DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 .
2. Status of Application and Claims
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are pending.
Claims 1, 13 and 17 were amended or newly added in the Applicant’s filing on 6/18/2025.
Examiner notes that the Applicant’s filing on 6/18/2025 does not track all amended and/or new claim language.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant's filing on 6/18/2025.
3. Claim Interpretation
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Specifically, the “broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” See MPEP §2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim.” See MPEP §2111.01, citing Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See MPEP §2111, citing In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
As such, claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if, may, might, can, could” are treated as containing optional language. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. see MPEP §2111.04(II). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See MPEP §2143.03, citing Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009);
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble. See MPEP §2111.02;
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby.” See MPEP §2111.04;
Contingent limitations. See MPEP §2111.04(II);
Printed matter. See MPEP §2111.05; and
Functional language associated with a claim term. See MPEP §2181.
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is not necessarily an exhaustive list of claim language that is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention. Applicant should review all claims for additional claim interpretation issues.
Claim 13 recites a method comprising:
obtaining, by a data aggregation component, based on the one or more asset descriptors, aggregated data associated with the portfolio of assets, wherein the aggregated data is obtained by grouping asset data based on one or more intervals of time and one or more asset hierarchy levels, wherein the aggregated data is the asset data from one or more edge devices associated with the portfolio of assets that are aggregated by a data aggregation component and stored in a dynamic cache memory of a database.
Examiner notes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, there is one interval of time and one asset hierarchy. As such, there is only one group of asset data.
Claims 1 and 17 have similar issues.
Claim 13 recites a method comprising:
obtaining, by a data aggregation component, based on the one or more asset descriptors, aggregated data associated with the portfolio of assets, wherein the aggregated data is obtained by grouping asset data based on one or more intervals of time and one or more asset hierarchy levels, wherein the aggregated data is the asset data from one or more edge devices associated with the portfolio of assets that are aggregated by a data aggregation component and stored in a dynamic cache memory of a database.
Method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed (i.e., obtaining aggregated data), not the point of origination of the data (i.e., aggregated data is data from edge devices). Examiner notes that the claim, as written, does not recite a method comprising obtaining data from edge devices. The data just originates from an edge device.
Additionally, method claims are not defined by the method steps performed in the past (i.e., aggregated by a data aggregation component). Claiming method steps in the past tense can be interpreted as the method steps performed in the past are outside the scope of the claimed method. Alternatively stated, the scope of the claimed method are the active method steps which are building off a pre-existing state. The method steps performed for creation of the pre-existing state are outside the scope of the claimed invention.
Examiner notes that the claim, as written, does not recite that the data is aggregated by the data aggregation component (i.e., the previously recited data aggregation component) but recites that the data is aggregated by a data aggregation component (i.e., a potentially different data aggregation component).
Examiner notes that the claim, as written, recites that the method comprises obtaining, by a data aggregation component, aggregated data, wherein the aggregated data is obtained by grouping asset data. Grouping data is aggregating data.
Claim 17 has similar issues.
Claim 1 has similar issues. The system is defined by the functions that the system is configured to perform. Claim 1 does not recite that the system is configured to aggregate data from edge devices.
Claim 13 recites a method comprising:
obtaining, by a data aggregation component, based on the one or more asset descriptors, aggregated data associated with the portfolio of assets, wherein the aggregated data is obtained by grouping asset data based on one or more intervals of time and one or more asset hierarchy levels, wherein the aggregated data is the asset data from one or more edge devices associated with the portfolio of assets that are aggregated by a data aggregation component and stored in a dynamic cache memory of a database.
Method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed (i.e., obtaining aggregated data), not method steps performed in the past (i.e., stored in a dynamic cache memory of a database). Claiming method steps in the past tense can be interpreted as the method steps performed in the past are outside the scope of the claimed method. Alternatively stated, the scope of the claimed method are the active method steps which are building off a pre-existing state. The method steps performed for creation of the pre-existing state are outside the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 has similar issues.
Claims 1 has similar issues. The system is defined by the functions that the system is configured to perform. Claim 1 does not recite that the system is configured to store data in a dynamic cache memory of a database.
Claim 13 recites a method wherein the database comprises:
one or more set of data structures associated with the one or more asset hierarchy levels in an industrial environment, wherein the data aggregation component aggregates the asset data for the one or more asset hierarchy levels based on the one or more intervals of time and stores the aggregated asset data in at least one of a data structure from the one or more set of data structure.
Method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed (e.g., storing data in a database) not structural elements of a system (i.e., the database comprises one or more set of data structures associated with the one or more asset hierarchy levels in an industrial environment). The composition of data within the database is outside the scope of the method claimed.
Additionally, Examiner notes that the method recites that data is stored (past tense) in the cache memory of a database not the database.
Additionally, any data stored in a database has an inherent structure. Whatever structure the data stored on a database possesses is one data structure. A database inherently comprises one or more set of data structures.
Claims 1 and 17 have similar issues pertaining to “data structures.”
Claim 13 recites a method wherein the database comprises:
one or more set of data structures associated with the one or more asset hierarchy levels in an industrial environment, wherein the data aggregation component aggregates the asset data for the one or more asset hierarchy levels based on the one or more intervals of time and stores the aggregated asset data in at least one of a data structure from the one or more set of data structure.
Method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed (e.g., aggregating, by the data aggregation component, asset data), not method steps that a structural component is configured to perform (i.e., the data aggregation component aggregates asset data).
Claim 17 has similar issues.
Claim 1 has similar issues. The system is defined by the functions that the system is configured to perform. Claim 1 does not recite that the system is configured to aggregate the data or to store data in a data structure.
Claim 13 recites a method comprising
determining, by a metrices engine component, one or more metrics for an asset hierarchy associated with the portfolio of assets based on a time series mapping of attributes for the aggregated data, wherein at least one metric of the one or more metrics is associated with frequently failing assets in the asset hierarchy over the one or more intervals of time, wherein the frequently failing assets are determined based on comparing one or more scores associated with the asset data to a predefined threshold, and wherein the frequently failing assets indicate the one or more assets that failed most number of times within the one or more intervals of time.
Method claims are defined by the method steps being actively performed (e.g., comparing a score against a predetermined threshold), not what a “frequently failing asset” is supposed to indicate to a user.
Examiner notes that the method does not recite a relationship between the score and the predetermined threshold that indicates that an asset is frequently failing just that a comparison takes place.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the one or more assets is one asset. As such, the one asset that failed most number of times within the one or more intervals of time is one asset from a potential group of one assets.
Claims 1 and 17 have similar issues.
5. 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 1-4 and 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1
The claimed invention falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter). See MPEP §2106.03.
STEP 2A – PRONG ONE
The claim(s) recite(s) a method, a system to perform a method and computer-readable medium causing a device to perform a method comprising:
receiving, …, a request to generate a dashboard visualization associated with a portfolio of assets, wherein the request comprises:
one or more asset descriptors, wherein each of the one or more asset descriptors describing information associated with each one or more assets in the portfolio of assets; and
in response to the request:
obtaining, by a data aggregation [entity], based on the one or more asset descriptors, aggregated data associated with a portfolio of assets, wherein the aggregated data is obtained by grouping asset data based on one or more intervals of time and one or more asset hierarchy levels, wherein the aggregated data is the asset data from one or more … associated with the portfolio of assets that are aggregated by a data aggregation [entity] and stored in [storage] …, wherein [storage] comprises:
one or more set of data structures associated with the one or more asset hierarchy levels in an industrial environment, wherein the data aggregation [entity] aggregates the asset data for the one more asset and wherein the asset data is associated intervals of time associated with the portfolio of assets that are aggregated by a data aggregated stored …, and is associated with the one or more assets;
determining, by a metrices[entity], one or more metrics for an asset hierarchy associated with the portfolio of assets based on a time series mapping of attributes for the aggregated data, wherein at least one metric of the one or more metrics is associated with frequently failing assets from the one or more assets in the asset hierarchy over the one or more intervals of time, wherein the frequently failing assets are determined based on comparing one or more scores associated with the asset data to a predefined threshold, and wherein the frequently failing assets indicate the one or more assets that failed most number of times within the one or more intervals of time;
determining, by a prioritized actions [entity], prioritized actions for the portfolio of assets based on the attributes for the aggregated data;
grouping the prioritized actions for the portfolio of assets based on relationships between the aggregated data; and
providing, by a dashboard visualization …, …, wherein the dashboard visualization comprising the one or more metrics for the asset hierarchy associated with the portfolio of assets, wherein the one or more metrics provide opportunity and performance insights for the one or more assets;
… performing, …, one or more actions of the prioritized actions for the portfolio of assets based on the one or more metrics;
wherein an action from the one or more actions includes at least:
…
one or more corrective actions to be taken for the one or more assets associated with the asset data.
These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a series of steps instructing how to monitor and analyze a portfolio of assets which is a fundamental economic practice, a sub-category of certain method(s) of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A).
These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest interpretation, covers a series of steps that can be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions) which are mental process, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Examiner notes that “’collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,’ where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind” is an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Electric Power Group v. Alstom, SA. (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim invention recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A – PRONG TWO
The claimed invention recites additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of processor(s) (Claim(s) 1, 13 and 17), a memory (Claim(s) 1, 13 and 17), program(s) (Claim(s) 1, 13 and 17), a communications interface (Claim(s) 1, 13 and 17), a dynamic cache of a database (Claim(s) 1, 13 and 17), an electronic interface of a computing device (Claim(s) 1, 13 and 17), engine(s) and component(s) (Claim(s) 1, 13 and 17), and an application services layer, an applications layer and/or a core services layer (Claim(s) 1, 13 and 17).
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; are not applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine; are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Alternately, the additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional element(s), when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
STEP 2B
Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to (i) adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.07(a)(II). The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Dependent Claim(s) 2-4, 6-12, 14-16 and 18-21 recite claim limitations that further define the abstract idea recited in respective independent Claim(s) 1, 13 and 17. As such, the dependent claims are also grouped an abstract idea utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
No additional computer components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generically recited computer.
As such, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the judicial exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Accordingly, the dependent claim(s) are also not patent eligible.
Appropriate correction is requested.
6. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a system comprising a processor, a memory and a program. The program is configured to perform functions (e.g., determine one or more metrics). However, the claim, as written, recites that the functions are performed by a plurality of structural elements (e.g. a metrics engine component).
It is unclear whether the structural elements are elements of the claimed system, itself, such as a software component of a program, and within the scope of the recited system, or whether the structural elements are elements outside the system, such as an attached hardware device, and outside the scope of the recited system (i.e., outside the processor, memory and program defining the system).
Claim 17 has similar issues as Claim 17 recites instructions to cause a device comprising a processor to perform functions.
It is unclear whether the structural elements are elements of the claimed device, itself, such as a software component of a program operating on the device, and within the scope of the recited claim, or whether the structural elements are elements outside the device, such as an attached hardware device, and outside the scope of the recited claim (i.e., outside the processor and program defining the device).
Claim 1 also recites instructions configured to:
automatically performing, by the dashboard visualization component, one or more actions of the prioritized actions for the portfolio of assets based on the one or more metrics;
wherein an action from the one or more actions includes at least:
the action associated with application services layer, applications layer, and/or core services layer, wherein the core services layer comprises one or more services of an Internet of Things, IoT, platform; and
one or more corrective actions to be taken for the one or more assets associated with the asset data.
Examiner notes that system claims are supposed to recite that a structural element is configured to perform a function (i.e., configured to automatically perform one or more actions) not actively performing the function (i.e., automatically performing one or more actions).
Additionally, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the system is configured to perform one action (i.e., one or more actions). However, the one action is defined as (1) an action associated with an application services layer, applications layer and/or a core services layer and (2) a corrective action.
Does this mean that the one action is actually two actions? That the one action has to be, at least, one of the two actions (i.e., the two actions are alternative actions)? Or that the one action has to satisfy two criteria?
Claims 13 and 17 have similar issues.
Claim 1 also recites instructions configured to:
automatically performing, by the dashboard visualization component, one or more actions of the prioritized actions for the portfolio of assets based on the one or more metrics;
wherein an action from the one or more actions includes at least:
the action associated with application services layer, applications layer, and/or core services layer, wherein the core services layer comprises one or more services of an Internet of Things, IoT, platform; and
one or more corrective actions to be taken for the one or more assets associated with the asset data.
Examiner notes that the corrective action is “to be taken” indicating that the corrective action is a potential future corrective action. The action, which may or may not take place, will potentially be taken at some point in the future.
However, the claim recites that the system performs the action. Is the system actually performing the corrective action?
Claims 13 and 17 have similar issues.
7. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(f)
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: “a data aggregation component” and “a metrics engine component” in Claims 1, 13 and 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Applicant is required to:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be a means (or step) plus function limitation under 35 USC 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 USC 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant is required to clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 USC 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §2181 and §608.01(o).
8. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 13-15, 17-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eiynk (US PG Pub. 2016/0131388) in view of Choubey (US PG Pub. 2009/0182594) and Hyatt (US Patent 5,526,506).
Regarding Claim 1, Eiynk discloses a system comprising:
one or more processors. (see para. 37);
a memory (memory elements). (see para. 37); and
one or more programs stored in the memory, the one or more programs executed by the one or more processors comprising instructions configured to (see para. 37):
receive, via a communication interface, a request (user request) to generate a dashboard visualization associated with a portfolio of assets (systems) (see para. 55, 121 and 140), the request (user request) comprising:
one or more asset descriptors (contextual information), wherein each of the one or more asset descriptors (contextual information) describing information associated with each of the one or more assets (chiller) in the portfolio of assets (systems) of one or more buildings. (see abstract; para. 140); and
in response to the request (user request):
obtain, based on the one or more asset descriptors (contextual information), aggregated data (source data) associated with the portfolio of assets, wherein the aggregated data is stored in a database. (see para. 58);
wherein the aggregated data is obtained by grouping data based on one or more intervals of time (day or range of time) and one or more asset hierarchy levels (location attribute, e.g., building, floor, space). (see para. 59 and 126);
wherein the aggregated data is the asset data from one or more edge devices (controllers and control systems) associated with the portfolio of assets that are aggregated by the data aggregation component. (see para. 52 and 55); and
stored in a database (see para. 58), and wherein the asset data is associated with the one or more assets (systems). (see abstract), wherein the database comprises:
one or more sets of data structures associated with the one or more asset hierarchy levels in an industrial environment. (Any data stored in a database has an inherent data structure. Whatever structure the data has in the database is its data structure). (see para. 58);
wherein the data aggregation component aggregates asset data for the one or more asset hierarchy levels based on the one or more intervals of time and stores the aggregated asset data in at least one of a data structure from the one or more sets of data structures. (see para. 58);
determine, by a metrics engine component, one or more metrics (temperature and cubic feet per minute) for an asset hierarchy (location attribute, e.g., Classroom 101) associated with the portfolio of assets based on a time series mapping of attributes for the aggregated data, wherein at least one metric of the one or more metrics is associated with frequently failing assets (e.g., flow sensor failure) in the asset hierarchy (location attribute) over one or more intervals of time. (see fig. 4 and 8; para. 126, 135 and 141);
wherein the frequently failing assets indicate that the one or more assets (flow sensor) that failed the most number of times within the one or more intervals of times. (see fig. 4);
determine prioritized actions (prioritized actionable options) for the portfolio of assets based on the attributes (contextual data) for the aggregated data. (para. 8, 45-48 and 62-64);
group (via rank) the prioritized actions (prioritized actionable options) for the portfolio of assets based on relationships between the aggregated data (contextual data). (see para. 8, 45-48 and 62-64); and
provide the dashboard visualization to an electronic interface (user interface) of a computing device, the dashboard visualization comprising (see fig. 8):
the one or more metrics (load, efficiency, temperature) for the asset hierarchy (location attribute, e.g., building, floor, space) associated with the portfolio of assets, wherein the one or more metrics provide opportunity and performance insights for the assets. (see fig. 8; para. 126, 135 and 141);
performing by the dashboard visualization component, one or more actions (prioritized actionable options) of the prioritized actions for the portfolio of assets based on the one or more metrics. (see para. 8, 45-48 and 62-64);
wherein an action from the one more actions includes at least:
the action associated with the core services layer (reporting options), wherein the core services layer comprises one or more services (reporting) of an Internet of Things, IoT, Platform. (see para. 8-9 and 53-54); and
one or more corrective actions (service required) to be taken for the one or more assets associated with the asset data. (see fig. 4).
Eiynk does not teach a system wherein at least one failing asset is a frequently failing asset, wherein the frequently failing assets are determined based on comparing one or more scores associated with the asset data to a predetermined threshold.
Eiynk does not teach a system wherein data is stored in dynamic cache memory.
Choubey discloses a system wherein at least one failing asset is a frequently failing asset, wherein the frequently failing assets are determined based on comparing one or more scores associated with the asset data to a predetermined threshold (predetermined level), and wherein the frequently failing assets indicate the one or more assets that most number of times within the one or more intervals of time (highest number of failures). (see para. 60).
Hyatt discloses a system wherein data is stored in dynamic cache memory. (see Claim 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Eiynk by incorporating identification of frequently failing assets, as disclosed by Choubey, as a failure rate of an asset is a conventional and standard metric by which to analyze an asset.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Eiynk and Choubey by incorporating the storage of data in dynamic cache memory, as disclosed by Hyatt, as dynamic caching of data is a storage method utilized for specific, frequently accessed data to improve performance.
Regarding Claim 2, Eiynk discloses a system wherein the request further comprising:
a user identifier (user attribute), the user identifier describing a user role (user’s position within an organization) for a user associated with access of the dashboard visualization via the electronic interface, and, in response to the request, the aggregated data is obtained based on the user identifier (customized). (see para. 11, 12 and 127).
Regarding Claim 3, Eiynk discloses a system configured to:
configure (customize) the dashboard visualization based on the user identifier. (see para. 11).
Regarding Claim 4, Eiynk discloses a system configured to:
determine a list of prioritized actions (service required) for the portfolio of assets based on the metrics (failure). (see fig. 4); and
provide the list of prioritized actions to the electronic interface via the dashboard visualization. (fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 6, Eiynk discloses a system configured to:
rank, based on impact (relevance or importance) of respective prioritized actions with respect to the portfolio of assets, the prioritized actions to generate the list of the prioritized actions. (see fig. 4; para. 15 and 130); and
provide the list of the prioritized actions to the electronic interface via the dashboard visualization. (see fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Eiynk discloses a system configured to:
determine an alerts (alarms) list associated with one or more recommendations (service required) for the portfolio of assets based on the one or more metrics (failure). (see fig. 4); and
provide the alerts list to the electronic interface via the dashboard visualization. (see fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 8, Eiynk discloses a system configured:
configure the dashboard visualization to provide a visualization of performance of the portfolio of assets with respect to the one or more asset hierarchy levels (e.g. standard view vs. customized view; system level vs. device level).
Regarding Claim 9, Eiynk discloses a system configured to:
configure the dashboard visualization to provide individual control of the one or more assets in the portfolio of assets via the dashboard visualization. (see fig. 1; para. 51-52).
Regarding Claims 13-15 and 17-19, such claims recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claims and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claims or are otherwise disclosed by the prior art applied in previously rejected claims.
Regarding Claim 21, Eiynk discloses a system configured to configure the dashboard visualization to create a graph model view of relationships between assets in the portfolio of assets. (see fig. 4).
Claim(s) 10-12, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eiynk, Choubey and Hyatt, as applied to Claims 1, 13 and 17 above, and further in view of Sinha (US PG Pub. 2017/0322534).
Regarding Claim 10, Eiynk discloses a system configured to:
receive an input, the input comprising the request to generate the dashboard visualization (see para. 55, 121 and 140), the input comprising:
input data, the input data comprising one or more asset insight requests (user requests) associated with the portfolio of assets (see para. 55, 121 and 140); and
in response to the input:
perform a query with respect to the input data, the query obtaining one or more attributes (data attributes) associated with the one or more asset insight requests (user requests). (see abstract; para. 50);
obtain, based on the one or more attributes, aggregated data (source data) associated with the portfolio of assets. (see para. 58); and
determine one or more asset insights related to the portfolio of assets based on the aggregated data, the dashboard visualization comprising the one or more asset insights for the portfolio of assets. (see para. 8, 126 and 135).
Eiynk does not teach a system wherein the input is voice input; the query is a natural language query or the one or more asset insight requests include a phrase provided via the voice input data.
Sinha discloses a system wherein the input is voice input; the query is a natural language query; and the one or more asset insight requests (requests) include a phrase (phrase or natural language commands) provided via the voice input data. (see para. 4, 87 and 141).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Eiynk, Choubey and Hyatt to incorporate voice control of an asset management system, as disclosed by Sinha, thereby allowing for improved ease of use.
Regarding Claim 11, Eiynk discloses a system configured to:
query a database based on the input to determine the one or more attributes associated with the one or more asset insight requests (user requests). (see abstract; para. 58).
Eiynk does not teach a system wherein the input is voice input or wherein the query is a natural language query.
Sinha discloses a system wherein the input is voice input; and the database is a natural language database. (see para. 4 and 87).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Eiyn, Choubey, Hyatt and Sinha to incorporate a natural language database, as disclosed by Sinha, thereby providing storing data for proper operation of the voice input sub-system.
Regarding Claim 12, Eiynk discloses a system configured to:
configure a three-dimensional (3D) model of an asset (air valve) from the portfolio of assets for the dashboard visualization based on the one or more attributes associated with the input.
Sinha discloses a system wherein the input is voice input or wherein the database is a natural language database. (see para. 4 and 87).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Eiynk, Choubey, Hyatt and Sinha to incorporate voice control of an asset management system, as disclosed by Sinha, thereby allowing for improved ease of use.
Regarding Claims 16 and 20, such claims recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claims and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claims or are otherwise disclosed by the prior art applied in previously rejected claims.
9. Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
§101 Rejection
As a preliminary matter, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims, as written.
Step 2A Prong One
Applicant argues that the claimed invention does not recite a mental process as “one or more features of amended claim 1 cannot be performed or executed in the human mind.” See Arguments, pp. 14.
Specifically, Applicant argues:
The Applicant respectfully submits that one or more features of amended independent claim 1 cannot be performed or executed by the human mind. The steps recited in the claim are inextricably tied to a machine and require specialized computing infrastructure to perform complex, real-time data aggregation, hierarchical asset modeling, and automated control actions across a portfolio of assets. Specifically, the claimed subject matter performs contextual, time-aware aggregation of asset data from a network of edge devices, wherein the asset data is organized dynamically by asset hierarchy levels and time intervals, and stored in dynamic cache memory and structured databases. This process is highly computational, involving real-time data ingestion from physical infrastructure components and aggregation through a data aggregation component, which operates on structured sets of data associated with industrial environments. Such operations require data normalization, relationship mapping, and temporal correlation, which are well beyond human cognitive capabilities. See Arguments, p. 14.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
A mental process includes processes that can be performed in the human mind (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III). Mental processes include processes that would require “the use of a physical aid, such as pen and paper.” See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B). And processes that utilize a computer. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Claims that recite limitations “that cannot practically be performed in the human mind” are not mental processes. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). For example, a limitation that cannot be practically performed in the human mind is “detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets” and “rendering a halftone image of a digital image by comparing, pixel by pixel, the digital image against a blue noise mask, where the method required the manipulation of computer data structures (e.g., the pixels of a digital image and a two-dimensional array known as a mask) and the output of a modified computer data structure.” See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The examples provided require a computer. A computer is inherent to the underlying process (e.g., there is no network traffic, data packets or pixels without a computer). This is not the case with the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that data normalization, relationship mapping and temporal correlation of data are “well beyond human cognitive capabilities.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes the claimed invention does not recite data normalization. Examiner notes that, as to relationship mapping and temporal correlation, the claim recites grouping data based upon an interval of time and an asset hierarchy level (e.g., a category or classification).
Human beings have performed data normalization, relationship mapping and temporal correlation before the advent of computers. As such, data normalization, relationship mapping and temporal correlation are processes that can practically be performed in the human mind.
Examiner notes that, as asserted by the Applicant, the claimed invention utilizes computer elements to perform the abstract idea (e.g., receiving data from edge devices, and storing data in dynamic cache memory and structured databases). However, such computer elements (e.g., edge devices, cache memory and databases) are additional elements which are analyzed in Step 2A Prong Two, to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(f)(2).
Admittedly, performance on a computer would make the computations and calculations faster but relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (U.S. 2014), 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (“use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions” is not an inventive concept).
Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argues that the claimed invention recites a practical application. See Arguments, pp. 15-16.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding Step 2A Prong Two of the §101 Guidelines, MPEP §2106.04(d) recites:
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP §2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP §2106.05(e).
Neither the claims nor the specification indicates that the additional elements (i.e., computer elements) have integrated the abstract idea into a practical application under any of the five categories for indicating a practical integration.
Applicant argues:
For instance, the subject matter of the amended independent claim 1 facilitates a practical application of a virtual assistant related to dashboard technology to provide optimization related to enterprise performance management. The dashboard serves as a central interface for monitoring, analyzing, and optimizing asset performance in a manufacturing environment. It leverages data- driven insights, predictive analytics, and proactive alert management to enhance operational efficiency and minimize disruptions. These assets in enterprise performance management are generally interconnected and fault of one asset can impact other systems and resulted in performance degradation. Thus, the subject matter of the amended independent claim 1 p