DETAILED ACTION
The following final Office action is in response to Applicant’s communication received on 09/29/2025 of request for continued examination.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 12-13, 15-16, 18, and 20 are amended in Applicant’s response. Claim 1 was previously canceled and claims 9 and 21-23 are canceled. Claims 24-27 have been added. Claims 2-8, 10-20 and 24-27 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Amendments
Applicant’s remarks, received 9/29/2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite abstract ideas falling in the mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity groupings.
Specifically, Applicant argues that claim 2, as amended, does not include aspects of contract, legal obligation, advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior, or business relations. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claims are about asset management and tracking including monitoring locations and state information about the assets. Per the specification, assets can be, for example, manufacturing or inventory assets, assets needed to complete tasks, or other tracked assets. Tracking assets in such an environment is reasonably viewed as a commercial interaction, such as sales activities or behaviors, or business relations. The claimed invention is a way to manage the flow of goods or assets through an industrial space. As to applicant’s argument regarding the discussion [0459] and [0461] of the specification, these paragraphs have been removed from the rejection.
Applicant also argues that as amended claim 2 does not recite mental processes, as asserted in the previous action. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim involves extracting (obtaining) information about locations and a detected condition of first asset(s) in a workflow (having a sequence of coordinated operations, a trigger, and actions to be performed in response to the trigger). A user can adjust trigger(s) or the corresponding actions, and monitor second asset(s) in the adjusted industrial workflow. This involves observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and also involves collecting, monitoring, and analyzing information, with the data analysis steps recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. Thus, the claim does recite limitations that reasonable fall within the abstract idea grouping of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III.
Applicant further argues that with respect to step 2A prong 2, claim 2 provides a technical solution to the problem of tracking states in an industrial system and immediately informing operators of events that require attention, as well as allowing a user to easily tailor the workflow monitoring in a granular and responsive way – which has been recognized as a practical application in the courts (See Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, 879 F.3d 1299, 1307 (Fed. Ct. 2018)).
In the instant application, using claim 2 as representative, the additional elements are the system (processor, memory devices), automatically extracting information, a user interface, peripheral devices/sensor data and handoffs. These are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers or merely using computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Looking at the BRI of the claim language, the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome without the details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. For example, while the claim states that the workflow is automatically extracted, there are no details in the claim about how this is accomplished and no recitation of a way to accomplish the result of granular and responsive automated monitoring. Looking to the background of the specification, there is a lot of discussion of BLE enabled asset management (“BLEATS”) with software that continually inputs current real-time data from intelligent tags. Extracting data from these tags is discussed further in 0299 and 0499, for example (noting that extraction may be logical and statistical analysis). None of these details are reflected in current claims 2 or 12. Further, with regards to the peripheral devices/sensor data and handoffs, these are deemed to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and are interpreted as data gathering, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, when considering the claim as a whole and these elements in combination, the claims are viewed to be directed to an abstract idea at step 2A prong 2. (See Berkheimer evidence below in step 2B).
In contrast, the specification in Finjan set forth an improvement to computer functionality and these improvements were reflected in the additional elements explicitly included in the claim language. In Finjan, the claimed invention was a method of virus scanning that scans an application program, generates a security profile identifying any potentially suspicious code in the program, and links the security profile to the application program. The Federal Circuit noted that the recited virus screening was an abstract idea, and that merely performing virus screening on a computer. The patent’s specification described the claimed security profile as identifying both hostile and potentially hostile operations, enabling the invention to protect the user against both previously unknown viruses and "obfuscated code," as compared to traditional virus scanning (which only recognized the presence of previously-identified viruses). The security profile also enables more flexible virus filtering and greater user customization. These benefits (identified in the specification as improving computer functionality) were included additional elements of the claims that reflected that improvement (i.e., specifically recited steps of using the security profile in a particular way).
Applicant argues that claim 4-5 are patent eligible because they improve the administration of monitoring operations, providing enhanced granularity and speed to a user adjusting the automatically extracted industrial workflow. However, similar to above, accessing and storing in a workflow library are recited at a high-level of generality. Further it is argued that new claims 24-27 are additionally patent eligible because they further separate the claims from potential interpretation as directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or a mental process, and/or that make the integration of any asserted abstract idea with a practical application even more clear. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. See discussion above and updated rejection below, as necessitated by amendment.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Per claim 2, Applicant argues that Jayaprakash does not teach automatically extracting an industrial workflow from a position and condition of an asset, and monitor a second asset based on this (as adjusted by the user) and also states Benson does not cure this deficiency.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Jayaprakash, the system (the processors / readers / sign posts / controllers / etc.) interrogates the tags to determine the location and movement of an asset. While Jayaprakash teaches conditions of events and a sensor sensing the condition of a signpost (0019, 0021, 0033, 0066), it does not explicitly teach a sensed condition. Jayaprakash also includes historical information and data for the tag. Benson teaches the use of a suite of remote sensor command and control modules (see 0048, 0068, 0070, 0096) and a sensed condition of the asset (0025, 0084, 0094-0096, where sensors on an object sense a condition, such as on a package). The claim does not recite specifically monitoring a second asset based on extracting an industrial workflow from a position and condition of an asset (as adjusted by the user). The claim instead recites implement an interface to a user and to allow the user to adjust the trigger or the corresponding actions. It does not recite that the user makes adjustments based on any certain information about the flow of the first asset or that that certain sensed or observed information prompts the change or is shown to the user on the interface to inform the adjustment; rather the system merely presents the capability to make an adjustment.
Per claim 4, applicant argues that none of the references disclose accessing a workflow library to automatically extract an industrial workflow. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Jayaprakash teaches that expressed rules are stored in tables and in storage (memory or database), and the rules are accessed and used by the controller. See 0032, 0037, 0044-45, and 0067-68. Per the specification, a library is a repository of rules.
Per claim 6, applicant argues that Jayaprakash and Benson do not disclose automatically extracting the industrial workflow by accessing a user entered workflow, map physical sensor data for the industrial workflow into events, monitor a plurality of leaf nodes sequentially traversing the industrial workflow for the events, wherein the plurality of leaf nodes are associated with the at least one first asset, and determine a pattern in response to the monitoring. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. Jayaprakash teaches tags, readers, and signposts, where rules are specified by an administrator, stored, and accessed for a particular tag (See at least 0045, 0067-68). See Fig 3A, 0019, 0042-43, 0066, where a list of tags is mapped to signpost identifier and signposts are mapped to particular zone). Per the specification, a leaf node is a device associated with an object or asset. Jayaprakash teaches that a leaf node traverses or moves with the asset in the workflow in at least 0048, 0069-70, where the reader receives information from a tag and then the system performs validation. A tagged asset is monitored with consideration for movement history/pattern, a facility attribute, and an asset protection policy.
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 2-8, 10-20 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four categories of statutory subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In Applicant’s case, the claims pass Step 1.
However, for Step 2A Prong One, independent claim 2 recites an abstract idea of managing an industrial workflow. The limitations that describe an abstract idea are indicated in bold below:
A system for managing an industrial workflow, comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more memory devices, the one or more memory devices storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
automatically extracting the industrial workflow in response to a plurality of locations of at least one first asset, and a sensed condition of that at least one first asset corresponding to the plurality of locations, the industrial workflow comprising
a sequence of coordinated operations between entities associated with the industrial workflow;
a trigger associated with at least one aspect of the industrial workflow; and
corresponding actions to be performed in response to the trigger;
implement an interface to a user, and to allow the user to adjust at least one of the trigger or the corresponding actions; and
monitor at least one second asset in response to the adjusted industrial workflow, wherein the at least one second asset comprises a same asset type of the at least one first asset;
wherein the trigger includes at least one of:
asset condition triggers based on sensor data received from peripheral devices associated with the asset; or
asset transition triggers based on handoffs between different points of interest.
The limitations indicated above fall under the abstract idea subject matter grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity because managing and adjusting workflow including asset condition and asset transition triggers and actions in response to triggers as well as monitoring assets according to the workflow relates to and falls under the sub-grouping of commercial or legal interactions with respect to sales activities or business relations and also under the sub-grouping of managing personal behavior.
The limitations also fall under the abstract idea subject matter grouping of mental processes. If a claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer elements, then it is still in the mental processes category. The claimed steps of determine, allow a user to adjust, and monitor cover performance in the mind or with aid of pen and paper by observing, reading, recording, evaluating, and analyzing. The recitation of a system and interface does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea. For example, with the telephone unit and server in the TLI Communications decision, the court noted that even though a claim may recite concrete, tangible components, these components do not exclude the claim from the reach of the abstract-idea inquiry (See TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC No. 15-1372 (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016)).
For Step 2A Prong Two, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of a system and interface and an aspect being performed automatically to implement the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers or merely using computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f) regarding mere instructions to implement on a computer and merely using a computer as a tool. These additional elements along with the peripheral devices/sensor data and handoffs, do not go beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h) regarding generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Use of a system and interface in the claim at such a high level of generality does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Similarly, the peripheral devices/sensor data do not reflect an improvement in sensor technology as they are invoked in their normal capacity to provide sensor data like the telephone unit and server in TLI Communications were invoked in their normal capacity for their known functions. In addition, the peripheral devices/sensor data and handoffs are interpreted as data gathering which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). As explained in the Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d at 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2015) decision (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359), “[s]teps that do nothing more than spell out what it means to ‘apply it on a computer’ cannot confer patent-eligibility.” Thus, the generic computer elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. When considering the claim as a whole and how the additional elements individually and in combination are used, the additional elements do not reflect integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely using computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Applicant’s originally filed specification (see for example paragraphs [0475]-[0477] - The methods and systems described herein may be deployed in part or in whole through a machine that executes computer software on a server, client, firewall, gateway, hub, router, or other such computer and/or networking hardware) supports this conclusion. Also, the recited interface is interpreted as a generic computer component similar to other interfaces recited at a high level of generality and considered well-understood, routine and conventional based on various court decisions such as Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., (Fed. Cir. 2017) (‘002 patent) and Intellectual Ventures v. Cap. One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015) (‘382 patent)). For the peripheral devices/sensor data and handoff features interpreted as data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong Two, this has been reevaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional based on various court decisions such as Symantec, OIP Techs., and buySAFE (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) which convey that mere receiving or transmitting of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here. When considering the claim as a whole and how the additional elements individually and in combination are used, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims include the limitations of the independent claim and therefore recite the same abstract idea. Accordingly, the analysis and rationale discussed above regarding the independent claim and abstract idea also apply to the dependent claims. Also, the dependent claims further limit the abstract idea to a more narrow abstract idea by including further details of determining the industrial workflow to include by accessing a workflow library (claim 4) and by accessing a user entered workflow physical sensor data for the industrial workflow into events, monitoring a plurality of leaf nodes associated with the at least one first asset sequentially traversing the industrial workflow for the events, and determining a pattern in response to the monitoring (claim 6) as well as update the user entered workflow into the industrial workflow in response to the determined pattern (claim 7), detect whether an event has occurred in response to the trigger (claim 8), determine whether an event has occurred in response to a sequence of states of the leaf node (claim 10), and provide at least one of an alert or a notification in response to the detected event (claim 11), providing an alert to a factory manager (claim 24), providing an asset condition alert (claim 25), asset condition alerts corresponding to asset conditions selected from an asset inventory level, an asset storage availability, or an asset temperature condition (claim 26), and an expected behavior of the at least one second asset, wherein the trigger comprises determining whether the actual behavior of the at least one second asset matches or deviates from the expected behavior (claim 27). Such narrowing creates a narrower abstract idea but does not transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Additional elements recited in the dependent claims include generic processing components/functionality recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., wherein the workflow management system is further configured to store the adjusted industrial workflow in the workflow library (claim 5)) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., wherein the workflow management system further comprises a reader node, wherein the at least one asset comprises a leaf node (claim 8), and wherein each of the entities associated with the industrial workflow comprises at least one of a sensor, a person, a machine, or the at least one asset (claim 3)) which do not impose any meaningful limits to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide for an inventive concept.
Claims 12-20 (directed to a method) recite limitations similar to those recited in the system claims addressed above and therefore the same analysis above with respect to the system claims also applies. While not recited in the system set of claims, features of method claim 13 further narrow the abstract idea to include mapping a leaf node traversing an industrial system into a sequence of events and mapping the event sequence into a set of expected event sequences with the set of expected event sequences comprising the industrial workflow. Also, method claim 13 and claim 14 recite generic processing components/functionality recited at a high-level of generality (e.g. saving the sequence into an event sequence database (claim 13) and saving the industrial workflow in a workflow library (claim 14) and wherein the reader node is configured to monitor the leaf node using a Bluetooth low energy (BLE) protocol (claim 20), which do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application and are also well-understood, routine and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) iv. Storing information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. Inc. and OIP Techs)).
Applicant’s claims are not patent-eligible.
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 2-8, 10-20, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaprakash et al US 2009/0309734 A1 (hereinafter “Jayaprakash”) in view of Benson et al US 2006/0291657 A1 (hereinafter “Benson”).
Regarding claim 2, Jayaprakash teaches s system for managing an industrial workflow (Figs. 1 and 2 – system), comprising:
one or more processors (Figs. 1, 2); and
one or more memory devices, the one or more memory devices storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (Figs. 1, 2):
automatically extracting the industrial workflow in response to a plurality of locations of at least one first asset (Figs. 4, 5A, 0050), the industrial workflow comprising:
a sequence of coordinated operations between entities associated with the industrial workflow (Figs. 1 and 2 – system; 0031-0035 - rules for asset movement including in industrial environment with entities such as doors, zones, signposts and tags and readers (0027-0030); 0066 – policy/rule…for example specify a particular asset can be located in a certain zone at a particular time of day but not in that same zone at another time of day);
a trigger associated with at least one aspect of the industrial workflow (0049, 0050, 0052 – validation or “trigger” determinations); and
corresponding actions to be performed in response to the trigger (0019, 0048, 0051, 0052 - signals are generated and sent according to various detected conditions or events);
implement an interface to a user, and to allow the user to adjust at least one of the trigger or the corresponding actions (0066 – policy/rule…for example specify a particular asset can be located in a certain zone at a particular time of day but not in that same zone at another time of day; 0019, 0048, 0051, 0052 –signals are generated and sent according to various detected conditions or events; 0067 – administrator specifies the rules for a particular tag, identifies a zone for the frame of reference, specifies reader location, and specifies a signpost location; 0068 - system configured to receive a rule expressed in a graphical format by presenting a graphical user interface to a user); and
monitor at least one second asset in response to the adjusted industrial workflow, wherein the at least one second asset comprise the same asset type of the at least one first asset (Figs. 1 and 2 – system; 0048 – reader receives information from tag then performs validation meaning asset is monitored; 0067 – administrator specifies the rules for a particular tag, identifies a zone for the frame of reference, specifies reader location, and specifies a signpost location; 0069, 0070 – monitoring for a tagged asset with consideration for movement history, a facility attribute, and an asset protection policy; 0002, 0015 which discuss assets including those of the same type)
While Jayaprakash teaches sensors, conditions of events, and a sensor sensing the condition of a signpost (0019, 0021, 0033, 0066), it does not explicitly teach a sensed condition of the asset and, further, Jayaprakash teachings of “triggers” does not teach: wherein the trigger includes at least one of: asset condition triggers based on sensor data received from peripheral devices associated with the asset; or asset transition triggers based on handoffs between different points of interest of the industrial workflow. However, in analogous art of monitoring remotely located objects, Benson remedies the deficiency with teachings about use of a suite of remote sensor command and control modules (see 0048, 0096) and communicating messages (see 0068, 0070 – sensor measurement data). Benson further discloses a sensed condition of the asset (0025, 0084, 0094-0096, where sensors on an object sense a condition, such as on a package).
It 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 to modify the object monitoring teachings of Jayaprakash to include the sensor teachings of Benson in order to accurately track objects and sense conditions concerning the object.
Regarding claim 3, Jayaprakash in view of Benson teaches the elements of the system of claim 2 from which this claim depends and Jayaprakash further teaches wherein each one of the entities associated with the industrial workflow comprises at least one of a sensor, a leaf node associated with a person, a machine, an identified location associated with the industrial workflow, or a leaf node corresponding to the at least one first asset or the at least one second asset (Figs. 1 and 2 – system; 0031-0035 - rules for asset movement including in industrial environment with entities such as doors, zones, signposts and tags and readers (0027-0030); 0066 – policy/rule/sensor…for example specify a particular asset can be located in a certain zone at a particular time of day but not in that same zone at another time of day).
Regarding claim 4, Jayaprakash in view of Benson teaches the elements of the system of claim 2 from which this claim depends and Jayaprakash further teaches wherein the one or more memory devices further store instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to automatically extract the industrial workflow by accessing a workflow library (0032, 0037, 0044 – at the time of system initialization, the rules expressed are converted by controller 60A meaning they are “accessed”; 0045 – rules stored in memory or database).
Regarding claim 5, Jayaprakash in view of Benson teaches the elements of the system of claim 4 from which this claim depends and Jayaprakash further teaches wherein the one or more memory devices further store instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to store the adjusted industrial workflow in the workflow library (0067 – administrator specifies the rules for a particular tag, identifies a zone for the frame of reference, specifies reader location, and specifies a signpost location; 0068 - system configured to receive a rule expressed in a graphical format by presenting a graphical user interface to a user; 0045 – rules stored in memory or database).
Regarding claim 6, Jayaprakash in view of Benson teaches the elements of the system of claim 2 from which this claim depends and Jayaprakash further teaches wherein the one or more memory devices further store instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to automatically extract the industrial workflow by accessing a user entered workflow (0067 – administrator specifies the rules for a particular tag, identifies a zone for the frame of reference, specifies reader location, and specifies a signpost location; 0068 - system configured to receive a rule expressed in a graphical format by presenting a graphical user interface to a user; 0045 – rules stored in memory or database; 0032, 0037, 0044 – at the time of system initialization, the rules expressed are converted by controller 60A meaning they are “accessed”), map physical sensor data for the industrial workflow into events (0019 – conditions and events; 0042 – list of tags mapped to signpost identifier; 0043 – each signpost mapped to particular zone), monitor a plurality of leaf nodes sequentially traversing the industrial workflow for the events, wherein the plurality of leaf nodes are associated with the at least one first asset (0048 – reader receives information from tag then performs validation meaning asset is monitored; 0069, 0070 – monitoring for a tagged asset with consideration for movement history, a facility attribute, and an asset protection policy), and determine a pattern in response to the monitoring (0069, 0070 – monitoring movement, considering history).
Regarding claim 7, Jayaprakash in view of Benson teaches the elements of the system of claim 6 from which this claim depends and Jayaprakash further teaches wherein the one or more memory devices further store instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to update the user entered workflow into the industrial workflow in response to the determined pattern (0069, 0070 – monitoring, considering history; 0067 – administrator specifies the rules for a particular tag, identifies a zone for the frame of reference, specifies reader location, and specifies a signpost location; 0068 - system configured to receive a rule expressed in a graphical format by presenting a graphical user interface to a user; 0045 – rules stored in memory or database).
Regarding claim 8, Jayaprakash in view of Benson teaches the elements of the system of claim 6 from which this claim depends and Jayaprakash further teaches wherein the second asset comprises a leaf node, and wherein the one or more memory devices further store instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to detect whether an event has occurred in response to the trigger (0019 – conditions and events; 0069, 0070 – monitoring movement; 0049, 0050, 0052 – validation or “trigger” determinations. Fig 3B).
Regarding claim 10, Jayaprakash in view of Benson teaches the elements of the system of claim 8 from which this claim depends and Jayaprakash further teaches wherein the one or more memory devices further store instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to determine whether an event has occurred in response to a sequence of states of the leaf node (0019 – conditions and events; 0069, 0070 – monitoring movement; 0049, 0050, 0052 – validation or “trigger” determinations).
Regarding claim 11, Jayaprakash in view of Benson teaches the elements of the system of claim 8 from which this claim depends and Jayaprakash further teaches the one or more memory devices further store instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to provide at least one of an alert or a notification in response to the detected event (0048, 0051, 0052 - violation signals sent).
Claims 12, 15-20 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited in claims 2 and 3-8 and therefore are rejected using the same art and rationale applied above.
Regarding claim 13, Jayaprakash in view of Benson teaches the elements of the system of claim 12 from which this claim depends and Jayaprakash further teaches wherein the determining the industrial workflow comprises: mapping a leaf node corresponding to the at least one first asset traversing an industrial system into a sequence of events; saving the sequence of events into an event sequence database; mapping the event sequence database into a set of expected event sequences, the set of expected event sequences comprising the industrial workflow (0067 – administrator specifies the rules for a particular tag, identifies a zone for the frame of reference, specifies reader location, and specifies a signpost location; 0019 – conditions and events; 0042 – list of tags mapped to signpost identifier; 0043 – each signpost mapped to particular zone; 0048 – reader receives information from tag then performs validation meaning asset is monitored; 0069, 0070 – monitoring for a tagged asset with consideration for movement history, a facility attribute, and an asset protection policy; 0045 – rules stored in memory or database).
Regarding claim 14, Jayaprakash in view of Benson teaches the elements of the system of claim 13 from which this claim depends and Jayaprakash further teaches further comprising saving the industrial workflow in a workflow library (0045 – rules stored in memory or database).
Regarding claim 24, Jayaprakash in view of Benson teaches the elements of the system of claim 2 from which this claim depends and Jayaprakash further teaches wherein the action comprises providing an alert to a factory manager associated with the industrial workflow (0057-0058, 0065, 0071, which describe alarms and messages in a building such as a manufacturing plant).
Regarding claim 25, Jayaprakash in view of Benson teaches the elements of the system of claim 2 from which this claim depends and Jayaprakash further teaches wherein the action comprises providing an asset condition alert (0019, 0061, where the condition is a zone violation for example).
Regarding claim 26, Jayaprakash in view of Benson teaches the elements of the system of claim 25 from which this claim depends. While Jayaprakash teaches asset alert conditions (0019, 0061, where the condition is a zone violation for example), Jayaprakash does not explicitly disclose and Benson discloses wherein the asset condition alert corresponds to an asset condition selected from: an asset inventory level; an asset storage availability; or an asset temperature condition (0040, 0074, 0084, 0094-0095, where objects have temperature sensors and alarms and alerts occur based on alarm conditions).
It 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 to modify the object monitoring teachings of Jayaprakash to include the sensor teachings of Benson in order to accurately track objects and sense conditions concerning the object, and to take immediate action when there is a concern (Benson, 0095, 0147).
Regarding claim 27, Jayaprakash in view of Benson teaches the elements of the system of claim 2 from which this claim depends and Jayaprakash further teaches wherein the industrial workflow comprises an expected behavior of the at least one second asset, and wherein the trigger comprises determining whether an actual behavior of the at least one second asset matches or deviates from the expected behavior (0066-67 – policy/rule…for example specify a particular asset can be located in a certain zone at a particular time of day but not in that same zone at another time of day; 0019, 0047-48, 0051, 0052 –signals are generated and sent according to various detected conditions or events; Fig. 4, 0069, 0070 – monitoring and validating movement of tagged asset).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bachman (US 20110153051) discloses workflow determination and editing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETH V BOSWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6737. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at (571) 272-5350. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625