combination would offer responses that are more in line with a user’s actual needs. For example, Li [0002] and Fastner [0138] both consider the importance of minimizing the time needed to complete the repair tasks. By incorporating the ability to weight time more heavily than monetary cost, the resulting combination would be recognizable to one of ordinary skill in the art as giving the user of the resulting combination the ability to reflect the criticality of minimizing repair time when determining what repair method to take . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Fastner, Koch, and Song (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0293895, hereafter known Song) . Regarding claim 5, the combination of Li, Fastner, and Koch teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above. Li further teaches: the causes of failure presumption section presume multiple causes of failure (see [0120] "During the fault retention period, if the fault-associated parts break down, a field maintenance may be implemented...The “associated parts” refers to the parts associated with the retainable faults" for the consideration of multiple parts breaking down) the cost estimating section estimates the cost for each cause of failure and calculates the total cost of on-site support and the total cost of remote support (see [0118] and [0121]-[0130] for calculating a total cost for each of multiple repair options) the output section outputs the smaller of the total cost of on-site support and the total cost of remote support (see [0118] and [0121]-[0130] for calculating a total cost for each of multiple repair options and [0105] for outputting the lowest total cost option in a report or arrangement) While Li teaches consideration of multiple failing parts and the output of a total cost for different repair strategies, Li teaches the total cost of repairs including opportunity costs of performing maintenance in addition to direct maintenance costs. While the combination of Li and Fastner teaches the calculation of the costs of remote vs. on-site support as discussed above regarding claim 1, the combination of Li, Fastner, and Koch does not explicitly teach estimating costs for each individual part repair. Song teaches: the cost estimating section estimates the cost for each cause of failure (see [0025] "if more than one component is damaged, the pricing module 14 further sums the damage repair cost of each damaged component to get a total damage repair cost, and outputs the total damage repair cost by using the display device 40" for summing together estimated costs of individual repairs to arrive at a total repair cost and outputting the total cost. In combination with Li and Fastner, the costs of on-site vs remote support being compared would be the sum of multiple repairs as implied by Li’s multiple “fault-associated parts”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include estimating the cost of each cause of failure as taught by Song in the combination of Li, Fastner, and Koch, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Particularly, as Li already teaches that multiple parts may be fault-associated and that multiple factors go into calculating a total repair cost, and further Fastner teaches that multiple assets may need to be repaired, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that calculating the cost of multiple faulty parts and summing the costs together to get an overall repair cost of each repair method would have had predictable results. Additionally, Examiner notes that MPEP 2144.04 VI.B. states that duplication of parts (in the case of the instant invention, the calculation of repair cost for multiple failure modes instead of a single failure mode) has no patentable significance “unless a new and unexpected result is provided”. In the instant case, a comparing total costs of multiple repairs instead of comparing costs of single repairs does not produce an unexpected result. The costs are still being compared to determine the lower cost option, and the calculation of multiple individual repair costs are not recited as being performed in a different or unexpected manner . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Bovey (European Publication No. 2266033) teaches the use of a Bayesian network to diagnose failures in a system Kim et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0320519) teaches recommending a repair method of a lighting fixture based on a determined fault type Kogan et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0140514) teaches replacing less expensive parts further away from their expected failure data if a technician is visiting to minimize technician trips/costs Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MORONEY whose telephone number is (571) 272-4403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30. 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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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. /M.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3626 /NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/152,140 Page 2 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/152,140 Page 3 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/152,140 Page 4 Art Unit: 3626
Prosecution Insights