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 the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communication received on 8/4/2026. Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are pending in this office action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-2, 4-5,and 7-11 are acknowledged. Applicant’s cancellation of claims 6 and 12 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
On Remarks pages 20-22, Applicant argues Applicant’s amendments and argues the claims as amended recite an improvement in the operation of vehicles and vehicle facilities.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As per Applicant’s amendments filed 8/4/2026 the claims limitations merely recite mental process, mathematical concepts, and certain methods of organizing human activities of managing operation plans in facilities by when a condition does not exist changing operation plans according to rules and running processing again to generate updated lists and maintenance plans or more specifically as recited in the claims of holding information to manage operation of vehicle for each vehicle facility, and when a condition constraint does not exist, execute an update operation by swapping the operation plan for vehicles in a vehicle facility having an older date and the operation plan for vehicles having a new date with each other to reduce travel load on the vehicle facility having the older start date, and again processing for each vehicle facility a plurality of maintenance equipment lists and a plurality of maintenance plans. This is part of the abstract idea as broadly recited in the claims.
It is noted “to reduce a trave load on the vehicle facility having the older start date” recites intended use and therefore does not limit claim scope as it suggests or makes optional but does not require a step or steps to be performed, see MPEP 2111.04. However it has been addressed above as broadly recited herein in the efforts of compact prosecution, as if the limitation limited claim scope.
The additional element of this is being implemented by software running on a computer (“wherein the maintenance planning system is configured to:” and “wherein the processor is further configured to:”) merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers.
Specifically here the claim invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Rather here the claims instead recite a result oriented solution without details as to how the computer performs the modifications or the specific mechanism for accomplishing the result, therefore this is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further these additional elements of the limitations being implemented by a computer merely result in generally linking it to the field of computers.
On remarks pages 23-26 with respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues the claims as amended include significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional element of this is being implemented by software running on a computer (“wherein the maintenance planning system is configured to:” and “wherein the processor is further configured to:”) merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in section 3 and the 101 rejection below. Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On Remarks pages 27-36 with respect to the prior art, Applicant argues Applicant’s claim amendments. The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s arguments and cited sections. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the primary reference of Michael et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2022/0147952) does not teach the claims as amended under broadest reasonable interpretation as currently recited.
Specifically Michael et al. teaches the amended limitation of Wherein the maintenance planning assistance system is configured to hold operation information for managing an operation plan for vehicles for each vehicle facility, and wherein the processor is further configured to: in a case where the maintenance plan which does not satisfy the second constraint condition exists, execute an update of the operation information by swapping the operation plan for vehicles for a vehicle facility having an operation start date and the operation plan for vehicles for a vehicle facility having a newer operation state date with each other to reduce a travel load on the vehicle facility have the older state date in least paragraphs 0120, 0125, and Figure 22.
Here in paragraph 0120 Michael teaches the system can aggregate the 301 maintenance quality issues for multiple sites and provides the same performance and reliability metrics to deliver objective benchmarking where a user can quickly identify where to focus their efforts to improve performance and reliability metrics as well as to learn best practices from successful sites.
Michael goes on in Paragraph 0120 and Figure 22 an interface can include multiple sites (here as shown is Canada and Los Angeles), and can be sorted by highest percentage wasted life or scheduled date of replacement (reference character 2220) and a user may perform an action on the corresponding information at 2240.
This is a very broad limitation in the claim. It is noted “to reduce a travel load on the vehicle facility having the older start date” is intended use and therefore does not limit claim scope, as it suggests or makes optional but does not require a step to actually be performed, see MPEP 2111.04. Further there are no details as to how this travel load is actually calculated or determined, rather the claims merely recite an intended use. While intended use the Examiner has mapped to the limitation in the efforts of compact prosecution. It is further important to note it is improper to import claim limitations form the specification as discussed in MPEP 2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reasonable Interpretation [R-10.2019] (cited herein):
II. IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims."); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). See also subsection IV, below. When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Therefore under plain meaning for this very broad limitation in the claim this includes the interface providing a filter where a user (for an example a user of the vehicle facility having the older start date, like Los Angeles could have a date needed to be done today whereas Canada could have one due tomorrow) could sort on required tasks (like schedule date of replacement) to see pending applicable tasks rather than have to move through/progress through (travel load) all the (possibly numerous rows in Figure 22) to find tasks for the certain day. This could alternatively include on a user interface the above user selecting to skip a rescheduled replacement, replacements, or all replacements in user interface button 2240 for a site (for example the repair station of Los Angelos is closed tomorrow), therefore moving other scheduled replacements or replacements for another site up the list in the order of replacement, this would alternatively reduce the travel load as a facility would no longer be required to perform that maintenance at that previous time as the clock could be reset as discussed in paragraph 0120. Further the limitation of “in a case where the maintenance plan which does not satisfy the second constraint condition exists” is interpreted as parts and facilities that are determined to need some sort of scheduled maintenance for vehicles, as shown in Figure 22.
It is noted part of Figure 22 of Michael et al. has been reproduced below that shows the filtering can be based on 2220 and information aggregated across sites like Los Angeles and Canada.
PNG
media_image1.png
1538
886
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further in paragraphs 0124 and Figure 10 teach revising maintenance plans and information based on collected data or the amended limitation of “Execute again the first processing for generating, for each vehicle facility, the plurality of maintenance equipment lists; and execute again the second processing of generating for each of the plurality of vehicle facilities, the plurality of maintenance plans”
Therefore based on the above, the Examiner interprets Michael et al. to teach the argued amendments to the independent claim(s).
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-5 are interpreted as a machine claim set as the claims recite a system comprising a processor performing functions. Claims 7-11 are interpreted as a process claim set as the claims recite a method.
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 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) the idea of collecting information, aggregating the information to perform a calculation, and using the calculations to determine optimization of maintenance plans related to resources, where the specific resources claimed here are vehicle equipment in facilities.
Collecting information, aggregating the information to perform a calculation, and using the calculations to determine optimization of maintenance plans related to resources, where the specific resources claimed here are vehicle equipment in facilities as broadly recited in the claims include observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions that can be performed in the human mind and or with use of a physical aid (like pen and paper) and accordingly the claims recite a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Further additionally and or alternatively the idea of Collecting information, aggregating the information to perform a calculation, and using the calculations to determine optimization of maintenance plans related to resources, where the specific resources claimed here are equipment in vehicle facilities broadly recites mathematical calculations. Therefore the claim recites a mathematical concept.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), cited herein, defines mathematical calculations as follows:
A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
Further finally additionally or alternatively the idea of Collecting information, aggregating the information to perform a calculation, and using the calculations to determine optimization of maintenance plans related to resources, where the specific resources claimed here are equipment in vehicle facilities recite fundamental economic principles or practices, which is a certain method of organizing human activities.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), cited herein, defines fundamental economic principles or practices as follows:
The courts have used the phrases "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" to describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce. Fundamental economic principles or practices include hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks.
The term "fundamental" is not used in the sense of necessarily being "old" or "well-known." See, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090, 1092 (Fed Cir. 2015) (a new method of price optimization was found to be a fundamental economic concept); In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (describing a new set of rules for conducting a wagering game as a "fundamental economic practice"); In re Greenstein, 774 Fed. Appx. 661, 664, 2019 USPQ2d 212400 (Fed Cir. 2019) (non-precedential) (claims to a new method of allocating returns to different investors in an investment fund was a fundamental economic concept). However, being old or well-known may indicate that the practice is fundamental. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 219-20, 110 USPQ2d 1981-82 (2014) (describing the concept of intermediated settlement, like the risk hedging in Bilski, to be a "‘fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce’" and also as "a building block of the modern economy") (citation omitted); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) (claims to the concept of hedging are a "fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce and taught in any introductory finance class.") (citation omitted); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1313, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The category of abstract ideas embraces ‘fundamental economic practice[s] long prevalent in our system of commerce,’ … including ‘longstanding commercial practice[s]’").
Mental processes, mathematical concepts, and certain methods of organizing human activities are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Specifically as recited in the claims:
As per independent claims 1 and 7, the claims recite mental process, mathematical concepts, and certain methods of organizing human activities of collecting information, aggregating the information to perform a calculation, and using the calculations to determine optimization of maintenance plans related to resources, where the specific resources claimed here are vehicle equipment in facilities. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that recite these above abstract idea limitations are being implemented by software running on a computer (“the maintenance planning assistance system comprising a computer including a processor, a storage device coupled to the processor, and an interface coupled to the processor, wherein the maintenance planning assistance system is configured to:”, “wherein the processor is configured to execute:”, and “by the processor”) merely result in apply it. Specifically here the claims invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Rather here the claims instead recite a result oriented solution without details as to how the computer performs the modifications or the specific mechanism for accomplishing the result, therefore this is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further these additional elements of the limitations being implemented by a computer merely result in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per Applicant’s amendments filed 8/4/2026 the claim limitations recite mental process, mathematical concepts, and certain methods of organizing human activities of managing operation plans in facilities by holding operation information for managing a facility and when a condition does not exist changing operation plans according to rules and running processing again to generate updated lists and maintenance plans or more specifically as recited in the claims of holding information to manage operation of vehicle for each vehicle facility, and when a condition constraint does not exist, execute an update operation by swapping the operation plan for vehicles in a vehicle facility having an older date and the operation plan for vehicles having a new date with each other to reduce travel load on the vehicle facility having the older start date, and processing again each vehicle facility a plurality of maintenance equipment lists and a plurality of maintenance plans. This is part of the abstract idea as broadly recited in the claims. It is noted “to reduce a travel load on the vehicle facility having the older start date” recites intended use and therefore does not limit claim scope as it suggests or makes optional but does not require a step or steps to be performed, see MPEP 2111.04. However it has been addressed above as broadly recited herein in the efforts of compact prosecution, as if the limitation limited claim scope.
The additional element of the above amendments being implemented by software running on a computer (“wherein the maintenance planning system is configured to:” and “wherein the processor is further configured to:”) merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per dependent claims 2 and 8, the claims recite mental process, mathematical concepts, and certain methods of organizing human activities of generating maintenance list of equipment for a vehicle facility, calculating various cost and values, solving optimization problems based on the calculated costs and values. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that again this abstract idea is being performed by a processor (“wherein the processor, is, in the first processing configured to:”, “wherein the processor is in the second processing configured to:” and “by the processor”) merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claims 1 and 7 above.
As per dependent claims 3 and 9, the claims recite mental process, mathematical concepts, and certain methods of organizing human activities of calculating various costs, and then adding the costs to calculate a value. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that again this abstract idea is being performed by a processor (“wherein the processor is, in the first processing, configured to:” and “by the processor”) merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claims 1 and 7 above.
As per claims 4 and 10, the claims recite mental process, mathematical concepts, and certain methods of organizing human activities of holding information for vehicle maintenance deadlines, calculating various costs, and using the costs to determine values. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that again this abstract idea is being performed by a processor ( “wherein the processor is, in the second processing, configured to:” and “by the processor”) merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claims 1 and 7 above.
As per claims 5 and 11, the claims recite mental process, mathematical concepts, and certain methods of organizing human activities of generate a vehicle maintenance candidate time, calculate failure rates and values, determine a maintenance candidate period as an optimization problem, and register a recommended maintenance time being the result of the third optimization problem. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that again this abstract idea is being performed by a processor ( “wherein the processor is configured to” and “by the processor”) merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claims 1 and 7 above.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed above with respect to the practical application step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-11are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Michael et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2022/0147952).
As per claim 1, Michael et al. teaches A maintenance planning assistance system for generating a maintenance plan for a vehicle facility which is used for execution of a service and are formed of a plurality of pieces of equipment including vehicles, (see abstract, title, and paragraphs 0084-0085, Examiner’s note: scalable automated maintenance optimization system for managing replacement of parts in a portfolio of assets (see abstract), further title teaches this may be a system or method. It is noted that paragraphs 0084-0085 teaches these facilities can relate to vehicles).
the maintenance planning assistance system comprising a computer including a processor, a storage device coupled to the processor, (see paragraphs 0071-0073, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform operations).
and an interface coupled to the processor, (see paragraphs 0075-0076, Examiner’s note: system includes an interface).
wherein the maintenance planning assistance system is configured to: couple to a system that operates a plurality of the vehicle facilities; and hold equipment state information for managing a recommended maintenance time of each of the plurality of pieces of equipment of the vehicle facility, (see paragraphs 0013 and 0080, Examiner’s note: ingestion engine in configuration to receive a plurality of maintenance records pertaining to replacement of one or more parts of the one or more assets in the profiles (see paragraph 0013) and this can be provided from a client based management system (see paragraph 0080)).
wherein the recommended maintenance time is a time at which a cost required to maintain the each of the plurality of pieces of equipment is low and a failure rate of the each of the plurality of pieces of equipment is low, and wherein the processor is configured to execute: (see paragraphs 0099 and 0103, Examiner’s note: predictive maintenance management system generates a replacement strategy that aims to increase asset availability for profitable utilization, and increase reliability or reduce disruption, while decreasing the cost of ownership by optimizing maintenance and replacement of parts (see paragraph 0099). Further teaches the optimization process may be based on cost of maintenance and downtime (see paragraph 0103)).
first processing of generating, for each vehicle facility, a plurality of maintenance equipment lists, each of which is a combination of pieces of equipment of the vehicle facility to be maintained at a maintenance time, as a first optimization problem in which a first constraint condition relating to a probability of a defect occurrence in the vehicle facility and an evaluation value calculated through use of a facility maintenance cost loss for evaluating an economic loss caused by the maintenance of the each of the plurality of pieces of equipment at a time deviating from the recommended maintenance time are used to search for one of the plurality of maintenance equipment lists; and second processing of generating, for each of the plurality of the vehicle facilities, a plurality of maintenance plans, each of which is a combination of a maintenance date and time, allocation of a resource, and one of the plurality of maintenance equipment lists, as a second optimization problem in which a second constraint condition relating to a total of the probabilities of the defect occurrence in the vehicle facility and the resource required to maintain the each of the plurality of pieces of equipment and a comprehensive evaluation value calculated through use of the evaluation values are used to search for one of the plurality of maintenance plans (see paragraphs 0103-0106 and 0109-0112 and Figures 15 and 17, Examiner’s note: paragraphs 0103-0106 (corresponding to Figure 15) that provide the results of the maintenance analysis to the user based on optimization of constraints based on different scenarios of variables like cost, downtime, and importance of part (priority) to display actions or results to a user in a prioritized list as well as paragraphs 0109-0112 (corresponding to Figure 17) that further expands on how the results in Figure 15 came about and provides a way for a user to dynamically manipulate and change recommendations based on different tradeoffs between variables based on user preferences like time, cost, and importance read on either one the first and second processing as claimed).
Wherein the maintenance planning assistance system is configured to hold operation information for managing an operation plan for vehicles for each vehicle facility, and wherein the processor is further configured to: in a case where the maintenance plan which does not satisfy the second constraint condition exists, execute an update of the operation information by swapping the operation plan for vehicles for a vehicle facility having an operation start date and the operation plan for vehicles for a vehicle facility having a newer operation state date with each other to reduce a travel load on the vehicle facility have the older state date; (see paragraphs 0120, 0125, and Figure 22, Examiner’s note: teaches the system can aggregate the 301 maintenance quality issues for multiple sites and provides the same performance and reliability metrics to deliver objective benchmarking where can quickly identify where to focus their efforts to improve performance and reliability metrics as well as to learn best practices from successful sites. Paragraph 0120 and Figure 22, teach sorting by highest percentage wasted life or scheduled date of replacement 2220, further teaches this interface is with respect to multiple sites (here is shown Canda and Los Angeles). Further teaches a user may perform an action on the corresponding information at 2240. This is a very broad limitation in the claim. It is noted “to reduce a travel load on the vehicle facility having the older start date” is intended use and therefore does not limit claim scope, as it suggests or makes optional but does not require a step to actually be performed, see MPEP 2111.04. Further there are no details as to how this travel load is actually calculated or determined, rather the claims merely recite an intended use. While intended use the Examiner has mapped to the limitation in the efforts of compact prosecution. Therefore under plain meaning for this very broad limitation in the claim this includes the interface providing a filter where a user (for an example a user of the vehicle facility having the older start date, like Los Angelos could have a date needed to be done today whereas Canada could have one due tomorrow) could sort on required tasks (like schedule date of replacement) to see pending applicable tasks rather than have to move through/progress through (travel load) all the (possibly numerous rows in Figure 22) to find tasks for the certain day. This could alternatively include on a user interface the above user selecting to skip a rescheduled replacement, replacements, or all replacements for a site in user interface button 2240 (for example the repair station of Los Angelos is closed tomorrow), therefore moving other scheduled replacements or replacements for the other site up the list in the order of replacement, this would alternatively reduce the travel load as a facility would no longer be required to perform that maintenance at that previous time as the clock could be reset as discussed in paragraph 0120. Further the limitation of “in a case where the maintenance plan which does not satisfy the second constraint condition exists” is interpreted as parts and facilities that are determined to need some sort of scheduled maintenance for vehicles, as shown in Figure 22.)
It is noted part of Figure 22 of Michael et al. has been shown below that shows the filtering can be based on 2220 and information aggregated across sites like Los Angeles and Canada.
PNG
media_image1.png
1538
886
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Execute again the first processing for generating, for each vehicle facility, the plurality of maintenance equipment lists; and execute again the second processing of generating for each of the plurality of vehicle facilities, the plurality of maintenance plans (see paragraph 0124 and Figure 10, Examiner’s note: revising maintenance plans).
Further independent Claim 7 recites substantially the same language as detailed above with respect to claim 1 and is corresponding rejected under the same grounds as detailed above with respect to claim 1.
As per claim 2, Michael et al. teaches
wherein the processor is, in the first processing, configured to: generate a candidate maintenance equipment list for the vehicle facility; calculate, for each of the plurality of pieces of equipment of the vehicle facility, as a first minimum cost, a minimum value of a maintenance cost per unit time in a case where the maintenance is executed at the recommended maintenance time; calculate, for each of the plurality of pieces of equipment of the vehicle facility, as a first comparison cost, a maintenance cost per unit time in a case where the maintenance is executed in a maintenance period; calculate, for each of the plurality of pieces of equipment of the vehicle facility, as an equipment maintenance cost loss, a difference between the first comparison cost and the first minimum cost; calculate a total of the equipment maintenance cost losses of the plurality of pieces of equipment of the facility as the vehicle facility maintenance cost loss; calculate the evaluation value through use of a work amount of the maintenance for a piece of equipment to be maintained in the candidate maintenance equipment list and the facility maintenance cost loss; and solve the first optimization problem which uses the first constraint condition and the evaluation value, to thereby generate a new candidate maintenance equipment list, and wherein the processor is, in the second processing, configured to: generate a candidate maintenance plan for each of the plurality of the vehicle facilities; calculate, as the comprehensive evaluation value, a total of the evaluation values corresponding to the maintenance equipment list of each of the plurality of candidate maintenance plans; and solve the second optimization problem which uses the second constraint condition and the comprehensive evaluation value, to thereby generate a new candidate maintenance plan group. (see paragraphs 0103-0106 and 0109-0112 and Figures 15 and 17, Examiner’s note: paragraphs 0103-0106 (corresponding to Figure 15) that provide the results of the maintenance analysis to the user based on optimization of constraints based on different scenarios of variables like cost, downtime, and importance of part (priority) to display actions or results to a user in a prioritized list as well as paragraphs 0109-0112 (corresponding to Figure 17) that further expands on how the results in Figure 15 came about and provides a way for a user to dynamically manipulate and change recommendations based on different tradeoffs between variables based on user preferences like time, cost, and importance of a particular part read on either one the first and second processing of calculating variables related to cost and value based on maintenance periods, determining differences in cost between maintenance periods, solving optimization problems related to those variables, and generating corresponding lists based on those calculations and optimizations as claimed. It is further noted that the Examiner does not interpret the “thereby” clauses in the claim to limit claim scope as the claim suggests or makes optional but does not require the claims limitations to be performed, see MPEP 2111.04, however in the efforts of compact prosecution the Examiner has mapped the claims to the elements as discussed above).
Claim 8 recites substantially the same language as detailed above with respect to claim 2 and is corresponding rejected under the same grounds as detailed above with respect to claim 2.
As per claim 3, Michael et al. teaches
wherein the processor is, in the first processing, configured to: calculate, as a second minimum cost, a minimum value of a cost of work per unit time in a case where all pieces of equipment to be maintained in the candidate maintenance equipment list are maintained at the recommended maintenance time; calculate, as a second comparison cost, a cost of work per unit time in a case where all the pieces of equipment to be maintained in the candidate maintenance equipment list are maintained at the maintenance time; calculate a difference between the second comparison cost and the second minimum cost as a facility maintenance cost correction value for evaluating a reduction effect for the maintenance cost in a case where a plurality of pieces of the equipment are simultaneously maintained; and add the facility maintenance cost loss and the facility maintenance cost correction value to each other, to thereby calculate the evaluation value. (see paragraphs 0103-0106 and 0109-0112 and Figures 15 and 17, Examiner’s note: paragraphs 0103-0106 (corresponding to Figure 15) that provide the results of the maintenance analysis to the user based on optimization of constraints based on different scenarios of variables like cost, downtime, and importance of part (priority) to display actions or results to a user in a prioritized list as well as paragraphs 0109-0112 (corresponding to Figure 17) that further expands on how the results in Figure 15 came about and provides a way for a user to dynamically manipulate and change recommendations based on different tradeoffs between variables based on user preferences like time, cost, and importance read on the first processing of calculating variables related to cost based different maintenance times, and calculating a difference between the two costs to provide an optimized result as claimed. Further the adding could be user preferences of comparing different strategies to each other to make a determination of which changes to make, leave the same, or accept in the system (see paragraph 0109-0112 and Figure 17) or alternatively could be the displayed prioritized list that takes into consideration time, cost, and importance of parts to provide an optimized (preferred) result (see paragraphs 0103-0106 and Figure 15). It is further noted that the Examiner does not interpret the “thereby” clauses in the claim to limit claim scope as the claim suggests or makes optional but does not require the claims limitations to be performed, see MPEP 2111.04, however in the efforts of compact prosecution the Examiner has mapped the claims to the elements as discussed above).
Claim 9 recites substantially the same language as detailed above with respect to claim 3 and is corresponding rejected under the same grounds as detailed above with respect to claim 3.
As per claim 4, Michael et al. teaches
wherein the maintenance planning assistance system is configured to hold information for managing a maintenance deadline of the vehicle facility, and wherein the processor is, in the second processing, configured to: calculate, as a third minimum cost, the maintenance cost per unit time in a case where all pieces of equipment to be maintained in the maintenance equipment list of the vehicle facility are maintained at the maintenance deadline; calculate, as a third comparison cost, the maintenance cost per unit time in a case where all the pieces of equipment to be maintained in the maintenance equipment list of the vehicle facility are maintained in the maintenance period; calculate a difference between the third comparison cost and the third minimum cost as a second facility maintenance cost loss for evaluating an economic loss in a case where the maintenance is executed at an interval shorter than the maintenance deadline; and calculate, as the comprehensive evaluation value, a total of the evaluation values and the second facility maintenance cost losses corresponding to the maintenance equipment list of each of the plurality of candidate maintenance plans. (see paragraphs 0103-0106 and 0109-0112 and Figures 15 and 17, Examiner’s note: paragraphs 0103-0106 (corresponding to Figure 15) that provide the results of the maintenance analysis to the user based on optimization of constraints based on different scenarios of variables like cost, downtime, and importance of part (priority) to display actions or results to a user in a prioritized list as well as paragraphs 0109-0112 (corresponding to Figure 17) that further expands on how the results in Figure 15 came about and provides a way for a user to dynamically manipulate and change recommendations based on different tradeoffs between variables based on user preferences like time, cost, and importance read on the second processing of calculating variables related to cost and value at different maintenance deadlines, solving operations problems related to those variables, and generating corresponding lists as claimed. Specifically here the system provides the user cost information if the maintenance interval is modified or moved. Further specifically the last two calculating steps could be user preferences of comparing different strategies to each other to make a determination of which changes to make, leave the same, or accept in the system (see paragraph 0109-0112 and Figure 17) or alternatively could be the displayed prioritized list that takes into consideration time, cost, and importance of parts (see paragraphs 0103-0106 and Figure 15).
Claim 10 recites substantially the same language as detailed above with respect to claim 4 and is corresponding rejected under the same grounds as detailed above with respect to claim 4.
As per claim 5, Michael et al. teaches
wherein the processor is configured to: select the vehicle facility; generate a maintenance candidate time; calculate, as a facility failure rate, for each of the plurality of pieces of equipment of the selected facility, a total value of failure rates in a case where the maintenance is executed at the maintenance candidate time; calculate, as a second evaluation value, for each of the plurality of pieces of equipment of the selected vehicle facility, a total of maintenance costs per unit time in a case where the maintenance is executed at the maintenance candidate time; determine a maintenance candidate period as a third optimization problem in which a constraint condition relating to the facility failure rate and the second evaluation value are used to search for the maintenance candidate period for the plurality of pieces of equipment of the selected vehicle facility; and register, as the recommended maintenance time, in the equipment state information, the maintenance candidate period being an execution result of the third optimization problem. (see paragraphs 0103-0106 and 0109-0112 and Figures 15 and 17, Examiner’s note: paragraphs 0103-0106 (corresponding to Figure 15) that provide the results of the maintenance analysis to the user based on optimization of constraints based on different scenarios of variables like cost, downtime, and importance of part (priority) to display actions or results to a user in a prioritized list as well as paragraphs 0109-0112 (corresponding to Figure 17) that further expands on how the results in Figure 15 came about and provides a way for a user to dynamically manipulate and change recommendations based on different tradeoffs between variables based on user preferences like time, cost, and importance read on the calculating costs and values related to failures at maintenance times, determining an optimization related to those values and costs, and generating a corresponding maintenance plan, as claimed. Further specifically, the last two steps of determine and register could be user preferences of comparing different strategies to each other to make a determination of which changes to make, leave the same, or accept in the system (see paragraph 0109-0112 and Figure 17) or alternatively could be the displayed prioritized list that takes into consideration time, cost, and importance of parts (see paragraphs 0103-0106 and Figure 15).
Claim 11 recites substantially the same language as detailed above with respect to claim 5 and is corresponding rejected under the same grounds as detailed above with respect to claim 5.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sillivant Reliability Centered Maintenance Cost Modeling: Lost Opportunity Cost 2015 teaches determining maintenance plans based on taking into consideration time, time to repair, lost opportunity (costs) (see pages 2-3)
Galkinm Optimizing Maintenance Plans of Multi-Component Devices 2020 teaches determining maintenance plans of multi component devices based on failure rates and costs (see pages 1-2)
Hanada et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2023/0024909) teaches updating a facility maintenance plan based on cost, time, and operational data (see abstract and Figure 4)
Murali et al. (United States patent Application Publication Number: US 2024/0103959) teaches selecting maintenance plans based on costs, predicted maintenance of assets in a failed stated, and scheduled maintenance for the assets (see abstract)
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 5712703923. 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.
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
