DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 16, 25-26, 28-31 and 33-36 are pending. Claims 4, 11-15, 17-24, 27 and 32 are cancelled.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/18/26, have been fully considered but are not persuasive, except where noted below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (pages 11-12) are persuasive except regarding claim 36, as detailed in the rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (page 13) are persuasive but note that new grounds of rejection under that statute are provided below.
For at least these reasons, the rejection of the claims is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 36, this claim recites ‘transmitting the replacement value to the industrial system comprises initiating a hardware-level control operation based on the replacement control command, the hardware-level control operation comprising an actuation of a physical component of the industrial system, including at least one of adjusting a flow control actuator, modifying a mechanical setpoint, or disabling a process output channel associated with the industrial process’ that is not described in the original specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 25-26, 28-30 and 33-36 is/are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites ‘the operational values comprising at least one control sensor value and at least one indicator sensor value’, i.e. each sensor value may be singular, and then ‘the control sensor values’ and ‘the indicator sensor values’ indicating that each sensor value is plural. Therefore it is not clear if more than one of each sensor value is required.
In addition, claim 1 recites ‘identifying at least one non-anomalous process parameter for use in generating a replacement value for the anomalous process parameter’ and is not clear if the non-anomalous process parameter is actually used to generating a replacement value or not.
In addition, claim 1 recites ‘providing an indication of the replacement value to the industrial system for use in place of the anomalous process parameter to maintain operational control of the physical process’ and it not clear what the phrase ‘providing an indication’ is intended to convey, e.g. is an indication communicated to another element of the invention? Also, it is not clear if ‘for use in place of’ actually means that the indication is used in place of something else.
Claim 16 recites ‘the operational values comprising at least one control sensor value and at least one indicator sensor value’, i.e. each sensor value may be singular, and then ‘the control sensor values’ and ‘the indicator sensor values’ indicating that each sensor value is plural. Therefore it is not clear if more than one of each sensor value is required.
In addition, claim 16 recites ‘providing the replacement value to the PLC system for use in place of the anomalous process parameter to maintain operational control of the physical process in real time’ and it is not clear if ‘for use in place of’ actually means that the indication is used in place of something else.
Claim 25 recites ‘at least one control sensor value and at least one indicator sensor value’, i.e. each sensor value may be singular, and then ‘the control sensor values’ and ‘the indicator sensor values’ indicating that each sensor value is plural. Therefore it is not clear if more than one of each sensor value is required.
Claim 31 recites ‘at least one control sensor value and at least one indicator sensor value’, i.e. each sensor value may be singular, and then ‘the control sensor values’ and ‘the indicator sensor values’ indicating that each sensor value is plural. Therefore it is not clear if more than one of each sensor value is required.
In addition, claim 31 recites ‘the at least one non-anomalous process parameter’ for which there is no antecedent basis.
The dependent claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as they inherit all of the characteristics of the claim from which they depend and none of the dependent claims provide a cure for the indefiniteness of the parent claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 16, 25-26, 28-31 and 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea (mental process) of processing data to determine predicted and residual values, determine an anomalous parameter, and generating a command. Note that some of the claim elements involved may also be interpreted as abstract mathematical processes, e.g. determining residual values that represent a difference.
Claim 1 recites a method of detecting and mitigating an operational anomaly in an industrial system configured to control a physical process, i.e. a process, which is a statutory category of invention. The claim recites:
normalizing the operational values to provide a normalized process vector;
computing, for each of a plurality of stored memory vectors representing normal operating conditions, a Euclidean distance between the normalized process vector and the respective memory vector, the plurality of stored memory vectors being maintained in a memory matrix stored in the non-volatile memory;
determining a weight for each memory vector using a kernel function applied to the Euclidean distance;
calculating predicted values for the plurality of process parameters by computing a weighted average of the memory vectors based on the determined weights;
determining residual values for the plurality of process parameters, each residual value representing a difference between a respective predicted value and a respective operational value;
comparing each residual value to a corresponding anomaly detection threshold to determine whether the residual value indicates a deviation from normal operation;
identifying an anomalous process parameter based on a determination that a corresponding residual value satisfies a corresponding anomaly detection threshold, wherein a residual value that satisfies the corresponding anomaly detection threshold signifies that an associated operational value has departed from a range of normal operating conditions and is thereby identified as an anomalous condition of the industrial system;
identifying at least one non-anomalous process parameter for use in generating a replacement value for the anomalous process parameter, wherein identifying the at least one non-anomalous process parameter comprises selecting a process parameter that has not been identified as anomalous and that is used as an input to an inference model, the inference model having been trained using historical operational data of the industrial system to predict expected values of the anomalous process parameter during normal operating conditions;
executing the inference model to generate a replacement value for the anomalous process parameter, wherein, responsive to the anomalous process parameter being identified as anomalous, the inference model receives, as input, the at least one non-anomalous process parameter, and wherein the replacement value comprises an inferred sensor value representing an expected value of the anomalous process parameter during normal operating conditions of the industrial system; and
providing an indication of the replacement value to the industrial system for use in place of the anomalous process parameter to maintain operational control of the physical process, the replacement value being generated in real time, wherein the replacement value is utilized to generate a command configured to place the industrial system in a known state, i.e. under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations comprise a mental process involving analyzing data to predict values, determining residual values and generating a replacement value and a command that may be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea (mental/mathematical processes), see MPEP 2106.04(a).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, i.e. an industrial system with sensors and controls (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), receiving, at a localized anomaly detection system, operational values for a plurality of process parameters from a single sub-system of the industrial system, the operational values comprising at least one control sensor value and at least one indicator sensor value, wherein the localized anomaly detection system is collocated with the industrial system…, wherein the control sensor values represent parameters utilized in closed-loop regulation of process components, and the indicator sensor values represent parameters measured to provide state information of the physical process (insignificant extra-solution activity — mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(d)) and a processor circuit and a non-volatile memory storing a machine learning model configured for execution in real time, such that the machine learning model is executable without reliance on a cloud-based storage system (applying the exception with generic computer technology using a broadly recited well-known algorithm — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D or CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1368 n. 1, 99 USPQ2d) does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Note that industrial systems with controls and sensors and machine learning are well-understood, routine and conventional, see the references cited previously, e.g. Enver and Discenzo, and Das et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20050228511 [0069] or Siddiqui U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190228288 [0024-0025].
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, an industrial system (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), receiving, at a localized anomaly detection system, operational values for a plurality of process parameters from a single sub-system of the industrial system, the operational values comprising at least one control sensor value and at least one indicator sensor value, wherein the localized anomaly detection system is collocated with the industrial system…, wherein the control sensor values represent parameters utilized in closed-loop regulation of process components, and the indicator sensor values represent parameters measured to provide state information of the physical process (insignificant extra-solution activity — mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(d)) and a processor circuit and a non-volatile memory storing a machine learning model configured for execution in real time, such that the machine learning model is executable without reliance on a cloud-based storage system (applying the exception with generic computer technology using a broadly recited well-known algorithm — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D or CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1368 n. 1, 99 USPQ2d) does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are not considered significantly more. Considering the additionally elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 merely describes the abstract process parameters. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 3 merely describes the abstract residual values. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 5 merely indicates the type of abstract process parameter. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 6 merely describes communication using broadly recited generic computer technology (applying the exception with generic computer technology — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D or CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1368 n. 1, 99 USPQ2d and see MPEP 2106.05(d) II and MPEP 2106.05(g), e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 7 generally links the exception to an industrial system that is a single industrial sub-system (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites a programmable logic controller (PLC) that provides a CPU runtime of the PLC including data block (applying the exception with generic computer technology — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D or CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1368 n. 1, 99 USPQ2d). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites execution on a processor circuit included in the PLC (applying the exception with generic computer technology — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D or CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1368 n. 1, 99 USPQ2d). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites transmitting a request for the operational values (applying the exception with generic computer technology — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D or CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1368 n. 1, 99 USPQ2d and MPEP 2106.05(g), e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network) for the purpose of data gathering. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 16 recites a method of detecting and mitigating an operational anomaly, i.e. a process, which is a statutory category of invention. The claim recites:
executing, by the localized anomaly detection system, a machine learning model to generate predicted values for the process parameters based on the operational values;
determining, by the localized anomaly detection system, residual values for the process parameters, each residual value representing a difference between a respective one of the predicted values and a respective one of the operational values;
comparing, by the localized anomaly detection system, the residual values to predefined threshold values to identify deviations indicative of anomalous physical behavior of the PLC system; and
identifying, by the localized anomaly detection system, an anomalous process parameter based on a determination that a particular residual value satisfies a corresponding threshold value, wherein the anomalous process parameter corresponds to a detected anomaly indicative of at least one of a potential anomalous operation or a cyber-attack affecting the PLC system;
executing, by the localized anomaly detection system, an inference model to generate a replacement value for the anomalous process parameter based on the predicted values, wherein the inference model receives, as input, at least one non-anomalous process parameter used by the inference model to predict expected values of the anomalous process parameter during normal operating conditions, the inference model having been trained using historical operational data of the PLC system; and
providing the replacement value to the PLC system for use in place of the anomalous process parameter to maintain operational control of the physical process in real time, wherein the replacement value is used to generate a command configured to place the PLC system in a known state, i.e. under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations comprise a mental process involving analyzing data to predict values, determining residual values and generating a replacement value and a command that may be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea (mental/mathematical processes), see MPEP 2106.04(a).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, i.e. a system with sensors and controls (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), receiving, at a localized anomaly detection system, operational values for a plurality of process parameters from data blocks in a CPU runtime of the PLC system, the operational values comprising at least one control sensor value and at least one indicator sensor value, wherein the control sensor values represent parameters utilized in closed-loop regulation of process components, and the indicator sensor values represent parameters measured to provide state information of the physical process, wherein the localized anomaly detection system comprises a processing circuit and… the model is executable without reliance on a cloud-based storage system; (insignificant extra-solution activity — mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(d)) and a processing circuit and a non-volatile memory storing a machine learning model configured for execution in real time, the localized anomaly detection system being collocated with the PLC system and comprising a non-volatile memory storing the machine learning model such that the machine learning model is executable without reliance on a cloud-based storage system and a programmable logic controller (PLC) and data blocks in a CPU runtime of the PLC system (applying the exception with generic computer technology — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D or CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1368 n. 1, 99 USPQ2d) (applying the exception with generic computer technology using a broadly recited well-known algorithm — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D or CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1368 n. 1, 99 USPQ2d) does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, a system with sensors and controls (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), receiving, at a localized anomaly detection system, operational values for a plurality of process parameters from data blocks in a CPU runtime of the PLC system, the operational values comprising at least one control sensor value and at least one indicator sensor value, wherein the control sensor values represent parameters utilized in closed-loop regulation of process components, and the indicator sensor values represent parameters measured to provide state information of the physical process, wherein the localized anomaly detection system comprises a processing circuit and… the model is executable without reliance on a cloud-based storage system; (insignificant extra-solution activity — mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(d)) and a processing circuit and a non-volatile memory storing a machine learning model configured for execution in real time, the localized anomaly detection system being collocated with the PLC system and comprising a non-volatile memory storing the machine learning model such that the machine learning model is executable without reliance on a cloud-based storage system and a programmable logic controller (PLC) and data blocks in a CPU runtime of the PLC system (applying the exception with generic computer technology — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D or CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1368 n. 1, 99 USPQ2d) (applying the exception with generic computer technology using a broadly recited well-known algorithm — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D or CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1368 n. 1, 99 USPQ2d) does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are not considered significantly more. Considering the additionally elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 25 recites a localized anomaly detection system, i.e. a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. The claim recites:
generate predicted values for the process parameters based on the operational values
determine residual values for the process parameters, each residual value representing a difference between a respective one of the predicted values and a respective one of the operational values;
compare the residual values to corresponding anomaly detection threshold values to identify deviations indicative of anomalous physical behavior of the single sub-system;
identify an anomalous process parameter based on a determination that a particular residual value satisfies a corresponding threshold value, wherein the anomalous process parameter corresponds to a detected anomaly indicative of at least one of a potential anomalous operation or a cyber-attack affecting the industrial system;
execute an inference model to generate a replacement value for the anomalous process parameter based on the predicted values; and
provide the replacement value to the industrial system for use in place of the anomalous process parameter to maintain operational control of the physical process, the replacement value being generated in real time, wherein the replacement value is utilized to generate a command configured to place the industrial system in a known stable condition, i.e. under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations comprise a mental process involving analyzing data to predict values, determining residual values and generating a replacement value and a command that may be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea (mental/mathematical processes), see MPEP 2106.04(a).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, i.e. an industrial system with sensors and controls configured to control a physical process with a sub-system (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), a processor circuit configured to receive operational values for a plurality of process parameters from a single sub-system included in an industrial system configured to control a physical process, the operational values comprising at least one control sensor value and at least one indicator sensor value, wherein the control sensor values represent parameters utilized in closed-loop regulation of process components, and the indicator sensor values represent parameters measured to provide state information of the physical process (insignificant extra-solution activity — mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(d)) and the processor circuit is collocated with the industrial system and is operatively coupled to a nonvolatile memory storing a machine learning model such that the machine learning model is executable without reliance on a cloud-based storage system and a non-volatile memory storing a machine learning model; a memory operatively coupled to the processor circuit, the memory configured to store instructions to execute by the processor circuit (applying the exception with generic computer technology using a broadly recited well-known algorithm — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D or CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1368 n. 1, 99 USPQ2d) does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, an industrial system with sensors and controls configured to control a physical process with a sub-system (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), a processor circuit configured to receive operational values for a plurality of process parameters from a single sub-system included in an industrial system configured to control a physical process, the operational values comprising at least one control sensor value and at least one indicator sensor value, wherein the control sensor values represent parameters utilized in closed-loop regulation of process components, and the indicator sensor values represent parameters measured to provide state information of the physical process (insignificant extra-solution activity — mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(d)) and the processor circuit is collocated with the industrial system and is operatively coupled to a nonvolatile memory storing a machine learning model such that the machine learning model is executable without reliance on a cloud-based storage system and a non-volatile memory storing a machine learning model; a memory operatively coupled to the processor circuit, the memory configured to store instructions to execute by the processor circuit (applying the exception with generic computer technology using a broadly recited well-known algorithm — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D or CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1368 n. 1, 99 USPQ2d) does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are not considered significantly more. Considering the additionally elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 26 merely describes the abstract process parameters. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 28 recites a PLC system and the processor circuit (applying the exception with generic computer technology — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D or CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1368 n. 1, 99 USPQ2d). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 29 merely indicates the type of abstract process parameter. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 30 recites generating a respective alarm based on a comparison of a respective residual value to a respective threshold value for the residual value (mental process). Also note that displaying data is insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A and MPEP 2106.05(d). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 31 recites a method of detecting and mitigating an operational anomaly of an industrial system, i.e. a process, which is a statutory category of invention. The claim recites:
calculate predicted values for the process parameters based on the operational values
determining, by the localized anomaly detection system, residual values for the process parameters, each representing a difference between a respective one of the predicted values and a respective one of the operational values;
comparing, by the localized anomaly detection system, the residual values to corresponding anomaly detection threshold values stored in the localized anomaly detection system to identify deviations indicative of anomalous operation;
identifying, by the localized anomaly detection system, an anomalous process parameter based on a determination that a particular residual value satisfies a corresponding threshold value, wherein the anomalous process parameter corresponds to a detected anomaly that is indicative of at least one of a potential anomalous operation or a cyber-attack on the industrial system;
accessing, by the localized anomaly detection system, an inference model stored in the non-volatile memory to generate a replacement value for the anomalous process parameter, wherein the inference model receives, as input, the at least one non-anomalous process parameter that has not been identified as anomalous, and wherein the replacement value comprises an inferred sensor value representing an expected value of the anomalous process parameter during normal operating conditions of the industrial system; and
providing the replacement value to the industrial system for use in place of the anomalous process parameter to maintain operational control of the physical process, wherein the replacement value is generated in real time and is utilized to generate a replacement command configured to place the industrial system in a known stable condition i.e. under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations comprise a mental process involving analyzing data to predict values, determining residual values and generating a replacement value and a command that may be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea (mental/mathematical processes), see MPEP 2106.04(a).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, i.e. an industrial system with sensors and controls (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), receiving, by a localized anomaly detection system, operational values for a plurality of process parameters from an industrial system, wherein the plurality of process parameters comprise at least one control sensor value and at least one indicator sensor value, wherein the control sensor values represent parameters utilized in closed-loop regulation of process components, and the indicator sensor values represent parameters measured to provide state information of the physical process (insignificant extra-solution activity — mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(d)) and a processing circuit and a non-volatile memory storing a machine learning model configured for execution in real time, the localized anomaly detection system being collocated with the industrial system and including a processor circuit and a non-volatile memory storing a machine learning model such that the machine learning model is executable without reliance on a cloud-based storage system; accessing, by the localized anomaly detection system, a machine learning model stored in a non-volatile memory (applying the exception with generic computer technology using a broadly recited well-known algorithm — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D or CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1368 n. 1, 99 USPQ2d) does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, an industrial system with sensors and controls (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), receiving, by a localized anomaly detection system, operational values for a plurality of process parameters from an industrial system, wherein the plurality of process parameters comprise at least one control sensor value and at least one indicator sensor value, wherein the control sensor values represent parameters utilized in closed-loop regulation of process components, and the indicator sensor values represent parameters measured to provide state information of the physical process (insignificant extra-solution activity — mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(d)) and a processing circuit and a non-volatile memory storing a machine learning model configured for execution in real time, the localized anomaly detection system being collocated with the industrial system and including a processor circuit and a non-volatile memory storing a machine learning model such that the machine learning model is executable without reliance on a cloud-based storage system; accessing, by the localized anomaly detection system, a machine learning model stored in a non-volatile memory (applying the exception with generic computer technology using a broadly recited well-known algorithm — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D or CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1368 n. 1, 99 USPQ2d) (applying the exception with generic computer technology using a broadly recited well-known algorithm — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D or CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1368 n. 1, 99 USPQ2d) does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are not considered significantly more. Considering the additionally elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 33 merely recites where the anomaly detection system is located. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 34 recites the source of the deviating data. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 35 recites that the system forms a feedback loop and overrides signals, i.e. data. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 36 recites ‘initiating a hardware-level control operation based on the replacement control command, the hardware-level control operation comprising an actuation of a physical component of the industrial system, including at least one of adjusting a flow control actuator, modifying a mechanical setpoint, or disabling a process output channel associated with the industrial process’ and at least ‘modify a mechanical setpoint’ is merely changing data. These limitations also constitute mere instructions to apply the exception using a technique recited at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and are not considered significantly more. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pfleger et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20200202008 that discloses a system for monitoring and analyzing programmable logic controllers (PLC) for security threats.
Note that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD G. LINDSAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on (571)272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call the examiner or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/BERNARD G LINDSAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights