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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filled on 04/04/2025 and 06/30/2025.
I. Status of Claims
Claim 23 was canceled and Claims 1,2,4-10,15,16,19-22,24 and 25 were amended by Applicant’s amendment dated 04/04/2025, then restricted by Examiner with notice of non-compliance dated 04/30/2025 and resubmitted by Applicant with the communication dated 06/30/2025 after an interview with Examiner dated 06/02/2025 that provided further clarification and reconsideration. Thus,
Claims 1-22, 24 and 25 are currently pending, with the previously restricted claims now rejoined into examination by Examiner after clarification during the interview dated 06/02/2025, and reinterpretation and reconsideration of said claims.
Claims 1-22, 24 and 25 are now currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
IDS
The information disclosure statement filed on 12/09/2024 and 07/28/2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s 04/04/2025, 06/30/2025 amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection in this act
II Response to Applicant’s 101 rebuttal Arguments
Step 2A prong one: Remarks 04/04/2025 mid-p. 11 argues the following amended limitation of claims 1,19,22 does not recite an abstract idea: “recommending” / ”recommend one or more actions specified by the selected one or more mapped solutions, the one or more actions including causing generation of at least one control signal configured to dynamically modify an operation of at least one controllable device, wherein dynamically modifying the operation includes causing the at least one controllable device to operate so as to compensate for at least a portion of the one or more gaps”.
Examiner fully considered the prone 1 argument but respectfully disagrees that the claims no longer recite, describe or set forth a judicial exception. This is because independent Claims 1,19,22 still summarize the invention, at their preambles: “improving productivity of an industrial operation based on operator variability associated with a plurality of operators”. Yet such “improvement” corresponds to an attempt at improving fundamental best practices in an “industrial operation” as further clarified in the body of independent Claims 1,19,22 as “measured and/or quantified gaps for addressing a root cause of the respective different measured gaps” “representing improvement potential of productivity of the industrial operation” for subsequently “recommending one or more actions specified by the selected one or more mapped solutions”, among which, “causing generation of at least one control signal configured to dynamically modify an operation of at least one controllable device” merely represents one, single, action included among the “one or more actions”. Yet, the broad expression “recommending one or more actions specified by the selected one or more mapped solutions” does not guarantee, under the broadest reasonable interpretation test1, that said action of “causing generation of at least one control signal configured to dynamically modify an operation of at least one controllable device” would be the actual one that will be selected to be recommend[ed].
Rather, given the breadth of independent Claims 1,19,22, said claims cover an instance of “recommending” [some] “actions” while remaining “actions”, “including causing generation of at least one control signal configured to dynamically modify an operation of at least one controllable device” are not necessarily implement[ed]. Here, “recommending one or more actions specified by the selected one or more mapped solutions” “to compensate for at least a portion of the one or more gaps” would at most improve an underlining entrepreneurial, abstract concept, to address “impact of operator to operator variations” [which] “may be substantial and influence operation (e.g. productivity and profitability) of the industrial operation” as read in light of Original Specification ¶ [0004], and subsequently cited by Remarks 04/04/2025 p.13 ¶4. Specifically, the abstract consideration for human productivity is reflected in Claims 1,19,22, as the “one or more actions” [are] “specified by the selected one or more mapped solutions” which, at their turn, were selected based on, “one or more gaps as measured and/or quantified”, with respect to, “potential of productivity of the industrial operation during common process events”, with MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II ¶6, 5th sentence also stipulating that the number of people (here “operators”) involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Also here, the abstract financial considerations, akin to profitability, is also reflected in dependent Claims 2,5,8,20,24 by consideration of “costs associated with implementing the one or more actions” / “specified by the selected one or more mapped solutions” / “plurality of solutions”. Equally important, it is noted, independent Claims 1,19,22 merely recommend, but do not necessarily implement said “one or more actions specified by the selected one or more mapped solutions”. Such implementing occurs only later on, at dependent Claims 6,21,25.
It is also noted that recitation of “causing generation of at least one control signal configured to dynamically modify an operation of at least one controllable device” merely represents one, single, action included among the “one or more actions”. Yet, the broad expression “recommending one or more actions specified by the selected one or more mapped solutions” does not necessarily guarantee,
under the broadest reasonable interpretation test2, that said action of “causing generation of at least one control signal configured to dynamically modify an operation of at least one controllable device” would be the actual one action that will be recommended, let alone implemented. Rather, given the breadth of independent Claims 1,19,22, said claims cover an instance of “recommending” [some] “actions” while remaining “actions”, including “causing generation of at least one control signal configured to dynamically modify an operation of at least one controllable device” are not necessarily recommend[ed], let alone implement[ed].
In any event, Examiner submits, in the arguendo that, even if positively recited as active, required step, recommend[ation] (independent Claims 1,19,22) and later implementat[ion] (dependent Claims 6,21,25) of any purported solution’ actions including “causing generation of at least one control signal configured to dynamically modify an operation of at least one controllable device” (independent Claims 1,19,22) , would still be recited at high level, thus still representative of narrow laws with limited applications in managing the industrial operation, which as tested per MPEP 2106.04 I ¶3 and its reliance on Mayo, 566 US at 79-80,86-87,101 USPQ2d at 1968-69, 1971, would still not render the claims eligible. Specifically, in Mayo, the Supreme Court found that optimizing therapeutic efficacy for treatment of an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, comprising [recommendation for] increas[ing] [thus dynamically modifying] the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject wherein the level of 6-thioguanine less than about 230 pmol per 8x108 red blood cells, and decreas[ing] [thus dynamically modifying] the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject wherein the level of 6-thioguanine greater than about 400 pmol per 8x108 red blood cells, still recited, described or set forth a judicial exception. Based on legal precedent of dynamic modifying of biochemical operation in Mayo supra, it then follows that here, the analogous “recommending” (independent Claims 1,19,22) and “implementing” (dependent Claims 6,21,25) including any purported “causing generation of at least one control signal configured to dynamically modify an operation of at least one controllable device, wherein dynamically modifying the operation includes causing the at least one controllable device to operate so as to compensate for at least a portion of the one or more gaps” (independent Claims 1,19,22) would similarly set forth the judicial exception. These findings and rationes are corroborated by MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), which found that a claim is not patent eligible merely because it applies an abstract idea in a narrow way; that is, “improvement in the judicial exception itself” “is not an improvement in technology”. Here, mitigating “the one or more gaps” of “operator variability” identif[ied] from “remaining data” for “improvement potential of productivity of the industrial operation during common process events or abnormal operation” would represent such improvement in the abstract exception, without providing the required technological details as necessary to demonstrate improvement in technology. In fact, MPEP 2106.04 I ¶5, stresses that the Supreme Court’s decisions made it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. For example, both Myriad and Flook were novel, but nonetheless considered by Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions because they were basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that lie beyond the domain of patent protection. In a similar vein, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #2 also made it clear that performing a mental process in a computer environment, does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract exception.
Following such legal tests, the Examiner submits that here, when reading the claims in light of the Original Specification ¶ [0004], ¶ [0088] as subsequently raised by Remarks 04/04/2025 p.13 ¶4, p.14 ¶3 and Figs.2A-2C, 4-6 of Original Disclosure and their associated text, the current claims, far from imposing a technological solution to a technological problem still recite, describe or set forth a fundamental, and thus abstract best practice of “recommending one or more actions specified by the selected one or more mapped solutions” “to compensate for at least a portion of the one or more gap”, which as tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A ¶1-¶2, represents fundamental and thus abstract building block of organizing human activities, even when it is not necessarily old or well-known. Thus, such “recommending one or more actions specified by the selected one or more mapped solutions” “to compensate for at least a portion of the one or more gaps is far from imposing a technological solution to a technological problem even if amended to deliberately require a recommendation for “causing generation of at least one control signal configured to dynamically modify an operation of at least one controllable device” that “includes causing the at least one controllable device to operate so as to compensate for at least a portion of the one or more gaps”. This is because a “controllable device” as in “the one or more actions includ[e] causing generation of at least one control signal configured to dynamically modify an operation of at least one controllable device, wherein dynamically modifying the operation includes causing the at least one controllable device to operate so as to compensate for at least a portion of the one or more gaps” would merely represent a computer environment or tool, to aid, assist, supplement or “compensate for at least a portion of the one or more gaps” of the operator.
Yet, according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #2 Performing a mental process in a computer environment, and #3 Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process, do not preclude the claims from reciting, describing or setting forth the abstract exception. For example, in “FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” as cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III.C #2. the Federal Circuit found unpersuasive an argument that requiring large number of calculations precludes the physical aid test, because the fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter, even in situations of “inability for the human mind to perform each claim step does not alone confer patentability. As we have explained, “the fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter” [bolded emphasis added] citing Bancorp Servs., 687 F.3d at 1278.
It would then follow that here, even if recited, in the arguendo, as an active implementation step instead of a caus[ed] intended result3, the “generation of at least one control signal configured to dynamically modify an operation of at least one controllable device”, “to operate so as to compensate for at least a portion of the one or more gaps” would similarly not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter, following a similar ineligibility rationale, as the one articulated by the Federal Circuit in FairWarning supra. For example, Fairwarning supra as cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #2, the Federal Circuit found that accessing, compiling and combining disparate information sources to make it possible to generate a full picture of a user's activity, identity, frequency of activity, and the like in a computer environment, is representative of merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and announcement which does not differentiate the process from mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from 101 undergirds the information based category of abstract ideas citing Elec. Power, 830 F.3d 1350, [2016 BL 247416], 2016 WL 4073318, at *4.
It then follows that here, the combining and compiling of data for providing recommend[ation] or picture [of] “one or more actions specified by the selected” [or accessed] one or more mapped”, and thus combined and compiled “solutions”, would similarly represent an abstract example of selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and announcement which would also not differentiate the process from abstract processes.
In a similar vein, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C made it clear that considering historical usage information while inputting data4 and automation by providing information to a person without interfering with the person’s primary activity5 both set forth the abstract idea. In fact, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II ¶6, 4th sentence is clear that certain activity between a person and a computer may still fall within the abstract exception. It would then follow that here, general recitation of automation at the wherein limitation of “human who interacts with at least one control system associated with the industrial operation” (independent Claims 1,19,22), “operators interacting with the at least one control system associated with the industrial operation” (independent Claim 22), “wherein dynamically modifying the operation includes causing the at least one controllable device to operate so as to compensate for at least a portion of the one or more gaps” (independent Claims 1,19,22) would also not preclude the claims from reciting, describing or setting forth the abstract exception.
Also, according to BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018), as cited by MPEP 2106.05(a) I providing historical usage information to users while inputting data, to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, would at most represent an improvement to the information stored by a database which is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality. It then analogously follows that here “recommending” / ”recommend one or more actions specified by the selected one or more mapped solutions” could be argued as an abstract example of improving the quality and organization of information added to a database, which when compared to BSG would not render the claims eligible.
Examiner also reincorporates herein all findings and rationales at the prior Non-Final Act 12/04/2024 p.2-p.4 ¶1 in support of the legal findings and rationales above.
Next, in an abundance of caution, Examiner will more granularly test the “generation of at least one control signal configured to dynamically modify an operation of at least one controllable device”, at subsequent steps. For now, it is clear that given preponderance of legal evidence showed above, the “recommending” “actions specified by the selected one or more mapped solutions” “to compensate for at least a portion of the one or more gaps” (independent Claims 1,19,22) is undeniably abstract, with the general recitation of “implementing one or more actions specified by the selected one or more actions” (dependent Claims 6,21,25) not precluding the claims from reciting, describing or setting forth the abstract exception. Thus the claims’ characters as a whole remains abstract in recommend[ation] of selected solutions’ actions to address one or more gaps associated with human performance or operator variability (independent Claims 1,19,22), based on “mapping the variety of solutions to the different measured and/or quantified gaps based on current needs and priorities” (dependent Claim 10) “set or configured by an owner or manager of the industrial operation” (dependent Claim 11).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 2A prong two: Remarks 04/04/2025 p.11 last ¶- p.12 ¶3 argues the claimed features of processing input data, selecting to be clustered one or more types of data, analyzing remaining data, measuring and/or quantifying the one or more gaps, and automatically selecting one or more mapped solutions, are all integrated into the practical application of “recommending one or more actions specified by the selected one or more mapped solutions, the one or more actions including causing generation of at least one control signal configured to dynamically modify an operation of at least one controllable device, wherein dynamically modifying the operation includes causing the at least one controllable device to operate so as to compensate for at least a portion of the one or more gaps”.
Examiner fully considered prong 2 argument but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive, reincorporating herein all the findings and rationales at Non-Final Act 12/04/2024 p.4 ¶2-p.5 ¶1.
Examiner further submits that given their high level recitation, the argued “processing input data”, “selecting to be clustered one or more types of data”, “analyzing remaining data”, “measuring and/or quantifying the one or more gaps”, can be construed as part of the computer-aided observation, evaluation or judgement which, as tested above, with respect to the guidelines provided by to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ¶2 and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #1,#2, #3 do not preclude the claims from recting, describing or setting forth the abstract exception as already indicated above.
Next, Examiner resubmits that recitation of “causing generation of at least one control signal configured to dynamically modify an operation of at least one controllable device” merely represents one, single, action included among the one or more actions. Yet, the broad expression “recommending one or more actions specified by the selected one or more mapped solutions” does not necessarily guarantee, under broadest reasonable interpretation6, that said action of “causing generation of at least one control signal configured to dynamically modify an operation of at least one controllable device” would be the actual one that will be recommend[ed]. Rather, given the breadth of independent Claims 1,19,22, said claims do cover an instance of “recommending” [some] “actions” while remaining “actions” “including causing generation of at least one control signal configured to dynamically modify an operation of at least one controllable device” are not necessarily recommended.
Also, in addition to the ineligibility tested on the “Mayo” evidence at the prior step, the Examiner also submits that “causing generation of at least one control signal configured to dynamically modify an operation of at least one controllable device” when more granularly tested per MPEP 2106.05(a) is representative of mere automation of manual processes7 including accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from capabilities of the computer8, which per MPEP 2106.05(a) do not provide technological improvements at Step 2A prong two. Rather, as stated by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (iii), a process for monitoring audit log data [akin here to “operator variability” and “measured and/or quantified gaps”] executed on a computer [akin here to “controllable device] where the increased speed comes from capabilities of a computer9, represents mere invocation of computers or machinery as tools, which does not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application at Step 2A prong two. The same principles apply to the capabilities of the additional computer-based elements, as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) v, to tailor information [akin here to “automatically selecting one or more mapped solutions from a variety of solutions mapped to different measured and/or quantified gaps for addressing a root cause of the respective different measured and/or quantified gaps” and “recommending one or more actions specified by the selected one or more mapped solutions” at independent Claims 1,19,22] and provide it to a user on a generic computer10.
Moreover, as previously identified at the prior step, the claims do not provide a technological improvement but rather aim to improve an underlining entrepreneurial, abstract concept, to address “impact of operator to operator variations” [which] “may be substantial and influence operation (e.g. productivity and profitability) of the industrial operation” as read in light of Original Specification
¶ [0004] cited by Remarks 04/04/2025 p.13 ¶4. Yet, MPEP 2106.04 I is clear that even a “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the 101 inquiry” citing Myriad,569 U.S at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979. The “Myriad” rationale was corroborated by “SAP Am Inc v InvestPic” which is also cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.C(i). Indeed, digging deeper into the Court rationale in SAP supra, the Examiner finds that the Court ruled that, “even if one assumes that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant those features are not enough for eligibility because their innovation is innovation in ineligible subject matter. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting”. That is, “no matter how much of an advance in the field the claims” [would] “recite the advance” [would still] “lie entirely in the realm of abstract ideas” with no plausibly alleged innovation in non-abstract application realm. Simply put here, as in SAP Am, Inc v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 126 USPQ.2d 1638 (Fed. Cir. 2018), no matter how much of an advance in the field of assessing and compensating for operator variability the current claims would recite, said advance would still lie within the abstract realm of the abstract recommend[ation] and later by implement[ation] of selected solutions’ actions to address one or more gaps associated with human performance or operator variability, with no plausibly of the alleged innovation being in an non-abstract application realm. The Court’s findings in SAP supra were further corroborated by Versata Dev Grp Inc v SAP Am, Inc 115 USPQ2d 1681 Fed Cir 2015 again undelaying the difference between improvement to entrepreneurial goal objective and actual improvement to actual technology. see MPEP 2106.04.
Following the legal precedents above as highlighted by MPEP 2106.04, the Examiner reasons that here, the claims would at most improve the operation aspect related to “operator variability” as raised by Applicant in light of Original Specification ¶ [0004], and further narrowed to hardware-based field of use or technological environment as amended at the last limitation. Yet, as identified above, and confirmed by MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), a claim is not eligible merely because it applies an abstract idea in a narrow way; that is “improvement in the judicial exception itself” “is not an improvement in technology”. Specifically, MPEP 2106.04 I ¶5 states that the Supreme Court’s decisions made it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. For example, both Myriad and Flook were novel, but nonetheless considered by Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions because they were basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that lie beyond the domain of patent protection. Thus, the Examiner reasons that here, far from imposing a technological solution to a technological problem, the claims still recite, describe or set forth the abstract idea, with the argued combination of additional computer-based elements, as detailed in the actual rejection below, not integrating it into a practical application.
Next, taking a more granular look at the argued limitation of “recommending one or more actions specified by the selected one or more mapped solutions, the one or more actions including causing generation of at least one control signal configured to dynamically modify an operation of at least one controllable device, wherein dynamically modifying the operation includes causing the at least one controllable device to operate so as to compensate for at least a portion of the one or more gap”, the Examiner tests such limitation in view of Flook supra, as cited by MPEP 2106.05(h).
Specifically, in Flook the invention referred to catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons, in the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, yet such feature was found insufficient to make the claim eligible, because it was merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating the alarm limit value were performed. Here, too, similar to the Flook rationale above, the recitation of “recommending the one or more actions including causing generation of at least one control signal configured to dynamically modify an operation of at least one controllable device, wherein dynamically modifying the operation includes causing the at least one controllable device to operate so as to compensate for at least a portion of the one or more gap”, at independent Claims 1,19,22 and even the subsequent “implementing the one or more actions” at dependent Claims 6,21,25, would similarly represent a narrowing of the abstract recommendation to an automated or actuated field of endeavor, which as tested per MPEP 2106.05(h), would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and without providing the necessary degree of technological details for the technological solution required by MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). In a similar vein, MPEP 2106.05(f)(3) finds that the generality of the application of the judicial exception, is an example of applying the abstract idea which here, would also not integrate said abstract idea into a practical application. Here, given the high generality of “recommending one or more actions” “including” “causing generation of at least one control signal configured to dynamically modify an operation of at least one controllable device” “causing” [as an intended result11] “the at least one controllable device to operate so as to compensate for at least a portion of the one or more gap”, the Examiner reasons that said limitation could also be construed as a case of general controllable application of the abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(f)(3)] to a “device”, in a manner analogous to, or comparable with, the narrowing of the abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment as in MPEP 2106.05(h) above. Here, no matter of which MPEP 2106.05(f)(1),(f)(2),(f)(3) and/or (h) test is/are employed, it is clear that the argued processing input data, selecting to be clustered one or more types of data, analyzing remaining data, measuring and/or quantifying the one or more gaps automatically selecting one or more mapped solutions are all integrated into the practical application of “recommending one or more actions specified by the selected one or more mapped solutions, the one or more actions including causing generation of at least one control signal configured to dynamically modify an operation of at least one controllable device, wherein dynamically modifying the operation includes causing the at least one controllable device to operate so as to compensate for at least a portion of the one or more gaps” would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they would mere represent an invocation of machinery to apply an abstract processes or existing process, [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and/or narrowing the abstract process to a technological environment, [MPEP 2106.05(h)].
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 2B: Remarks 04/04/2025 p.14 ¶2 argues that independent claim 1 satisfies both prongs of the sufficient details test such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention providing an improvement. Specifically, Remarks 04/04/2025 p.13 ¶3-p.14 ¶3 cites Original Specification ¶ [0004], ¶ [0010], ¶ [0012], ¶ [0088] to argue that the claimed invention solves a technical problem. Remarks 04/04/2025 p. 14 ¶4-p.15 ¶5 further argue that the claims reflect the improvement.
Examiner fully considered the Step 2B argument but respectfully disagrees reincorporating herein all the findings and rationales above as well as the prior findings of Non-Final Act 12/04/2024
p.5 ¶2-p.6 ¶4. Examiner further clarifies that here, the Examiner follows MPEP 2106.05 (d) II guidelines by carrying over the findings of MPEP 2106.05 (f) and/or (h), as tested above, to submit that the additional computer-based elements also do not provide significantly more. Examiner also carries over the above findings and rationales to resubmit that the Applicant’s asserted improvement is not technological but rather entrepreneurial or abstract “to compensate for at least a portion of the one or more gaps” due to “operator variability”. Separate from these findings, the Examiner submits that even if the conventionality test would be employed for the additional elements, their disclosure in the at least Original Specification ¶ [0025]-¶ [0027], ¶ [0142] would clearly demonstrate the high level of generality and thus conventional nature of such additional computer-based elements.
In conclusion, the claims still, recite, describe or set forth the abstract exception (Step 2A prong one), with their additional computer-based elements not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong 2) or providing significantly more (Step 2B). The claims are thus ineligible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III, IV Response to prior art arguments
Remarks 04/04/2025 p16-p17 ¶3 argues Okada does not tech the amended Claims1,19,22 in
- “processing input data received from one or more data sources to eliminate multiple non-human root differences" and
- “analyzing remaining data that was not eliminated to identify operator variability between the plurality of operators interacting with at least one control system associated with the industrial operation”
- “measuring and/or quantifying one or more gaps in an efficient operation of the industrial operation due to operator variability, the one or more gaps representing improvement potential of productivity of the industrial operation during common process events or abnormal operation if the operator variability is removed”
- mapped solutions being select[ed] based on the one or more gaps as measured or quantified
- “recommending one or more actions specified by the selected one or more mapped solutions”.
Examiner considered the prior at argument which is moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Examiner now relies on Mark W. Paradies US 6463441 B1 hereinafter Paradies to teach:
-“processing input data received from one or more data sources” (independent Claims 1,19,22)
(Paradies column 1 lines 8-12,26-30: invention identifies human action for underlining cause of an incident. For example, at column 16 line 62-column 17 line 4: invention includes powerful features for determining root causes of incidents and suggest corrective actions for root causes related to human performance difficulties. For example, at column 8 lines 35-36: Was excessive fatigue, impairment, personal problems, or inattentiveness? To this end, at column 10 lines 36-48: one of most powerful features provided by the invention is to determine corrective action to prevent future occurrences of similar incidents. Preferably, each root cause contained in causal information database, is linked to a corresponding corrective action. column 6 lines 54-column 7 line 28: When processor 20 receives signal from input device 10, processor 20 generates Incident List dialog box in Fig.4. The incident occurred as follows: On Jun 1, 1998, at about 4:20 a.m., a cooling water hose ruptured on a temporary water treatment unit at a chemical manufacturing plant. The failure of the hose caused a loss of cooling water to the unit, which should have been immediately secured. However, the contract operator had fallen asleep. Also, the automatic shutdown features had been bypassed by the contractor who owns the equipment. Continued operation of the unit without cooling water caused the unit’s resin to overheat and degrade. This allowed high-temperature, low-pH water to enter plant’s outfall, causing death of 100 fish in downstream section of river at the plant boundary. The contract operator had fallen asleep sometime after filling out his log sheet at 4 a.m. He was on his 5th week of 12-hour shifts. He would typically work 8 straight days of 12 hours on and 12 hours off, followed by 4 days off before returning for another 8 straight days of 12 hours on and 12 hours off. His 12-hour shifts began at 6 pm and ended at 6 am. He was on his 2nd day of 12-hour night-shift duty when the incident occurred. He had been awake the whole day before his first 12-hour shift and had slept for only about 4 hours before his 2nd night shift. Thus, he had had only 4 hours sleep in prior 44 hours. The cooling water hose that ruptured was 4 inch diameter fire hose. The hose, which had been bent around a comer, ruptured due to dry rot when pressurized to about 100 psig. A date of Jun.8, 1978 had been stenciled on the hose, which was probably the date that the hose was put into service) “to eliminate multiple non-human root differences” (independent Claims 1,19) (Paradies column 1 lines 26-30: Consistently, it has been determined human action, or lack of action, is the underlining cause of a great number of these incidents. Even when an equipment malfunction is a contributing factor in causing an incident, often the equipment malfunctioned due to human oversight. For example, at column 8 lines 15-20: Since contract officer falls asleep causal factor does not fall into any of other 3 categories, those categories are eliminated from consideration by clicking twice on their corresponding blocks. As Fig.8 indicates, an eliminated category is preferably indicated by a crossed-out block. See for example Fig.8 crossing-out or elimination non-human equipment cause. Indeed, per column 16 line 62-column 17 line 1: the invention includes powerful features for determining root causes of incidents and suggesting corrective actions for root causes related to human performance difficulties. However, for causal factors that are equipment-related, the invention also analyzes and suggests corrective action for root causes that are related to equipment difficulties).
PNG
media_image1.png
465
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Paradies Fig.8
- “measuring and/or quantifying one or more gaps in an efficient operation of the industrial operation due to operator variability, the one or more gaps representing improvement potential of productivity of the industrial operation during common process events or abnormal operation if the operator variability is removed” (Paradies column 1 lines 8-12 the invention is directed to identifying human action representing an underlining cause of an incident. For example, at column 16 line 62-column 17 line 4: the invention includes powerful features for determining root causes of incidents and suggesting corrective actions for root causes related to human performance difficulties. For example, column 8 lines 35-36: Was there excessive fatigue, impairment, personal problems, or inattentiveness? To this end at column 10 lines 36-48: one of most powerful features provided by invention is to help determine corrective action to prevent future occurrences of similar incidents. Corrective Action Helper is a database of suggested corrective [or improvement] actions linked to root causes on Root Cause level of the causal information database. Preferably, each root cause contained in causal information database, such as each root cause listed under Near Root Cause level category blocks 500-530 in Fig.19, is linked to corresponding corrective action in Corrective Action Helper database. For example, at Fig.47 Corrective action 10: implement new monitoring overtime and supervisory requirements so that the odds on the job are greatly reduced because according to column 12 lines 60-61: scheduling needs improvement. Other example is disclosed at column 12 lines 17-30: to prevent recurrence of Temp Water Treatment Unit Fish Kill incident, the operator may be given additional task of generating reports of measured values of cooling water pressure and temperature of the treatment unit’s resin. This corrective action is applicable to wide variety of industrial monitoring situations where operator must remain alert. This suggested corrective action is not obvious solution, even to people who routinely do this trouble-shooting. As Fig.24 indicates, the invention provides multiple suggestions for actions implemented in concert. For example, at Annotated Fig.24: 1(a) Provide an alarm to alert the worker. 1(b) Provide automate monitoring and response system to replace human monitoring and response. Paradies provides additional details at column 6 lines 12-22: the structure in Fig.2 emphasizes the invention most powerful advantages: the links between causes and corrective actions occur at root cause level that have much higher probability of preventing recurrences of an incident than corrective actions based upon less knowledge, as represented by higher levels in the database structure. Thus, by providing links between root causes and corrective action, the invention provides suggestions for most effective corrective action. column 9 lines 6-7, Figs.13,51 noting under Team performance: Was coordination required between team members? -> Was lack of agreement about who / what / when / where of task performance? column 16 lines 8-14: processor 20 generates Corrective Actions Status Tracking Report box on display device 40, in Fig. 43 for narrowing the scope of the report by selecting responsible departments, and persons. For example, at column 7 lines 1-10, failure of the hose caused a loss of cooling water to the unit, which should have been immediately secured. Yet, the operator had fallen asleep. Also, the automatic shutdown features had been bypassed by the contractor who owns the equipment. The continued operation of the unit without cooling water caused the unit's resin to overheat and degrade. This allowed high-temperature, low-pH water to enter the plant's outfall, thus causing the death of about 100 fish in the downstream section of the river at the plant boundary. To address this at column 8 lines 35-36: Was there excessive fatigue, impairment, personal problems, or inattentiveness? An affirmative answer indicates that a root cause may lie under a Human Engineering or Immediate Supervision basic cause category. column 9 lines 6-7: Fig.13 represents questions relating to Team Performance. see Fig.13, Fig.51 noting under Team performance: Was coordination required between team members? -> Was lack of agreement about who/what/when/where of task performance? column 16 lines 8-14: With reference to Fig.40, when the Corrective Actions Status Tracking Report is selected, processor 20 generates the Corrective Actions Status Tracking Report box on the display device 40, in Fig.43. Using this box, the user has the option of narrowing the scope of the report by selecting date ranges, responsible departments, and responsible persons. Finally, column 9 lines 33-38: This screen illustrates Near Root Cause level categories under Procedures category. These categories represented by procedures not-used/not-followed block 470, a procedures wrong block 480, and a procedures followed incorrectly block 490. Below each of the Near Root Cause level category blocks 470-490 is a list of potential root causes. These root causes lie on the Root Cause level of the causal information database. column 12 lines 14-30: in Fig.24, one of the suggested corrective actions (d) is to provide other noncompeting tasks for the operator to perform while operator is monitoring a critical parameter. For example, to prevent recurrence of Temp Water Treatment Unit Fish Kill incident, the operator may be given an additional task of generating reports of measured values of the cooling water pressure and temperature of the treatment unit's resin. This corrective action is applicable to a wide variety of industrial monitoring situations where the operator must remain alert. Further, this suggested corrective action is not an obvious solution, even to people who routinely do this sort of trouble-shooting. As Fig.24 indicates, the invention provides multiple suggestions for actions that may be implemented in concert. For example, at Fig.47, corrective action 12: Create and provide training for all operators, mechanic, and supervisors on he actions they are to take if they feel excessively drowsy or in any way feel unfit to perform the job that they have been assigned).
- mapped solutions being select[ed] based on the one or more gaps as measured or quantified
(Paradies column 18 lines 15-17,36-41: as described the causal information database provides relationship between the multiple causal analysis levels and causal factor categories. Through execution instructions by causal analysis module 1140, processor 20 determines suggested corrective actions by following the links between corrective action helper module 1160 and causal information database module 1130. Specifically column 5 lines 55-63 causal information database links each root cause (RC1,RC2, RC3) on Root Cause level to a suggested corrective action. Some root causes are linked to a single corrective action, some to more than one. Some root causes are linked to a common corrective action. Preferably the corrective actions reside in distinct corrective action database related to the causal information database by way of links that associate the two. column 10 lines 41-48: corrective action helper is database of suggested corrective actions linked [interpreted as mapped] to root causes on the Root Cause level of the causal information database. Preferably, each root cause contained in the causal information database, such as each root cause listed under Near Root Cause level category blocks 500-530 in Fig.19, is linked [or mapped] to a corresponding corrective action in the Corrective Action Helper database. column 10 lines 57-60: in Fig.21 Corrective Action Helper database provides [or selects] suggestions and ideas for eliminating the root cause of the incident. similarly, column 12 lines 1-3 the Corrective Action Helper provides [or selects] additional help in the form of suggested actions that the user may take to resolve the problem
Paradies column 10 lines 57-65: in Fig.21, the Corrective Action Helper database provides suggestions and ideas for eliminating the root cause of the incident. These suggestions and ideas provide the user with a framework for thinking about solutions to the specific problem. By thinking within the framework provided by the Corrective Action Helper database, the user can stay focused on eliminating the specific root cause of the specific causal factor.
Paradies column 12 lines 15-30: in Fig.24, one of the suggested corrective actions (d) is to provide other noncompeting tasks for the operator to perform while the operator is monitoring a critical parameter. For example, to prevent recurrence of the Temp Water Treatment Unit Fish Kill incident, the operator may be given an additional task of generating reports of measured values of the cooling water pressure and the temperature of the treatment unit's resin. This corrective action is applicable to a wide variety of industrial monitoring situations where the operator must remain alert. Further, this suggested corrective action is not an obvious solution, even to people who routinely do this sort of trouble-shooting. As Fig.24 indicates, the invention typically provides multiple suggestions for actions that may be implemented separately or in concert).
- “recommending one or more actions specified by the selected one or more mapped solutions”.
(Paradies column 12 lines 15-30: in Fig.24, one of the suggested [or recommended] corrective actions (d) is to provide other noncompeting tasks for operator to perform while the operator is monitoring a critical parameter. For example, to prevent recurrence of Temp Water Treatment Unit Fish Kill incident, the operator may be given an additional task of generating reports of measured values of the cooling water pressure and the temperature of the treatment unit's resin. This corrective action is applicable to a wide variety of industrial monitoring situations where the operator must remain alert, but where perhaps the operator's continuous and full attention is not needed for the task. Further, this suggested corrective action is not an obvious solution, even to people who routinely do this sort of trouble-shooting. As Fig.24 indicates, the invention typically provides multiple suggestions for actions that may be implemented separately or in concert. Indeed, per column 1 lines 36-43: Implementation of effective corrective action is preferred means to achieve dramatic, lasting reductions in the numbers of repeat incidents. Thus, to prevent occurrence of a costly incident, the underlying cause of the incident should first be identified, then specific corrective action is implemented directed to eliminating the specific underlying cause. To this end at column 12 lines 11-30: processor 20 accesses Corrective Action Helper database and retrieves corrective action suggestions linked [or mapped] to this root cause. Preferably, processor 20 then generates the screen in Fig.24 to display the linked corrective actions. As shown in Fig.24, one of suggested corrective actions [1(a) through] 1(d)... This corrective action is applicable to a wide variety of industrial monitoring situations where the operator must remain alert… As Fig.24 indicates, the invention typically provides multiple suggestions for actions that may be implemented separately or in concert [or together]. See for example Annotated Fig. 24
1(a) Provide an alarm [control signal] to alert the worker.
1(b) Provide automate monitoring [control signal] and response system [controllable device] to replace human monitoring and response)
PNG
media_image2.png
648
856
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Paradies Annotated Fig.24 from original Fig.24 in support of rejection arguments
Accordingly, Mark W. Paradies US 6463441 B1 teaches the Applicant’s contested features.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one ex