DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Priority
The Applicants’ claim for priority based upon U.S. Patent 12,367,370 is duly noted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on June 17, 2025 and March 2, 2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims fail to integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claim 1, the claim presents generating an asset task list, transmitting the asset task list to a computing device to cause the computing device to present, receiving a first input from the computing device, generating a task map based on the first input, the one or more task identifiers layered over a map image, and transmitting the task map to the computing device to cause the computing device to present the task map. The claim presents an abstract idea falling within the “methods of organizing human activity” grouping where:
“generating an asset task list” – organizing and categorizing facility maintenance tasks
“generating a task map based on the first input” – organizing task data into a visual/spatial arrangement
“the one or more task identifiers layered over a map image” – presenting organized information in a structured format
These steps describe a fundamental business/operational practice: collecting asset information, organizing it by task, and presenting it in a mapped format—essentially a scheduling/task management workflow that could be performed by a human (e.g., a facility manager manually creating a task list and drawing it on a paper map) and also recites elements of a mental process (observation, evaluation, organization of data) that could conceptually be performed in the human mind, though the primary exception is the abstract organizational method thereby leading to one with ordinary skill in the art concluding the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim presents additional elements beyond the abstract idea:
processor/computing device
memory
network transmission capability
display capability
map image
No evidence is presented (and none is apparent from the specification) that these components are implemented in a non-conventional manner and the claim fails to recite a novel data structure, a specialized algorithm, or a non-standard computational approach. Furthermore, the specification is silent regarding technical a novel data structure, a specialized algorithm, or a non-standard computational approach., performance metrics or benchmarks, detailed a novel data structure, a specialized algorithm, or a non-standard computational approach., and evidence that the claimed combination is unexpected or yields surprising results. The elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception.
Claim 1 recites an abstract idea (method of organizing human activity – task scheduling and mapping) that is not integrated into a practical application and is not accompanied by elements that are significantly more than the exception itself. The generic invocation of computing devices, data transmission, and display functions does not cure the fundamental abstraction. Thus, claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is rejected based upon its dependency upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is rejected based upon its dependency upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is rejected based upon its dependency upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is rejected based upon its dependency upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is rejected based upon its dependency upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is rejected based upon its dependency upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is rejected based upon its dependency upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is rejected based upon its dependency upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is rejected based upon its dependency upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected based upon its dependency upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected based upon its dependency upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 is rejected.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected based upon its dependency upon claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected based upon its dependency upon claim 12.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected based upon its dependency upon claim 12.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected based upon its dependency upon claim 12.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected based upon its dependency upon claim 12.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected based upon its dependency upon claim 12.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected based upon its dependency upon claim 12.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 is rejected.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Publication 2005/0092825 to Cox, Jr. et al. discloses a system and method for RFID system integration.
U.S. Patent Publication 2006/0065730 to Quan et al. discloses an RFID system having a field reprogrammable reader.
U.S. Patent Publication 2008/0201388 to Wood et al. discloses a system and method for equipment tracking and preventive maintenance scheduling and verification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMESHANAND MAHASE whose telephone number is (571) 270-7223. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:00AM - 5:00PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on 571-272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAMESHANAND MAHASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2689
/DAVETTA W GOINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights