DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-6, 8-11 have been presented for examination.
Claim 7 is cancelled.
Claim 11 is newly added.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
PRIORITY
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to application JAPAN 2021-141674 filed on 08/31/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/20/25 and 5/1/26 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS’ as to the merits.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
i) Applicants argue that the claims represent an inventive concept. Applicants further argue that claims directed to a user interface are directed to patentable subject matter. The Examiner notes that the claims merely recite displaying options that can then be selected by an operator. This is akin to a generic GUI which allows for the selection of multiple windows, applications, and/or elements. As such the claims do no improve the functionality of the computer. Rather the claims merely display elements to a user for which the user is able to select an element which represents the basic and generic definition of a GUI. The Examiner further notes that the claims alleged interface appears similar to “viii. Arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)” for which the “courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality.” MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). As such the 101 rejection is MAINTAINED.
ii) Applicants have not addressed the previously presented 101 rejection in view of the recitation in claim 10 of “computer-readable recording medium” and therefore the rejection is also MAINTAINED.
ii) Applicants argue that Blevins does not teach or suggest a decision-support tool based on comparing future outcomes of multiple operational strategies. Applicants further argue that “the 'plurality of operation pattern plans' is not taught by Blevins. Blevins' 'plurality of model data sets' are for simulating different *fault scenarios* (e.g., 'what if sensor X fails?'), and not for comparing different *future operational choices* (e.g., 'what happens if I choose plan A vs. plan B?'). Consequently, Blevins also fails to teach 'outputting the operation pattern plans and respective calculation results in association with each other' for comparison. Blevins' display (FIG. 16) shows the *current health status* derived from a single diagnostic simulation, not a comparative list of future plans and their predicted outcomes. The amendments to claim 1 focus on the unique nature of the output. It explicitly recites the feature of claim 7 that the display is a 'comparative format' specifically designed 'to enable an operator to select' a plan. This distinguishes the invention from Blevins' display (FIG. 16), which is a non-comparative, diagnostic dashboard showing current device health.” However Blevins recites in at least Column 5, Lines 28-39, “(17) In some embodiments, the system further includes a process graphic stored in the one or more computer-readable media and adapted for use by the one or more execution engines in generating a user interface having a graphic display of the plurality of physical devices modeled by the process simulation module. The graphic display is configured to provide a plurality of display elements representative of current operating conditions of the plurality of physical devices, respectively, in accordance with the multivariate statistical analysis. Each display element of the plurality of display elements may be individually selectable to configure the analysis module.” The ability to select different display elements corresponding to the operating conditions of the device reads on the newly amended claim limitation. The Examiner further notes at least Fig. 15 which as per Column 44, Lines 67-Column 45, Line 4 recites “For example, the process module 502 may provide model data including an indication of a future operational state of the process. In one exemplary case, such future operational states may be derived from (by the process module 502 or otherwise) information or data provided by a product specification sheet.” Therefore the prior art rejection is MAINTAINED.
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.
6. Claims 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
i) In view of Step 1 of the analysis, claim(s) 1 is directed to a statutory category as a machine, claim 9 is directed to a statutory category as a process, and claim 10 is directed to an article of manufacture as a computer-readable recording medium, which each represent a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-6 and 8-11 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
ii) In view of Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1, 9, and 10 recite the abstract idea of calculating the behavior of a plant based on given information which constitutes an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper as well as and alternatively as Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 9 and 10, the limitation of “a calculator configured to calculate a behavior of an actual plant by simulation using a virtual plant following an operational status of the actual plant with respect to each of a plurality of operation pattern plans including operation information in which operations on the actual plant and times of execution at which the operations are executed are associated with each other in a comparative format to enable an operator to select one of the plurality of operation pattern plans for execution.” would be analogous to a person evaluating the functioning of a plant based on given data values and selecting one of the plans to execute and thus fall under Mental Processes. In addition, the steps would Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As to claim 10, other than reciting “a computer” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
iii) In view of Step 2A, Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In claim 10, the additional element of “computer-readable recording medium”, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitation in claim 1, “a display processor configured to output the operation pattern plans and respective calculation results in association with each other”, and in claim 9 “outputting the operation pattern plans and respective calculation results in association with each other” and in claim 10, “outputting the operation pattern plans and respective calculation results in association with each other” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of claim 1, “a display processor configured to output the operation pattern plans and respective calculation results in association with each other”, and in claim 9 “outputting the operation pattern plans and respective calculation results in association with each other” and in claim 10, “outputting the operation pattern plans and respective calculation results in association with each other” alternatively can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
iv) In view of Step 2B, claims 1, 9, and 10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In claim 10, the additional element of “computer-readable recording medium” merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitation in claim 1, “a display processor configured to output the operation pattern plans and respective calculation results in association with each other”, and in claim 9 “outputting the operation pattern plans and respective calculation results in association with each other” and in claim 10, “outputting the operation pattern plans and respective calculation results in association with each other” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of claim 1, “a display processor configured to output the operation pattern plans and respective calculation results in association with each other”, and in claim 9 “outputting the operation pattern plans and respective calculation results in association with each other” and in claim 10, “outputting the operation pattern plans and respective calculation results in association with each other” alternatively can be viewed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 further defines elements of the calculation of respective claim 1 which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 3 further defines elements of the calculation which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 4 further defines elements and criteria of the calculation which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 5 further defines elements and criteria of the calculation which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 6 further defines elements and criteria of the calculation which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 8 further defines display and input of the calculation which represents mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation alternatively can be viewed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 11 further defines display and performance of the calculation which represents mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation alternatively can be viewed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
v) Accordingly, claims 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
vi) As per claim 10 they are rejected because the applicant has provided evidence that the applicant intends the term "computer-readable recording medium" to include non-statutory matter. The applicant describes a computer-readable storage medium as including open ended language and thus it is reasonable to interpret it to include all possible mediums, including non-statutory mediums (see paragraph “[0108] The program can be distributed via a network, such as the Internet. The program can be recorded in a computer-readable recording medium, such as a hard disk, a flexible disk (FD), a CD-ROM, a magneto-optical disk (MO), or a digital versatile disc (DVD), can be read by a computer from the recording medium, and thus can be executed.”) The words "storage" and/or "recording" are insufficient to convey only statutory embodiments to one of ordinary skill in the art absent an explicit and deliberate limiting definition or clear differentiation between storage media and transitory media in the disclosure. As such, the claim(s) is/are drawn to a form of energy. Energy is not one of the four categories of invention and therefore this/these claim(s) is/are not statutory. Energy is not a series of steps or and thus is not a process. Energy is not a physical article or object and as such is not a machine or manufacture. Energy is not a combination of substances and therefore not a composition of matter. The Examiner suggests amending the claim(s) to read as a "non-transitory machine-readable storage medium".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
7. Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Blevins et al. U.S. Patent No. 7729789.
Regarding Claim 1: The reference discloses An information processing device comprising:
a calculator configured to calculate a behavior of an actual plant by simulation using a virtual plant following an operational status of the actual plant with respect to each of a plurality of operation pattern plans including operation information in which operations on the actual plant and times of execution at which the operations are executed are associated with each other; (Column 32, Lines 10-34, “(103) Alternatively, or in addition, a communication connection (illustrated by the dotted line 219) may be configured between the output of the AO block 208 in the process control module 200 and an input of the valve element 211 which models the actual valve being controlled by the AO block 208 in the process plant. Here, the valve element 211 may use data obtained from the actual valve or sent to the actual valve to determine whether the simulated data (i.e., the measurements and parameters calculated by SIM block of the valve element 211) is correct or matches with the data used in the actual control routine 200. If there is a significant difference, the process module 202 may generate an alarm or alert indicating a potential problem or may use the real data to provide better or more accurate simulation within the process module 202. For example, the valve element 211 may use the actual control data in the SIM block for the position of the valve element 211 to reflect the actual valve position in the simulation. Of course, other connections between the elements in the process module 202 and the control module 200 may be made to provide data flow in either direction between these two modules for performing enhanced control and/or simulation. Still further, any of the data from the process module 202 or the control module 200 may be automatically made available to the operator via a graphic display associated with the process module 202.”)
and a display processor configured to output the operation pattern plans and respective calculation results in association with each other in a comparative format to enable an operator to select one of the plurality of operation pattern plans for execution. (Column 5, Lines 28-39, “(17) In some embodiments, the system further includes a process graphic stored in the one or more computer-readable media and adapted for use by the one or more execution engines in generating a user interface having a graphic display of the plurality of physical devices modeled by the process simulation module. The graphic display is configured to provide a plurality of display elements representative of current operating conditions of the plurality of physical devices, respectively, in accordance with the multivariate statistical analysis. Each display element of the plurality of display elements may be individually selectable to configure the analysis module.” Examiner Notes: The ability to select different display elements corresponding to the operating conditions of the device reads on the newly amended claim limitation. The Examiner further notes at least Fig. 15 which as per Column 44, Lines 67-Column 45, Line 4 recites “For example, the process module 502 may provide model data including an indication of a future operational state of the process. In one exemplary case, such future operational states may be derived from (by the process module 502 or otherwise) information or data provided by a product specification sheet.”)
Regarding Claim 2: The reference discloses The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the calculation unit is configured to generate a calculation result including a calculation value of at least one evaluation item representing a behavior of the actual plant by simulation using the operation information with respect to each of the operation pattern plans. (Column 32, Lines 10-34, “(103) Alternatively, or in addition, a communication connection (illustrated by the dotted line 219) may be configured between the output of the AO block 208 in the process control module 200 and an input of the valve element 211 which models the actual valve being controlled by the AO block 208 in the process plant. Here, the valve element 211 may use data obtained from the actual valve or sent to the actual valve to determine whether the simulated data (i.e., the measurements and parameters calculated by SIM block of the valve element 211) is correct or matches with the data used in the actual control routine 200. If there is a significant difference, the process module 202 may generate an alarm or alert indicating a potential problem or may use the real data to provide better or more accurate simulation within the process module 202. For example, the valve element 211 may use the actual control data in the SIM block for the position of the valve element 211 to reflect the actual valve position in the simulation. Of course, other connections between the elements in the process module 202 and the control module 200 may be made to provide data flow in either direction between these two modules for performing enhanced control and/or simulation. Still further, any of the data from the process module 202 or the control module 200 may be automatically made available to the operator via a graphic display associated with the process module 202.”)
Regarding Claim 3: The reference discloses The information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the calculation unit is configured to receive a setting of a simulation period in which a start time and an end time are specified, and when the start time comes, calculate a behavior of the actual plant at the end time at a point of the start time with respect to the operation pattern plans based on the state of the actual plant at the point of the start time and generate the calculation results corresponding to the operation pattern plans, respectively. (Column 44, Lines 18-33, “The user may elect to use all correlated process and simulated data associated with the process module 502 to be automatically included in a PCA. Alternatively, the user may elect to include only a portion of that data. Correlated data may be automatically determined utilizing the process connections in the process module 502, for example, and may be automatically included in the calculations. Further, the user may elect to use data associated with other portions of the process plant (e.g., data from other process modules, control modules, etc.). Also, the user may elect to examine certain time periods in which data is to be examined. In this case, an historic plot of parameters could be displayed to the user and the user could then be given the option to select a time frame to be considered in generation of a PCA representation. The PCA representation could then be automatically generated using the selected time frame of data.”)
Regarding Claim 4: The reference discloses The information processing device according to claim 3, wherein the calculation unit is configured to, when the time of execution is reached after generation of the calculation results at the point of the start time with respect to the respective operation pattern plans, update the calculation results by re-simulation using a process state value on a process of the actual plant at the time of execution. (Column 38, Lines 41-54, “(122) Further, other modules may have access to real-time values of states, parameters, properties, outputs, etc., of the analysis modules 308. For example, process graphics displayed on operator workstations may be modified based on data from one or more analysis modules 308. As just one example, if an analysis module 308 determines that a sensor is defective, a process graphic displayed on an operator workstation could be modified to indicate the defective sensor. For example, a color of a depiction of the sensor could be changed, the depiction of the sensor could be flashed on and off, a window could be displayed next to the depiction of the sensor indicating it may be defective, etc. Additionally, the analysis module 308 could generate alerts and alarms and could screen alerts and alarms of other modules, for example.”)
Regarding Claim 5: The reference discloses The information processing device according to claim 3, wherein the calculation unit is configured to, when a disturbance that has an effect on operating the actual plant occurs after generation of the calculation results at the point of the start time with respect to the respective operation pattern plans, update the calculation results by re-simulation using a process state value on a process of the actual plant at a point of occurrence of the disturbance. (Column 38, Lines 41-54, “(122) Further, other modules may have access to real-time values of states, parameters, properties, outputs, etc., of the analysis modules 308. For example, process graphics displayed on operator workstations may be modified based on data from one or more analysis modules 308. As just one example, if an analysis module 308 determines that a sensor is defective, a process graphic displayed on an operator workstation could be modified to indicate the defective sensor. For example, a color of a depiction of the sensor could be changed, the depiction of the sensor could be flashed on and off, a window could be displayed next to the depiction of the sensor indicating it may be defective, etc. Additionally, the analysis module 308 could generate alerts and alarms and could screen alerts and alarms of other modules, for example.”)
Regarding Claim 6: The reference discloses The information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the calculation unit is configured to when the disturbance occurs, generate a new operation pattern plan according to a status of the actual plant at a point of the disturbance, and generate the calculation result by the simulation using the process state value with respect to the new operation pattern. (Column 39, Lines 1-31, “Generally, a user interface for configuring an analysis module such as the analysis module 308 may include a set of predefined rules or criteria that may be utilized by an operator. For example, predefined rules may include predefined fact templates and corresponding action templates corresponding to actions to be taken in response to the facts. For example, fact templates and action templates may be provided for a particular process plant entity or unit, such as a heater unit. If the user decides to utilize a particular fact template and a particular actions template for a heater process module, an analysis module configuration application may automatically create a rule or criterion corresponding to the fact template and the action template. Further, the rule or criterion may be automatically bound to the correct process objects in the process module. Additionally, a user may be permitted to modify the predefined rules and/or create new rules. For example, an operator may be permitted to browse and select facts associated with the process plant. Further, a user may be permitted to create new rules suitable for evaluation by a CLIPS expert system tool or some other suitable classification tool. Further, the user interface may permit a user to observe the operation of the analysis module 308 during operation. For example, facts specified by the rules 324 may be displayed to the user during execution of the expert module. Further, the user may be able to modify and/or specify these facts in order to observe the operation of the analysis module 308 in response to those facts. Further, the user interface may permit the user to insert break points within the rules so that the state of the analysis module 308 at the break points may be observed, for example.”)
Regarding Claim 8: The reference discloses The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the calculation unit is configured to receive choosing of an operation pattern plan according to which an execution is to be made from among the operation pattern plans that are displayed in association with the respective calculation results, and execute each set of operation information contained in the chosen operation pattern plan on the actual plant. (Column 39, Lines 1-21, “Generally, a user interface for configuring an analysis module such as the analysis module 308 may include a set of predefined rules or criteria that may be utilized by an operator. For example, predefined rules may include predefined fact templates and corresponding action templates corresponding to actions to be taken in response to the facts. For example, fact templates and action templates may be provided for a particular process plant entity or unit, such as a heater unit. If the user decides to utilize a particular fact template and a particular actions template for a heater process module, an analysis module configuration application may automatically create a rule or criterion corresponding to the fact template and the action template. Further, the rule or criterion may be automatically bound to the correct process objects in the process module. Additionally, a user may be permitted to modify the predefined rules and/or create new rules. For example, an operator may be permitted to browse and select facts associated with the process plant. Further, a user may be permitted to create new rules suitable for evaluation by a CLIPS expert system tool or some other suitable classification tool.”)
Regarding Claim 9: The reference discloses A calculation method comprising: calculating a behavior of an actual plant by simulation using a virtual plant following an operational status of the actual plant with respect to each of a plurality of operation pattern plans including operation information in which operations on the actual plant and times of execution at which the operations are executed are associated with each other; and outputting the operation pattern plans and respective calculation results in association with each other. (See rejection for claim 1)
Regarding Claim 10: The reference discloses A computer-readable recording medium having stored therein a calculation program that causes a computer to perform a process comprising: calculating a behavior of an actual plant by simulation using a virtual plant following an operational status of the actual plant with respect to each of a plurality of operation pattern plans including operation information in which operations on the actual plant and times of execution at which the operations are executed are associated with each other; and outputting the operation pattern plans and respective calculation results in association with each other. (See rejection for claim 1)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
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.
8. Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blevins in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20140330542, hereafter S.
Regarding Claim 11: Blevins discloses The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein: the calculator is configured to calculate a predicted future behavior of the actual plant by simulation using the virtual plant following the operational status of the actual plant with respect to each of a plurality of operation pattern plans, each plan representing a different selectable future operational strategy and including operation information in which operations on the actual plant and times of execution at which the operations are executed are associated with each other;… enable operator selection of one of the plans for execution on the actual plant. (Blevins. Column 44, Lines 18-33, “The user may elect to use all correlated process and simulated data associated with the process module 502 to be automatically included in a PCA. Alternatively, the user may elect to include only a portion of that data. Correlated data may be automatically determined utilizing the process connections in the process module 502, for example, and may be automatically included in the calculations. Further, the user may elect to use data associated with other portions of the process plant (e.g., data from other process modules, control modules, etc.). Also, the user may elect to examine certain time periods in which data is to be examined. In this case, an historic plot of parameters could be displayed to the user and the user could then be given the option to select a time frame to be considered in generation of a PCA representation. The PCA representation could then be automatically generated using the selected time frame of data.” See also Column 5, Lines 17-28, “(16) In some cases, the model data includes process parameter data indicative of a future operational state of the process based on the process measurements, such that the implementation of the multivariate statistical analysis utilizes the process parameter data to evaluate the future operational state of the process. Alternatively or additionally, the model data includes a non-measured process parameter indicative of the operation of the process and derived from the process measurements, such that the configuration of the analysis module is adapted to analyze the non-measured process parameter.”)
Blevins does not explicitly recite and the display processor is configured to simultaneously output the plurality of operation pattern plans and their respective calculation results in association with each other in a side-by-side comparative format to enable operator selection of one of the plans for execution on the actual plant.
However S recites and the display processor is configured to simultaneously output the plurality of operation pattern plans and their respective calculation results in association with each other in a side-by-side comparative format to enable operator selection of one of the plans for execution on the actual plant. (S. “[0012] The present invention further includes a method wherein the actual real-time processing plant operation status data is used as feedback and provided to the at least one simulation model, thereby improving accuracy of the at least one simulation model. The present invention further includes a method wherein a plurality of scenarios may be simulated by adjusting model parameters of the at least one simulation model and further performing the simulation. The present invention includes a further step of: applying a scenario, from a plurality of scenarios, to the set of assets, to resolve an issue. The present invention includes the further steps of: locating at least one plant identifier, within the actual real-time processing plant operation status data, when presented with a search command by the at least one user; associating the at least one plant identifier to at least one simulation model variable of the at least one simulation model; displaying the at least one plant identifier together with the at least one simulation model variable and together with the at least one set of further details of the set of correlated data that include one of, based on user selection, and over a user-specified time range, at least one of the following: live data, real-time data, time-averaged data, historical averaged data, trend data, or historical performance trend data.” See also [0045] “The plant data and simulation data together form the correlated data which is visually presented to the user through a computer display 40 in a "side-by-side" manner, which means that the plant data and the simulation data may be together, concurrent, time synchronized, streaming, visually corresponding, correlated, overlaid, contiguous, side-by-side, neighboring, adjoining, adjacent, juxtaposed, or associated in nature, or form a nexus.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the side by side display aspect of S for the operation state of Blevins since as per S “[0008] The present invention includes a system that provides a way for process or plant engineers to view model results side-by-side (effectively time synchronized) with plant data. This system immensely helps by providing sophisticated graphical user interface techniques with a collaborative trouble shooting workflow. The workflow involves searching, sharing, integration with external data, mapping, analyses, troubleshooting, monitoring, maintaining, and problem solving of plant operation. In turn, the system improves the end user experience, facilitates data and information monetization, and helps to integrate products. The system of the present invention is also flexible and easily includes other search, share, mapping, and troubleshooting workflows between one or more heterogeneous systems.”
Conclusion
9. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
10. All Claims are rejected.
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
i) U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170096889
ii) U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190384240
iii) U.S. Patent Publication No. 20150309920
iv) U.S. Patent Publication No. 20070156262
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10:00-6:00.
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, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SAA
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights