DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 08/29/2022.
Claims 1-21 are pending.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to
the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply
as well. Examiner may also include cited interpretations encompassed within parenthesis, e.g. (Examiner' s interpretation), for clarity. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/16/2022 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in MPEP 2106 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claims 1-19 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process.
Claim 20 is directed to an apparatus, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of machine.
Claim 21 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Claim 1):
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claim covers mental processes performed on a generic computer, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of:
determining environment value data based at least in part on the alert
impact data (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. Specifically, this limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer, since a person can reasonably evaluate alert impact data and then determine (i.e. judgement, opinion) environment value data, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Claim 1):
As per claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant extra-solution activity and/or mere instructions to apply an exception. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
receiving at least one alert associated with operation of an environment,
the at least one alert determined based at least in part on real-time monitored data captured via at least one system in the environment (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. The act of receiving at least one alert is interpreted as mere data gathering.)
applying the at least one alert to a model that determines alert impact data based at least in part on the at least one alert (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) on a computer. Additionally, the limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.)
outputting at least the environment value data (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data outputting, post-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B (Claim 1):
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity and/or mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(d)/(f)/(g).
Per MPEP 2106.04(d), “The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); • Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g);
Additionally, per MPEP 2106.05(d), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claim 20 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. The claim further recites at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the apparatus to which amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) on a computer, and further fails to add significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, independent claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claim 21 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. The claim further recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by at least one processor, configures the at least one processor which amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) on a computer, and further fails to add significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, independent claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 recites receiving an indication of a view type; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).)
and customizing a user interface comprising the environment value data based at least in part on the view type, (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) on a computer and fails to recite details of how customizing a use interface is accomplished.)
wherein outputting at least the environment value data comprises causing rendering of the user interface. (The additional element elaborates on the outputted value data, therefore further amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (mere data outputting, post solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 recites for each alert of the at least one alert, identifying alert importance data corresponding to the alert, the alert importance data comprising at least one of an alert type, a system type, and/or an alert criticality level; (The additional element elaborates on the received alert, therefore further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).)
and applying the alert importance data to the model (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4 recites wherein at least a first alert of the at least one alert is associated with an alert criticality level based at least in part on a system type corresponding to the first alert, and/or a location of an environment corresponding to the environment, an alert type corresponding to the alert. The additional element elaborates on the received alert, therefore further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5 recites wherein each alert of the at least one alerts are associated with an alert criticality level selected from a group comprising a low criticality level, a moderate criticality level, a high criticality level, and a critical criticality level, and wherein the alert criticality level for each alert is associated with a different level of impact on the alert impact data. The additional element elaborates on the received alert, therefore further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6 recites identifying an environment improvement recommendation determined associated with a contribution to the alert impact data that exceeds a threshold; (The additional element amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) performed on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate impact data that exceeds a threshold and then identify (observe, evaluate, judge, opinion) an improvement recommendation, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
and causing outputting of a notification associated with the environment improvement recommendation to a user device. The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data outputting, post-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7 recites receiving monitored data associated with the environment; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).)
determining at least one data insight based at least in part on the monitored data; determining that the at least one data insight does not satisfy a target improvement rate; identifying an environment improvement recommendation determined to improve the at least one data insight to satisfy the target improvement rate; (The additional elements amount to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) performed on a computer, since “determining” and “identifying”, i.e. evaluating/judging, can reasonably be performed by the human mind, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
and causing outputting of a notification associated with the environment improvement recommendation. (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data outputting, post-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8, the computer-implemented method of claim 7, recites identifying at least a first system associated with the environment that is predicted to most impact the at least one data insight, (The additional element amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) performed on a computer, since a person can reasonably identify (i.e. evaluate, judge, opinion) at least a first system with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
wherein the environment improvement recommendation indicates a recommendation of maintenance or replacement of the first system. (The additional element elaborates on the identified environment improvement recommendation, therefore further amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) performed on a computer.)
Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9 recites receiving the real-time monitored data captured via the at least one system; (The additional element further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).)
and generating the at least one alert based at least in part on the real-time monitored data. (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.)
Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10, the computer-implemented method of claim 9, recites wherein the real-time monitored data includes system cybersecurity risk data. The additional element elaborates on the received real-time monitored data, therefore further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11 recites deriving, based at least in part on the real-time monitored data, at least one score corresponding to at least one metric associated with the environment; (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.)
and outputting the at least one score associated with at least one metric. (The additional element further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data outputting, post-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12 recites receiving the real-time monitored data captured via the at least one system; receiving non-real-time monitored data associated with the environment; (The additional elements further amount to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).) and
generating at least a first alert based at least in part on the real-time monitored data and the non-real-time monitored data. (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.)
Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13 recites wherein the at least one alert include a first alert associated with a sustainability metric. The additional element elaborates on the received alert, therefore further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14 recites wherein the at least one alert includes a first alert associated with an energy performance metric. The additional element elaborates on the received alert, therefore further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15 recites tracking a timeseries of data records associated with one or more metrics, (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, the element invokes computers of other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, iii. A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer.)
wherein the at least one alert is determined based at least in part on the timeseries of data records associated with the one or more metrics; (The additional element elaborates on the received alert, therefore further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).)
and outputting the timeseries of data records associated with the one or more metrics. (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data outputting, post-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16 recites determining an environment improvement recommendation associated with a selected environment of the plurality of environments, wherein the environment improvement recommendation is determined to most improve a total alert impact data for the plurality of environments; (The additional element amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Specifically, this limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer, since a person can reasonably evaluate data and then determine an environment improvement recommendation, with/without the aid pf pen/paper.)
and causing outputting of a notification associated with the environment improvement recommendation. (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data outputting, post-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17, the computer-implemented method of claim 16, recites wherein determining the environment improvement recommendation is based at least in part on a constrained resource value. (The additional element elaborates on the determination of the environment improvement recommendation, therefore further amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) performed on a computer. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18 recites wherein the at least one alert is based at least in part on historic data and predicted data associated with the environment, the historic data and the predicted data associated with at least one of a performance metric of the environment, a compliance metric of the environment, and an occupant experience metric of the environment. The additional element elaborates on the received at least one alert, therefore further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 19 recites determining at least one remaining useful lifetime value associated with the environment; (The additional element amounts to Mental Processes performed on a computer per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), since a person can reasonably determine (i.e. evaluate, judge) at least one remaining useful lifetime value associated with the environment, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
and outputting the at least one remaining useful lifetime value associated with the environment. (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data outputting, post-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, 18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BEYNEL et al. US Pub. No. 20230196137 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Beynel”) in view of KRISHNASWAMY et al. US Patent No. 9310790 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Krishnaswamy”).
Regarding claim 1, Beynel discloses receiving at least one alert associated with operation of an environment, the at least one alert determined based at least in part on real-time monitored data captured via at least one system in the environment; applying the at least one alert to a model that determines alert impact data based at least in part on the at least one alert; (“An alerting module (i.e. a model) is configured to create real-time alerts in response to determining a deviation of the current operating indicator and/or the forecasted operating indicator caused by a disruption in the environment.” Beynel [P.0006]. An alerting module is interpreted as a model due to Applicant’s disclosure “"Model" refers to an algorithmic, statistical, artificial intelligence, and/or machine learning model that is specially configured to perform a particular data transformation and/or prediction task.” Spec. [P.0044])
determining environment value data based at least in part on the alert impact data; (“The disruption handling system calculates at least one current operating indicator (i.e. environment value data) based on the captured and processed live data (i.e. processed alert data). Operating indicators are specific to the environment [...] For example, operating indicators of a global flight network environment may comprise no show rate at the gate of passengers, acknowledgement rate to re-accommodation offers from passengers, average compensation cost per disrupted passenger, number of misconnections, number of delayed flights, averaged delay time, number of passengers travelling impacted by a disruption, and such.” Beynel [P.0025])
Beynel fails to specifically disclose outputting at least the environment value data.
However, Krishnaswamy discloses outputting at least the environment value data. (“FIG. 1 illustrates one example operational environment where the framework 124 can be used [...] The framework 124 supports the use of different types of applications using a data-driven approach, which helps to ensure that functions or expressions dependent on a particular input variable are updated in response to a change in that input variable. This technique helps to provide correct output variable values (i.e. environment value data) for any change in a set of input variables.” Krishnaswamy [Col.4 Ln.65 – Col.5 Ln.17])
Beynel and Krishnaswamy are analogous art as they both involve real-time data acquisition, processing, and storage. Each system calculates indicators (operating indicators or key process indicators), supports real-time alerts or identification of abnormal conditions, and includes user interfaces for visualization. Both systems are designed to support decision-making or automated actions based on processed data. They also both mention the use of historical data and dependencies between variables / indicators for more advanced analysis or simulation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computing system / method of Beynel to include outputting at least the environment value data, as Krishnaswamy discloses, in order to visualize real-time environment/system values, which can be used to make real-time environment / system decisions when considering a multitude of dependent environments / systems.
Regarding claim 2, Beynel-Krishnaswamy disclose the method of claim 1, Beynel further discloses receiving an indication of a view type; (“FIG. 4 (see below) shows another example of the user interface 400, in which two operating indicators are shown simultaneously. The user interface 400 may be just another view (e.g., selectable by the user) of the user interface 300 or a separate instance of the user interface” Beynel [P.0057])
and customizing a user interface comprising the environment value data based at least in part on the view type, wherein outputting at least the environment value data comprises causing rendering of the user interface. (”the user interface 400 comprises two operating indicators regions, one first region 411 of a first operating indicator and a second region 421 of a second operating indicator. Each of the regions 411, 421 comprises a chart of the respective operating indicator. A rhombus in each region 411, 421 depicts the respective current value of the operating indicator 411-1, 421-1.” Beynel [P.0057])
PNG
media_image1.png
449
499
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Beynel-Krishnaswamy disclose the method of claim 1, Beynel further discloses for each alert of the at least one alert, identifying alert importance data corresponding to the alert, the alert importance data comprising at least one of an alert type, a system type, and/or an alert criticality level; and applying the alert importance data to the model (“If the current operating indicator and/or the forecasted operating indicator deviate from a normal or desired pattern, the disruption handling system (i.e. a model. See Spec. [P.0044]) creates real-time alerts. Normal or desired patterns may be defined by a user [...] with deviation scenario indicators and/or may be determined by the disruption handling system [...] a user interface according to an embodiment may visualize traffic light zones (i.e. criticality level) if two thresholds are set, e.g., a green zone for normal or desired values of the operating indicator, a yellow zone if the first threshold is exceeded and a red zone if the second threshold is exceeded.” Beynel [P.0027])
Regarding claim 5, Beynel-Krishnaswamy disclose the method of claim 1, Beynel further discloses wherein each alert of the at least one alerts are associated with an alert criticality level selected from a group comprising a low criticality level, a moderate criticality level, a high criticality level, and a critical criticality level, (“If the current operating indicator and/or the forecasted operating indicator deviate from a normal or desired pattern, the disruption handling system creates real-time alerts. Normal or desired patterns may be defined by a user [...] with deviation scenario indicators and/or may be determined by the disruption handling system [...] a user interface according to an embodiment may visualize traffic light zones (i.e. criticality levels) if two thresholds are set, e.g., a green zone for normal or desired values of the operating indicator, a yellow zone if the first threshold is exceeded and a red zone if the second threshold is exceeded.” Beynel [P.0027])
Beynel fails to specifically disclose wherein the alert criticality level for each alert is associated with a different level of impact on the alert impact data.
However, Krishnaswamy discloses and wherein the alert criticality level for each alert is associated with a different level of impact on the alert impact data. (“The asset manager 900 can collect data for monitoring, abnormal condition assessment, and analysis [...] The data can include process data, historical data, and alerts [...] The data can be collected, processed, and made available in various representations. These representations can include a physical system representation (like one divided by equipment, instruments, servers, etc.), a functional system representation (like one divided by plant, unit, sections, etc.), or a hierarchy.” Krishnaswamy [Col.12 Ln.39-51]. The hierarchy is interpreted as impact data because “The equation analyzer analyzes the applications 202a-202n containing the variables in FIG. 2B and generates a hierarchy 250 shown in FIG. 2C. The hierarchy 250 shows the order of dependency of the variables. The hierarchy 250 defines publisher-subscriber relationships in the data-driven framework 124” Krishnaswamy [Col.6 Ln.34-39], and Applicant’s disclosure “"Alert impact data" refers to electronically managed data representing a data value that impacts or offsets another data value.” Spec. [P.0035]. i.e. The collected data (alerts) is represented as a hierarchy that showcases variable dependencies (i.e. impact data). For reference, see FIG.2B/2C below.)
PNG
media_image2.png
217
392
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
324
313
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined alert criticality levels, as disclosed by Beynel, with the alert impact data, as disclosed by Krishnaswamy, in order to visualize/interpret a system’s variable impact on another dependent system.
Regarding claim 6, Beynel-Krishnaswamy disclose the method of claim 1, Beynel further discloses identifying an environment improvement recommendation determined associated with a contribution to the alert impact data that exceeds a threshold; and causing outputting of a notification associated with the environment improvement recommendation to a user device. (“Simulation of the operating indicator for different scenarios enables the disruption handling system to recommend actions that improve the disruption handling and that is likely to bring the operating indicator into a normal pattern. The disruption handling system may in some embodiments provide a ranked list of recommended actions with the expected impact on the operating indicator to a user via a user interface (i.e. outputting notification). The disruption handling system is then able to trigger selected actions from the recommended actions. This triggering may be based on a user selection of recommended actions in the user interface or automatized, i.e., the disruption handling system may select an action from the recommended actions and automatically trigger this selected action. Preferably, automatically triggering the action(s) directly follows the creation of the corresponding alerts.” Beynel [P.0030]. The operating indicator is interpreted as impact data exceeding a threshold because “the user may set one or more threshold values for an operating indicator.” Beynel [P.0027])
Regarding claim 7, Beynel-Krishnaswamy disclose the method of claim 1, Beynel further discloses receiving monitored data associated with the environment; determining at least one data insight based at least in part on the monitored data; (“The exemplary user interface 300 visualizes (i.e. receives) the real-time alerts (i.e. monitored data) in a bottom line 304 [...] The user interface 300 may also visualize the thresholds or allowed rates of increase or decrease of the operating indicators (i.e. data insight)” Beynel [P.0052])
determining that the at least one data insight does not satisfy a target improvement rate; identifying an environment improvement recommendation determined to improve the at least one data insight to satisfy the target improvement rate; and causing outputting of a notification associated with the environment improvement recommendation. (“The user interface 400 may be just another view (e.g., selectable by the user) of the user interface 300 or a separate instance of the user interface [...] it (i.e. user interface 400) also displays a description of a determined possible action to improve the first operating indicator (i.e. data insight) towards the targeted trend in box 415 and of a determined possible action for the second operating indicator in box 425. In this example, only the best action is proposed to the user” Beynel [P.0057-58])
Regarding claim 8, Beynel-Krishnaswamy disclose the method of claim 7, although Beynel fails to specifically disclose identifying at least a first system associated with the environment that is predicted to most impact the at least one data insight, wherein the environment improvement recommendation indicates a recommendation of maintenance or replacement of the first system.
However, Krishnaswamy further discloses identifying at least a first system associated with the environment that is predicted to most impact the at least one data insight, (“The final dependency matrix 212 identifies all of the input and output variables 204-205 for all of the applications 202a-202n. The final dependency matrix 212 also identifies all of the relationships between these input and output variables.” Krishnaswamy [Col.6 Ln.6-10]. The final dependency matrix is interpreted to identify the system that is most impactful to the at least one data insight since the matrix captures all dependent system’s variables.)
wherein the environment improvement recommendation indicates a recommendation of maintenance or replacement of the first system. (“The definition area 1302 (see FIG.14 below) allows the user to define an equation in a functional logic block, as well as additional features (such as whether a notification is generated or an action is to be taken).” Krishnaswamy [Col.13 Ln.62-65]. The user defined equation in a functional logic block is interpreted to include recommendation or maintenance functionality because “The use of the logic builder 800 can help to standardize maintenance practices, allow customers to insert expertise into solutions seamlessly, and integrate with manual data entry in the field [...] Note that when a model is defined using the logic builder 800, the equation analyzer (like the functional unit 206b) can use information from the logic builder 800 to identify relationships between its input and output variables.” Krishnaswamy [Col.11 Ln.51-60])
PNG
media_image4.png
425
650
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computing system / method of Beynel to include identifying a first system predicted to have the most impact and to recommend maintenance or replacement if identified first system in order for “improved equipment uptimes and help keep product production at planned levels.” Krishnaswamy [Col.11 Ln.50])
Regarding claim 9, Beynel-Krishnaswamy disclose the method of claim 1, Beynel further discloses receiving the real-time monitored data captured via the at least one system; (“As shown in FIG. 3, each platform 302-306 includes a number of different data streams. The data streams in each platform 302-306 can be managed by a thread pool and monitored by that platform 302-306 [...] A data cache 322 stores data and messages being transported between platforms in real-time.” Beynel [P.0050-51])
and generating the at least one alert based at least in part on the real-time monitored data. (“The notifications can be performed by a real-time data service and made to any subscribers” Beynel [P.0051])
Regarding claim 11, Beynel-Krishnaswamy disclose the method of claim 1, Beynel further discloses deriving, based at least in part on the real-time monitored data, at least one score corresponding to at least one metric associated with the environment; (“The operating indicator module 213 further calculates a current operating indicator from the live data stored in the environment data database 210. Operating indicators are specific to the environment 100 and may be key performance indicators (KPI) as well as technical indicators relating to parameters of the environment 100.” Beynel [P.0041]. The examiner interprets KPI’s as at least one score corresponding to at least one environment metric.)
Beynel fails to disclose outputting the at least one score associated with at least one metric.
However, Krishnaswamy further discloses outputting the at least one score associated with at least one metric (“The framework 124 can provide (i.e. output) key process indicator (KPI) integration to operators' consoles” Krishnaswamy [Col.4 Ln.24])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computing system / method of Beynel to include outputting at least one score associated with at least one metric, as Krishnaswamy discloses, in order “to improve application reliability” Krishnaswamy [Col.4 Ln.42-43].
Regarding claim 12, Beynel-Krishnaswamy disclose the method of claim 1, Beynel further discloses receiving the real-time monitored data captured via the at least one system; (“As shown in FIG. 3, each platform 302-306 includes a number of different data streams. The data streams in each platform 302-306 can be managed by a thread pool and monitored by that platform 302-306 [...] A data cache 322 stores data and messages being transported between platforms in real-time.” Beynel [P.0050-51])
receiving non-real-time monitored data associated with the environment; (“A prediction engine is configured to forecast a development of the operating indicator without interaction based on historical (i.e. non-real-time monitored) data stored in the environment data database.” Beynel [P.0006].
and generating at least a first alert based at least in part on the real-time monitored data and the non-real-time monitored data. (“An alerting module is configured to create real-time alerts in response to determining a deviation of the current operating indicator and/or the forecasted operating indicator (i.e. based on non-real-time data) caused by a disruption in the environment.” Beynel [P.0006])
Regarding claim 13, Beynel-Krishnaswamy disclose the method of claim 1, although Beynel fails to disclose wherein the at least one alert include a first alert associated with a sustainability metric.
However, Krishnaswamy further discloses wherein the at least one alert include a first alert associated with a sustainability metric. (“As shown in FIG. 17 (see below), the user has selected the analysis function in the menu 1102 and a mechanical analysis function in the menu 1104. Different types of data are shown for a selected asset in various tables 1702. In this example, the tables 1702 identify a health index trend, an FFT trend, an overall peak trend, and a bearing fault energy trend (i.e. sustainability metric) for the selected asset.” Krishnaswamy [Col.14 Ln.37-43]. The examiner interprets bearing fault energy to be a sustainability metric due to Applicant’s disclosure “sustainability data insights associated with such sustainability metrics, including a first data insight representing a total energy usage for one or more environments” Spec. [P.0212])
PNG
media_image5.png
433
657
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computing system / method of Beynel to include sustainability metric alerts, as Krishnaswamy discloses, in order for “performance monitoring, abnormal condition detection, and other functions related to industrial equipment.” Krishnaswamy [Col.14 Ln.61].
Regarding claim 14, Beynel-Krishnaswamy disclose the method of claim 1, although Beynel fails to specifically disclose wherein the at least one alert includes a first alert associated with an energy performance metric.
However, Krishnaswamy further discloses wherein the at least one alert includes a first alert associated with an energy performance metric. (“As shown in FIG. 17 (see claim 13 above), the user has selected the analysis function in the menu 1102 and a mechanical analysis function in the menu 1104. Different types of data are shown for a selected asset in various tables 1702. In this example, the tables 1702 identify a health index trend, an FFT trend, an overall peak trend, and a bearing fault energy trend (i.e. sustainability metric) for the selected asset.” Krishnaswamy [Col.14 Ln.37-43]. The examiner interprets bearing fault energy to be a sustainability metric due to Applicant’s disclosure “sustainability data insights associated with such sustainability metrics, including a first data insight representing a total energy usage for one or more environments” Spec. [P.0212])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computing system / method of Beynel to include energy performance alerts, as Krishnaswamy discloses, in order for “performance monitoring, abnormal condition detection, and other functions related to industrial equipment.” Krishnaswamy [Col.14 Ln.61].
Regarding claim 15, Beynel-Krishnaswamy disclose the method of claim 1, although Beynel fails to specifically disclose tracking a timeseries of data records associated with one or more metrics, wherein the at least one alert is determined based at least in part on the timeseries of data records associated with the one or more metrics; and outputting the timeseries of data records associated with the one or more metrics.
However, Krishnaswamy further discloses tracking a timeseries of data records associated with one or more metrics, wherein the at least one alert is determined based at least in part on the timeseries of data records associated with the one or more metrics; and outputting the timeseries of data records associated with the one or more metrics. (“As shown in FIG. 19 (see below), the user has selected to review a fault history for a selected asset. In this case, the content area 1108 contains a table 1902 showing the current and previous faults for a selected asset. The table 1902 identifies each fault's name, status, start date, and end date (if any). This allows the user to view the history of faults for a particular asset.” Krishnaswamy [Col. 14 Ln.54])
PNG
media_image6.png
436
668
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computing system / method of Beynel to include tracking and outputting timeseries data, as Krishnaswamy discloses, in order “to view the history of faults for a particular asset.” Krishnaswamy [Col.14 Ln.59].
Regarding claim 18, Beynel-Krishnaswamy disclose the method of claim 1, Beynel further discloses wherein the at least one alert is based at least in part on historic data and predicted data associated with the environment, (“A prediction engine is configured to forecast a development of the operating indicator without interaction based on historical (i.e. non-real-time monitored) data stored in the environment data database. An alerting module is configured to create real-time alerts in response to determining a deviation of the current operating indicator and/or the forecasted operating indicator caused by a disruption in the environment.” Beynel [P.0006]) the historic data and the predicted data associated with at least one of a performance metric of the environment, a compliance metric of the environment,
and an occupant experience metric of the environment. (“The disruption handling system calculates at least one current operating indicator based on the captured and processed live data. Operating indicators are specific to the environment and may be key performance indicators (KPI) as well as technical indicators relating to parameters of the system. For example, operating indicators of a global flight network environment may comprise no show rate at the gate of passengers, acknowledgement rate to re-accommodation offers from passengers, average compensation cost per disrupted passenger, number of misconnections, number of delayed flights, averaged delay time (i.e. compliance metric), number of passengers travelling impacted (i.e. occupant experience) by a disruption, and such. Moreover, the disruption handling system also forecasts the development of the at least one operating indicator based on stored historical data. Stored historical data allows to predict how an operating indicator will evolve” Beynel [P.0025-26])
Regarding independent claim 20, Beynel discloses at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the apparatus to: (“a server 114 or operator station 116 could include at least one processing device 118a-118b, such as a processor [...] at least one memory 120a-120b storing instructions” Beynel [P.0016])
receive at least one alert associated with operation of an environment, the at least one alert determined based at least in part on real-time monitored data captured via at least one system in the environment; apply the at least one alert to a model that determines alert impact data based at least in part on the at least one alert; (“An alerting module (i.e. a model) is configured to create real-time alerts in response to determining a deviation of the current operating indicator and/or the forecasted operating indicator caused by a disruption in the environment.” Beynel [P.0006]. An alerting module is interpreted as a model due to Applicant’s disclosure “"Model" refers to an algorithmic, statistical, artificial intelligence, and/or machine learning model that is specially configured to perform a particular data transformation and/or prediction task.” Spec. [P.0044])
determine environment value data based at least in part on the alert impact data; (“The disruption handling system calculates at least one current operating indicator (i.e. environment value data) based on the captured and processed live data (i.e. processed alert data). Operating indicators are specific to the environment [...] For example, operating indicators of a global flight network environment may comprise no show rate at the gate of passengers, acknowledgement rate to re-accommodation offers from passengers, average compensation cost per disrupted passenger, number of misconnections, number of delayed flights, averaged delay time, number of passengers travelling impacted by a disruption, and such.” Beynel [P.0025])
Beynel fails to specifically disclose output at least the environment value data.
However, Krishnaswamy discloses output at least the environment value data. (“FIG. 1 illustrates one example operational environment where the framework 124 can be used [...] The framework 124 supports the use of different types of applications using a data-driven approach, which helps to ensure that functions or expressions dependent on a particular input variable are updated in response to a change in that input variable. This technique helps to provide correct output variable values (i.e. environment value data) for any change in a set of input variables.” Krishnaswamy [Col.4 Ln.65 – Col.5 Ln.17])
Beynel and Krishnaswamy are analogous art as they both involve real-time data acquisition, processing, and storage. Each system calculates indicators (operating indicators or key process indicators), supports real-time alerts or identification of abnormal conditions, and includes user interfaces for visualization. Both systems are designed to support decision-making or automated actions based on processed data. They also both mention the use of historical data and dependencies between variables / indicators for more advanced analysis or simulation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computing system / method of Beynel to include outputting at least the environment value data, as Krishnaswamy discloses, in order to visualize real-time environment/system values, which can be used to make real-time environment / system decisions when considering a multitude of dependent environments / systems.
Regarding independent claim 21, Beynel discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by at least one processor, configures the at least one processor to: (“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions that, upon execution by a processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to” Beynel [Claim 15])
receive at least one alert associated with operation of an environment, the at least one alert determined based at least in part on real-time monitored data captured via at least one system in the environment; apply the at least one alert to a model that determines alert impact data based at least in part on the at least one alert; (“An alerting module (i.e. a model) is configured to create real-time alerts in response to determining a deviation of the current operating indicator and/or the forecasted operating indicator caused by a disruption in the environment.” Beynel [P.0006]. An alerting module is interpreted as a model due to Applicant’s disclosure “"Model" refers to an algorithmic, statistical, artificial intelligence, and/or machine learning model that is specially configured to perform a particular data transformation and/or prediction task.” Spec. [P.0044])
determine environment value data based at least in part on the alert impact data; (“The disruption handling system calculates at least one current operating indicator (i.e. environment value data) based on the captured and processed live data (i.e. processed alert data). Operating indicators are specific to the environment [...] For example, operating indicators of a global flight network environment may comprise no show rate at the gate of passengers, acknowledgement rate to re-accommodation offers from passengers, average compensation cost per disrupted passenger, number of misconnections, number of delayed flights, averaged delay time, number of passengers travelling impacted by a disruption, and such.” Beynel [P.0025])
Beynel fails to specifically disclose output at least the environment value data.
However, Krishnaswamy discloses output at least the environment value data. (“FIG. 1 illustrates one example operational environment where the framework 124 can be used [...] The framework 124 supports the use of different types of applications using a data-driven approach, which helps to ensure that functions or expressions dependent on a particular input variable are updated in response to a change in that input variable. This technique helps to provide correct output variable values (i.e. environment value data) for any change in a set of input variables.” Krishnaswamy [Col.4 Ln.65 – Col.5 Ln.17])
Beynel and Krishnaswamy are analogous art as they both involve real-time data acquisition, processing, and storage. Each system calculates indicators (operating indicators or key process indicators), supports real-time alerts or identification of abnormal conditions, and includes user interfaces for visualization. Both systems are designed to support decision-making or automated actions based on processed data. They also both mention the use of historical data and dependencies between variables / indicators for more advanced analysis or simulation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computing system / method of Beynel to include outputting at least the environment value data, as Krishnaswamy discloses, in order to visualize real-time environment/system values, which can be used to make real-time environment / system decisions when considering a multitude of dependent environments / systems.
Claims 4, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beynel, in view of Krishnaswamy, in further view of VIENGKHAM et al. US Pub. No. 2021/0225528 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Viengkham”).
Regarding claim 4, Beynel-Krishnaswamy disclose the method of claim 1, but fail to specifically disclose wherein at least a first alert of the at least one alert is associated with an alert criticality level based at least in part on a system type corresponding to the first alert, and/or a location of an environment corresponding to the environment, an alert type corresponding to the alert.
However, Viengkham discloses wherein at least a first alert of the at least one alert is associated with an alert criticality level based at least in part on a system type corresponding to the first alert, and/or a location of an environment corresponding to the environment, an alert type corresponding to the alert. (“the metric weight set for a particular monitored building environment is determinable based on a determined and/or otherwise identified monitored environment type corresponding to the monitored building environment [...] the metric weight set includes one or more multiplier values representing an importance value (i.e. criticality level) of each of the building operations metrics of a building operations metric set.” Viengkham [P.0201]. Metric weight set is interpreted as an alert due to Applicant’s disclosure “ "Alert" refers to electronically managed data indicating a particular threshold has been satisfied, a data-driven trigger has been triggered, and/or a tracked data-driven determination result.” Spec. [P.0033])
Viengkham is analogous art as it relates to monitoring and scoring physical environments, specifically buildings or portions thereof, using sensor data collected from within the environment. Its intended application is to provide improved, real-time, and holistic scoring of various operational aspects of one or more monitored building environments.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the environment/system monitoring methods of Beynel-Krishnaswamy to include system criticality level alerts, as Viengkham discloses, in order to achieve “improved monitored building environment scoring” Viengkham [P.0203].
Regarding claim 16, Beynel-Krishnaswamy disclose the method of claim 1, but fail to specifically disclose wherein the environment is associated with an environment portfolio comprising a plurality of environments, portfolio of environments, and wherein each environment of the plurality of environments is associated with particular alert impact data, and wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises: determining an environment improvement recommendation associated with a selected environment of the plurality of environments, wherein the environment improvement recommendation is determined to most improve a total alert impact data for the plurality of environments; and causing outputting of a notification associated with the environment improvement recommendation.
However, Viengkham discloses wherein the environment is associated with an environment portfolio comprising a plurality of environments, portfolio of environments, and wherein each environment of the plurality of environments is associated with particular alert impact data, (“the processor 202 is configured to determine portfolio-level scores, such as a portfolio overall building operational score for a plurality of associated monitored building environments and/or a portfolio building financial score for the plurality of associated monitored building environments.” Viengkham [P.0111])
and wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises:
determining an environment improvement recommendation associated with a selected environment of the plurality of environments, (“the apparatus 200 is configured to determine the improvement(s) to one or more building operations score for a building operations sub-metric that would result in improvements of the building operations score for the corresponding building operations metric [...] the apparatus 200 in some embodiments provides such information as a notification action, for example a recommendation, renderable and/or otherwise presented to a user via a user interface.” Viengkham [P.0127])
wherein the environment improvement recommendation is determined to most improve a total alert impact data for the plurality of environments; (“Utilizing the particular building operations metrics, a particular monitored building environment (or plurality of monitored building environments) can be analyzed on key objectives determined to be of importance for the particular monitored building environment(s). Further, by determining an overall building operational score, the monitored building environment can be analyzed quickly based on a single metric [...] the more granular scores can be further processed to determine one or more building operations metrics and/or one or more building operations sub-metrics that can be improved to improve the building operations score for a particular building operations metric and/or the overall building operational score. In this manner, similarly, the building operations sub-metric that would have the largest impact on improving the corresponding building operations metric if improved, and/or the building operations metric that would have the largest impact on improving the corresponding overall building operational score if improved, is determinable at any level of granularity desired.” Viengkham [P.0128])
and causing outputting of a notification associated with the environment improvement recommendation. (”the apparatus 200 in some embodiments provides such information as a notification action, for example a recommendation, renderable and/or otherwise presented to a user via a user interface.” Viengkham [P.0127])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the environment/system monitoring methods of Beynel-Krishnaswamy to include an environment portfolio comprising a plurality of environments and scoring aspects thereof, as Viengkham discloses, in order to establish a comprehensive mechanism which takes a holistic consideration of an environment consisting of a plurality of environments and/or portfolios Viengkham [P.0051].
Regarding claim 17, Beynel-Krishnaswamy-Viengkham disclose the method of claim 16, Beynel further discloses wherein determining the environment improvement recommendation is based at least in part on a constrained resource value. (“FIG. 1 that shows a computing system of disruption handling 101 in connection with an environment 100 [...] exemplary components of a global flight network environment are the aircrafts, the routes, the airports, the available personnel (i.e. constrained resource value)” Beynel [P.0033]. Available personnel is interpreted as a constrained resource value due to Applicant’s disclosure “examples of a constrained resource value, for example in the context of determining an environment improvement recommendation, include an available amount of funds, an available length of time, available human resources, and/or a combination thereof.” Spec. [P.0038]. Also, the disruption handling system is interpreted to determine an environment improvement recommendation because “the disruption system 101 is able to learn from actions taken and continuously improves the simulation and recommendations.” Beynel [P.0049])
Regarding claim 19, Beynel-Krishnaswamy disclose the method of claim 1, but fail to specifically disclose determining at least one remaining useful lifetime value associated with the environment; and outputting the at least one remaining useful lifetime value associated with the environment.
However, Viengkham discloses determining at least one remaining useful lifetime value associated with the environment; (“the building operations metric set includes an assets metric associated with a mean time between failures metric, an availability metric, a probability of failure metric, and a mean time to failure metric.” Viengkham [P.0028]. Time to failure metric is interpreted as remaining useful lifetime value due to Applicant’s disclosure “a remaining useful lifetime value refers to a time until failure of one or more component(s) of the system renders the system unusable or unreliable.” Spec. [P.0049])
and outputting the at least one remaining useful lifetime value associated with the environment. (“the example method further includes determining a notification action associated with at least one of the building operations metrics set” Viengkham [P.0031])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the environment/system monitoring methods of Beynel-Krishnaswamy to include remaining useful lifetime values, as disclosed by Viengkham, in order for “improving the overall operations of a monitored building environment” Viengkham [P.0051].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beynel, in view of Krishnaswamy, in further view of KNAPP et al. US Pub. No. 2016 / 0234242 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Knapp”).
Regarding claim 10, Beynel-Krishnaswamy disclose the method of claim 9, but fail to specifically disclose wherein the real-time monitored data includes system cybersecurity risk data.
However, Knapp discloses wherein the real-time monitored data includes system cybersecurity risk data. (“FIGS. 2A through 2C illustrate an example graphical user interface for providing possible causes, recommended actions, and potential impacts related to identified cyber-security risk items according to this disclosure” Knapp [P.0008])
PNG
media_image7.png
378
591
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Knapp is analogous art as it relates to network security in industrial process control and automation systems. Its intended use is to provide an apparatus and method for identifying cyber-security risks in connected devices within such systems, and for providing users with possible causes, recommended actions, and potential impacts related to identified cyber-security risk items, thereby aiding risk assessment and mitigation in industrial control environments.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the environment/system monitoring methods of Beynel-Krishnaswamy to include cyber-security risk data in order “for providing possible causes, recommended actions, and potential impacts related to identified cyber-security risk items.” Knapp [P.0002].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon is
considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Eiynk et al. (Contextual Scoring In A Building Automation System – US Pub. No 2016/0131388 A1). “this disclosure relates to prioritizing actionable options presented to a user of a building automation system based on current context.” [P.0003]
Talamanchi et al. (Infrastructure Monitoring Tool For Collecting Industrial Process Control And Automation System Risk Data – US Pat. No 10021125 B2). “this disclosure relates to an infrastructure monitoring tool for collecting industrial process control and automation system risk data.” [Col.1 Ln.13]
Singh et al. (Devices, Methods, And Systems For A Distributed Rule Based Automated Fault Detection – US Pat. No 11016477 B2). “The present disclosure relates to devices, methods, and systems for a distributed rule based automated fault detection.” [Col.1 Ln.13]
Picardi (Predictive Alarm Analytics – US Pat. No 11847896 B2). “relates generally to techniques for predictive alarm analytics.” [Col.1 Ln.18]
Smith et al. (Intelligent Crew Alerting System And Method For Aircraft And Other Vehicle Applications – US Pat. No 8378853 B2). “embodiments of the subject matter relate to a crew alerting system that generates alert messages associated with the operation of various onboard subsystems.” [Col.1 Ln.10]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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.
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.
/ANTHONY CHAVEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights