DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 21 August 2026. Claims 70, 73, 75-78, and 82-84 have been amended. Claims 85-91 are newly added. Claims 1-69 were previously cancelled. Claims 70-91 remain pending in this application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 21 August 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 11-12, filed 21 August 2026, with respect to objected claims 70, 73, 75, 83, and 84 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 21 August 2026. The objections of claims 70, 73, 75, 83, and 84 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 12-14, filed 21 August 2026, with respect to rejected claims 70-84 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s argument,
This control-signal limitation effects a physical change in the operation of a machine in the industrial environment-changing its operating speed or reducing its utilization-and therefore cannot be dismissed as merely "outputting data" or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Moreover, the control signal is not a generic response but is specifically selected from candidate control actions that correspond to the identified fault condition, tying the diagnostic result to a concrete, fault- specific, real-world action on the particular component. This integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. (see Remarks, pg. 13, paragraph 2- pg. 14, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner recognizes the newly presented limitation of “wherein the control signal results in at least one of: a change in an operating speed of the particular component or a reduction in utilization of the particular component” has been presented in the alternative. The limitation of “a reduction in utilization of the particular component” has been reasonable interpreted as “shutdown” given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. The limitation of “a reduction in utilization of the particular component” is not more than a mere recitation of “apply it (or equivalent)” (MPEP 2106.05(f)) that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Hence, the limitation does not obviate the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection as set forth in the Final Office Action mailed on 25 March 2026; and the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s argument,
Further, claims 70 and 83, as amended, require that the recognized pattern "identif[ies] which particular fault condition, from among a plurality of different fault conditions, is exhibited by the particular component," and that the prediction is of "a cause of the operational status of the particular component that corresponds to the identified particular fault condition." This multi-class fault discrimination-identifying which specific fault condition, from among a plurality of different fault conditions, is exhibited, and generating a cause prediction that corresponds to that identified fault condition-is not a generic mental process or mathematical concept. Rather, it reflects a specific technological process for diagnosing faults in an industrial environment that further constrains the claims and integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. (see Remarks, pg. 14, paragraph 2)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner recognizes the newly presented limitation of “… wherein the recognized pattern indicates a particular fault condition, from among a plurality of different fault conditions, is exhibited by the particular component” further details the limitation of “a recognized pattern”. The applicant has not set forth arguments/explanations as to why a determination of a recognized pattern (claims 70 and 83) is neither directed to a mathematical operation, (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0176550 A1 (instant application): pgs. 30-31, par. [0333] and [0334]) nor so complex it can’t be perform within the realm of the human mind including the use of a physical aid (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.”). Hence, the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 15-16, filed 21 August 2026, with respect to rejected claims 70-84 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s argument
Independent claim 70, as amended, recites the limitations: "provide, via the client application and the at least one component digital twin corresponding to the particular component, a control signal to a control system of the industrial environment, wherein the control signal is based on the particular fault condition and the prediction of the cause generated by the at least one component digital twin, and wherein the control signal results in at least one of: a change in an operating speed of the particular component or a reduction in utilization of the particular component" (emphasis added). Independent claim 83 includes similar limitations.
Applicant respectfully submits that Wong does not disclose, teach, or fairly suggest at least these limitations of claims 70 and 83. During the interview, counsel for Applicant submitted, and the Examiner agreed, that Wong does not disclose at least these limitations.
The Examiner is thanked for their recommendation to carefully review proposed amendments in view of Cella. Applicant is unable to identify any portion of Cella that discloses the limitation "provide, via the client application and the at least one component digital twin corresponding to the particular component, a control signal to a control system of the industrial environment, wherein the control signal is based on the particular fault condition and the prediction of the cause generated by the at least one component digital twin, and wherein the control signal results in at least one of: a change in an operating speed of the particular component or a reduction in utilization of the particular component" of claims 70 and 83, as amended (emphasis added). Further, Applicant is unable to identify any portion of Cella that discloses that a "control signal results in at least one of: a change in an operating speed of the particular component or a reduction in utilization of the particular component," as recited in claims 70 and 83, as amended.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner respectfully notes the applicant’s proposed limitation of “… the recognized pattern identifying which particular fault condition, from among a plurality of different fault conditions, is exhibited by the particular component” (claim 70, and similarly in claim 83) was discussed in the applicant-initiated interview on 11 August 2026. During the interview, the examiner indicated the prior art of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/037149 A1 (Wong) did not teach the proposed amendment (“… the recognized pattern identifying which particular fault condition, from among a plurality of different fault conditions, is exhibited by the particular component”); however, the prior art of U.S. Patent No. 2019/0041846 A1 (Cella3: pgs. 94-95, par. [0592] and [0593]; see Examiner’s Interview Summary mailed on 13 August 2026) did teach the proposed amendment.
Further, the examiner respectfully notes the applicant’s representatives and examiner broadly discussed incorporating a limitation directed to “control” (i.e. controlling an operating speed) into the claims that were not merely directed to “apply it” (e.g. on/shut-off; see Examiner’s Interview Summary mailed on 13 August 2026). The limitation of (or a limitation directed to) “the control signal is based on the particular fault condition and the prediction of the cause generated by the at least one component digital twin” was not discussed in the applicant-initiated interview on 11 August 2026 (see “Amendments to the Claims” (claims 70 and 83) e-mailed on 10 August 2026 by applicant’s representative to the examiner). Hence, the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
Claims 70, 76, and 77 stand objected to, claims 70-91 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and claims 70-91 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 70, 76, and 77 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 70 recites the grammatical issue of “the plurality of sensors is” (line 5). Suggested claim language: “the plurality of sensors are”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 76 recites the grammatical issue of “the plurality of sensors is” (line 1). Suggested claim language: “the plurality of sensors are”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 77 recites the grammatical issue of “the plurality of sensors is” (line 1). Suggested claim language: “the plurality of sensors are”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 70-91 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 70:
At step 1, the claim recites “a computing system”, therefore is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… determine a recognized pattern associated with a particular component from the plurality of components in the industrial environment, wherein the recognized pattern indicates a particular fault condition, from among a plurality of different fault conditions, is exhibited by the particular component” and “… generate a prediction of a cause of the operational status of the particular component that corresponds to the particular fault condition”.
The limitation of “…determine a recognized pattern associated with a particular component from the plurality of components in the industrial environment, wherein the recognized pattern indicates a particular fault condition, from among a plurality of different fault conditions, is exhibited by the particular component” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0176550 A1: pgs. 30-31, par. [0333] and [0334]), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In the alternative, the limitation of “… determine a recognized pattern associated with a particular component from the plurality of components in the industrial environment, wherein the recognized pattern indicates a particular fault condition, from among a plurality of different fault conditions, is exhibited by the particular component”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing obtained data per a comparison to other information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… generate a prediction of a cause of the operational status of the particular component that corresponds to the particular fault condition”. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0176550 A1: pg. 180, par. [1166] and [1168] and pg. 181, par. [01711]), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “an industrial environment having a plurality of components”; “a plurality of sensors associated with the industrial environment, with each of the plurality of sensors operatively coupled to at least one of the plurality of components, wherein the plurality of sensors is configured to generate a plurality of sensor data values in response to one or more sensed parameters”; “at least one industrial-environment digital twin corresponding to the industrial environment, the at least one industrial-environment digital twin comprising a plurality of component digital twins …”; “... each of the plurality of component digital twins corresponding to at least one of the plurality of components in the industrial environment”; “… the at least one industrial-environment digital twin and the plurality of component digital twins are visual digital twins that are configured to be visually rendered”; and “at least one processor configured to: receive a request from a client application to check an operational condition of a particular component from the plurality of components in the industrial environment, …, update, at least partially in response to determination of the recognized pattern for the particular component, the at least one industrial-environment digital twin and at least one respective component digital twin based on the plurality of sensor data values, determine an operational status of the particular component based on the recognized pattern, … , provide, via the client application and the at least one component digital twin corresponding to the particular component, a control signal to a control system of the industrial environment, wherein the control signal is based on the particular fault condition and the prediction of the cause generated by the at least one component digital twin, and wherein the control signal results in at least one of: a change in an operating speed of the particular component or a reduction in utilization of the particular component; and display, in the client application, a visual rendering generated by the at least one industrial-environment digital twin and the at least one component digital twin corresponding to the particular component in response to the received request and based on the operational condition of the particular component, wherein the visual rendering visually indicates: the operational status of the particular component, and the cause of the operational status of the particular component based on the prediction”.
The limitations of “at least on processor configured to: … process …, update …, determine …, process …, provide …, display …”; “at least one industrial-environment digital twin corresponding to the industrial environment, the at least one industrial-environment digital twin comprising a plurality of component digital twins …”; “at least one industrial-environment digital twin corresponding to the industrial environment, the at least one industrial-environment digital twin comprising a plurality of component digital twins …”; “… each of the plurality of component digital twins corresponding to at least one of the plurality of components in the industrial environment”; and “a client application”; are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “an industrial environment having a plurality of components” is generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “a plurality of sensors associated with the industrial environment, with each of the plurality of sensors operatively coupled to at least one of the plurality of components, wherein the plurality of sensors is configured to generate a plurality of sensor data values in response to one or more sensed parameters” is recited at a high level of generality and represents a mere means for data gathering (i.e. sensor data values) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exceptions, as the gathering data is used in the abstract mathematical concepts of “determine” and “prediction”. The use of “a plurality of sensors …” is therefore an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “… the at least one industrial-environment digital twin and the plurality of component digital twins are visual digital twins that are configured to be visually rendered”; “provide, …, a control signal to a control system of the industrial environment, wherein the control signal is based on the particular fault condition and the prediction of the cause generated by the at least one component digital twin”; and “display, …, a visual rendering generated by the at least one industrial-environment digital twin and the at least one component digital twin corresponding to the particular component in response to the received request and based on the operational condition of the particular component, wherein the visual rendering visually indicates, the operational status of the particular component, and the cause of the operational status of the particular component based on the prediction” represent merely outputting data. The “visually render(ing)”, “provid(ing), and “display(ing)” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than insignificant extra-solution activities of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations “receive a request from a client application to check an operational condition of a particular component from the plurality of components in the industrial environment, …”; “update, at least partially in response to determination of the recognized pattern for the particular component, the at least one industrial-environment digital twin and at least one respective component digital twin based on the plurality of sensor data values”; and “determine an operational status of the particular component based on the recognized pattern, …” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0176550 A1: pgs. 141-142, par. [0977] and pg. 191, par. [1222]; i.e. [1222]: “For example, in a power plant where a turbine is operating, the data collection system may manage multiple data collectors, such as one directed to detecting the operational status of the turbine …”); represent mere data gathering. The “receiv(ing)”, “updat(ing)”, and “determin(ing)” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “…the control signal results in at least one of: … a reduction in utilization of the particular component” (Examiner’s Note: i.e. “a reduction” has been interpreted as shutdown (i.e. turning off), given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification) is a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). “As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965).” (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, these additional elements neither individually nor in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “at least on processor configured for … process …, update …, determine …, process …, provide …, display …”; “at least one industrial-environment digital twin corresponding to the industrial environment, the at least one industrial-environment digital twin comprising a plurality of component digital twins …”; “each of the plurality of component digital twins corresponding to at least one of the plurality of components in the industrial environment”; and “a client application” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The additional element of “an industrial environment having a plurality of components” merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. Where, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “a plurality of sensors associated with the industrial environment, with each of the plurality of sensors operatively coupled to at least one of the plurality of components, wherein the plurality of sensors is configured to generate a plurality of sensor data values in response to one or more sensed parameters”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “… the at least one industrial-environment digital twin and the plurality of component digital twins are visual digital twins that are configured to be visually rendered” and “display, …, a visual rendering generated by the at least one industrial-environment digital twin and the at least one component digital twin corresponding to the particular component in response to the received request and based on the operational condition of the particular component, wherein the visual rendering visually indicates, the operational status of the particular component, and the cause of the operational status of the particular component based on the prediction”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), presenting offers and gathering statistics.
The limitation of “provide, …, a control signal to a control system of the industrial environment, wherein the control signal is based on the particular fault condition and the prediction of the cause generated by the at least one component digital twin”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
The limitations of “receive a request from a client application to check an operational condition of a particular component from the plurality of components in the industrial environment, …”; “update the at least one industrial-environment digital twin and at least one respective component digital twin of the plurality of component digital twins based on the plurality of sensor data values, at least in part, in response to determination of the recognized pattern for the particular component”; and “determine an operational status of the particular component based on the recognized pattern, …” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0176550 A1: pgs. 141-142, par. [0977] and pg. 191, par. [1222]; i.e. [1222]: “For example, in a power plant where a turbine is operating, the data collection system may manage multiple data collectors, such as one directed to detecting the operational status of the turbine …”), as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “…the control signal results in at least one of: … a reduction in utilization of the particular component” (Examiner’s Note: i.e. “a reduction” has been interpreted as shutdown (i.e. turning off), given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification) represents an equivalent recitation of the phrase “apply it”, wherein the courts have identified limitations that “(m)erely recit(e) the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent)” with the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept …”. (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 71:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… at least one system characteristic determined to be related to the recognized pattern”.
The limitation of “… at least one system characteristic determined to be related to the recognized pattern” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0176550 A1: pg. 264, par. [1809] and pgs. 387-388, par. [2459]), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In the alternative, the limitation of “… at least one system characteristic determined to be related to the recognized pattern”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determined” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing obtained data per a comparison to other information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “an executive digital twin configured to provide forecasted financial information for a given component …”.
The limitation of “an executive digital twin configured to provide forecasted financial information for a given component …” represents merely outputting data. The “provid(ing)” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, this additional element does integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “an executive digital twin configured to provide forecasted financial information for a given component …”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), presenting offers and gathering statistics.
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 72:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… at least one system characteristic determined to be related to the recognized pattern”.
The limitation of “… at least one system characteristic determined to be related to the recognized pattern” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0176550 A1: pgs. 30-31, par. [0333] and [0334] and pg. 413, par. [2613]), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In the alternative, the limitation of “… at least one system characteristic determined to be related to the recognized pattern”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determined” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing obtained data per a comparison to other information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… an operator digital twin configured to provide workflow information for performing maintenance for a given component …”.
The limitation of “… an operator digital twin configured to provide workflow information for performing maintenance for a given component …” represents merely outputting data. The “provid(ing)” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, this additional element does integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… an operator digital twin configured to provide workflow information for performing maintenance for a given component …”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), presenting offers and gathering statistics.
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 73:
The limitation of “the cause of the operational status of the particular component is based on at least one system characteristic including …” merely further details “… a prediction of a cause of the operational status of the particular component …” of claim 70; and hence, the claim is rejected under the same rational as set forth in claim 70.
Claim 74:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… determining the recognized pattern relates to the at least one system characteristic for the given component”.
The limitation of “… determining the recognized pattern relates to the at least one system characteristic for the given component” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0176550 A1: pg. 166, par. [1083]), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In the alternative, the limitation of “… determining the recognized pattern relates to the at least one system characteristic for the given component”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing obtained data per a compassion to other information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… the at least one processor is further configured to generate a notification for at least one user …”.
The limitation of “… the at least one processor …” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation “… generate a notification for at least one user …” represents mere data gathering. The “generat(ing)” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements neither individually nor in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… the at least one processor …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… generate a notification for at least one user …”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 75:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… the at least one processor is further configured to configure the client application to allow selection of the notification …” and “… the visual rendering the at least one industrial-environment digital twin and the at least one respective component digital twin corresponding to the given component is in response to the selection of the notification”.
The limitation of “… the at least one processor is further configured to configure the client application to allow selection of the notification …” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation “… the selection of the notification …” represents mere data gathering. The “selection” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “… the visual rendering the at least one industrial-environment digital twin and the at least one respective component digital twin corresponding to the given component …” represents merely outputting data. The “rendering” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements neither individually nor in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… the at least one processor is further configured to configure the client application to allow selection of the notification …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… the selection of the notification …”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “… the visual rendering the at least one industrial-environment digital twin and the at least one respective component digital twin corresponding to the given component …”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), presenting offers and gathering statistics.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 76-79:
The limitations of claims 76-79 further detail the plurality of sensors of claim 70; and hence, the claims are rejected under the same rational as set forth in claim 70.
Claim 80:
The limitation of “the plurality of sensor data values include vibration parameters related to a wobble in a motor of the particular component” merely further details the sensor data values of claim 70; and hence, the claim is rejected under the same rational as claim 70.
Further, at step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… the at least one processor is further configured to generate maintenance indications based on the vibration parameters related to the wobble”.
The limitation of “… the at least one processor …” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation “… generate maintenance indications based on the vibration parameters related to the wobble” represents mere data gathering. The “generat(ing)” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements neither individually nor in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… the at least one processor …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… generate maintenance indications based on the vibration parameters related to the wobble”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 81:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… at least one of: predict a bearing life for the motor, identify a bearing health parameter, identify a bearing performance parameter, identify wear on a bearing, identify presence of foreign matter in bearings, identify air gaps in bearings, identify a loss of fluid in fluid coated bearings, identify stress and strain of flexure bearings, or identify behavior at a selected operation frequency for the plurality of components”.
The limitation of “… at least one of: predict a bearing life for the motor, identify a bearing health parameter, identify a bearing performance parameter, identify wear on a bearing, identify presence of foreign matter in bearings, identify air gaps in bearings, identify a loss of fluid in fluid coated bearings, identify stress and strain of flexure bearings, or identify behavior at a selected operation frequency for the plurality of components” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0176550 A1: pgs. 107-108, par. [0778] and [0779), as drafted, are processes, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In the alternative, the limitation of “… at least one of: predict a bearing life for the motor, identify a bearing health parameter, identify a bearing performance parameter, identify wear on a bearing, identify presence of foreign matter in bearings, identify air gaps in bearings, identify a loss of fluid in fluid coated bearings, identify stress and strain of flexure bearings, or identify behavior at a selected operation frequency for the plurality of components”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing obtained data per a comparison to other information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… the at least one processor …”.
The limitation of “… the at least one processor …” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… the at least one processor …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 82:
The limitation of “the prediction of the cause of the operational status of the particular component includes on at least one of: …” merely further details “… a prediction of a cause of the operational status of the particular component …” of claim 70; and hence, the claim is rejected under the same rational as set forth in claim 70.
Claim 83:
Claim 83 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 70 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 70.
Claim 84:
Claim 84 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 82 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 82.
Claim 85:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… a simulation, executed by the at least one component digital twin corresponding to the particular component, that simulates an effect of the recognized pattern on an operation of the particular component”.
The limitation of “… a simulation, executed by the at least one component digital twin corresponding to the particular component, that simulates an effect of the recognized pattern on an operation of the particular component” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0176550 A1: pgs. 32, par. [0339] and pg. 416, par. [2625]), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 86:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… the at least one processor is further configured to receive, from the plurality of sensors, further sensor data values generated after the control signal is provided, to update the at least one component digital twin corresponding to the particular component based on the further sensor data values, and to update the visual rendering in the client application to visually indicate a change in the operational status of the particular component resulting from the control signal”.
The limitation of “… the at least one processor is further configured to receive … to update, … and to update …” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… receive, from the plurality of sensors, further sensor data values generated after the control signal is provided …” is recited at a high level of generality and represent a mere means and action of data gathering (i.e. sensor data values). The use of the “a plurality of sensors …” is therefore an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “… update the at least one component digital twin corresponding to the particular component based on the further sensor data values …” represents mere data gathering. The “updat(ing)” recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “… update the visual rendering in the client application to visually indicate a change in the operational status of the particular component resulting from the control signal” represents merely outputting data. The “visual rendering” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than insignificant extra-solution activities of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements neither individually nor in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… the at least one processor is further configured to receive … to update, … and to update …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… update the at least one component digital twin corresponding to the particular component based on the further sensor data values …”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “… receive, from the plurality of sensors, further sensor data values generated after the control signal is provided …” as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “… update the visual rendering in the client application to visually indicate a change in the operational status of the particular component resulting from the control signal”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), presenting offers and gathering statistics.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 87:
The limitations “a motor” and “at least one of broken or cracked rotor bars in the motor, a misalignment in the motor, an imbalance in the motor, or a material build-up in the motor” merely further detail the “particular component” and “recognized pattern” of claim 70; and hence, the claim is rejected under the same rational as set forth in claim 70.
Claim 88:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “the at least one processor is further configured to render the plurality of component digital twins as a set of discrete component digital twins embedded within the at least one industrial-environment digital twin based on imported properties of the particular component and on historical behavior of the particular component.
The limitation of “the at least one processor is further configured to render …” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… render the plurality of component digital twins as a set of discrete component digital twins embedded within the at least one industrial-environment digital twin” represents merely outputting data. The “render(ing)” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than insignificant extra-solution activities of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “… imported properties of the particular component and on historical behavior of the particular component” represents mere data gathering. The “imported” recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements neither individually nor in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “the at least one processor is further configured to render …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… render the plurality of component digital twins as a set of discrete component digital twins embedded within the at least one industrial-environment digital twin”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), presenting offers and gathering statistics.
The limitation of “… imported properties of the particular component and on historical behavior of the particular component”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 89:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… receiving, from the plurality of sensors, further sensor data values generated after the control signal is provided, updating the component digital twin corresponding to the particular component based on the further sensor data values, and updating the visual rendering in the client application to visually indicate a change in the operational status of the particular component resulting from the control signal”.
The limitation of “… receiving, from the plurality of sensors, further sensor data values generated after the control signal is provided …” is recited at a high level of generality and represent a mere means and action of data gathering (i.e. sensor data values). The use of the “a plurality of sensors …” is therefore an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “… updating the component digital twin corresponding to the particular component based on the further sensor data values …” represents mere data gathering. The “updating” recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “… updating the visual rendering in the client application to visually indicate a change in the operational status of the particular component resulting from the control signal” represents merely outputting data. The “visual rendering” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than insignificant extra-solution activities of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements neither individually nor in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the limitation of “… receiving, from the plurality of sensors, further sensor data values generated after the control signal is provided …” as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “… updating the component digital twin corresponding to the particular component based on the further sensor data values …”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “… updating the visual rendering in the client application to visually indicate a change in the operational status of the particular component resulting from the control signal”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), presenting offers and gathering statistics.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 90:
The limitations “a motor” and “at least one of broken or cracked rotor bars in the motor, a misalignment in the motor, an imbalance in the motor, or a material build-up in the motor” merely further details the “particular component” and “recognized pattern” of claim 83; and hence, the claim is rejected under the same rational as set forth in claim 83.
Claim 91:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… a simulation, executed by the component digital twin corresponding to the particular component, that simulates an effect of the recognized pattern on an operation of the particular component”.
The limitation of “… a simulation, executed by the component digital twin corresponding to the particular component, that simulates an effect of the recognized pattern on an operation of the particular component” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0176550 A1: pgs. 32, par. [0339] and pg. 416, par. [2625]), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 70, 73-78, 80, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, and 91 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0255748 A1 (hereinafter Rickard) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0371491 A1 (hereinafter Wong) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0041846 A1 (hereinafter Cella), U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0138970 A1 (hereinafter Deutsch), U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0169514 A1 (hereinafter Eryurek), and European Patent Publication No. EP 3 731 201 (hereinafter Lymperopoulos).
As per claim 70, Rickard substantially teaches the claimed invention. Rickard teaches the limitations of a computing system for fault diagnosis in an industrial environment having a plurality of components, the computing system comprising:
a plurality of sensors (Fig. 1, element 134) associated with the industrial environment, with each of the plurality of sensors operatively coupled to at least one of the plurality of components, wherein the plurality of sensors is configured to generate a plurality of sensor data values in response to one or more sensed parameters (pg. 4, par. [0044] and pg. 6, par. [0064]; i.e. [0044]: “… A device, system, or collection of devices or systems that can provide information associated with an entity (e.g., device, system, gauge, instrument, detector, antenna, monitor, or any kind of scope, meter, or graph).” and [0064]: “… manufacturing site physical system that may include sensors and/or measuring devices coupled to a machinery physical subsystem so that monitoring of the operation of machinery at the manufacturing site and variations in manufacturing conditions, such as temperature, efficiency, output, etc., and/or the like may occur.”);
at least one industrial-environment digital twin corresponding to the industrial environment (pg. 10, par. [0094], Fig. 2, element 214, and Fig. 3; i.e. “FIG. 3 illustrates a user interface 300 that displays the internal structure of the system 214 with a time slider 306 in the viewing mode.”), the at least one industrial-environment digital twin comprising a plurality of component digital twins (Fig. 3, element 310A-H; i.e. model specific objects),
wherein each of the plurality of component digital twins corresponding to at least one of the plurality of components in the industrial environment (pg. 10, par. [0095] and [0096]; i.e. [0096]: “… some or all of the subsystems 204A-C depicted in the schematic panel 220 may further include model specific objects 310A-H with object properties that may be specific to the subsystem 204A-C.”),, and
wherein the at least one industrial-environment digital twin and the plurality of component digital twins are visual digital twins that are configured to be visually rendered (pgs. 5-6, par. [0055] and [0061] and pg. 10, par. [0094]; i.e. [0061]: “The real world system 130 can also be a physical system that has a structure that comprises various components and equipment and may be located in various areas. For example, the real world system 130 may be located at an environmental monitoring and/or research site such as a volcano, an ocean, a river, a lake, an ice sheet, a forest, and/or the like. In another example, the real world system 130 may be a technical system, e.g. a manufacturing site, such as a location in which machinery is used to make articles.” and [0094]: “FIG. 3 illustrates a user interface 300 that displays the internal structure of the system 214 with a time slider 306 in the viewing mode.”); and
at least one processor (pgs. 14-15, par. [0130] and [0131] and Fig. 10, element 104; i.e. hardware processor(s)) configured to:
receive a request from a client application to check an operational condition of a particular component from the plurality of components in the industrial environment (pg. 11, par. [0105]; i.e. “For example, the compressor 310C may be selected by a user, which causes the interactive equipment panel 404 to display a list of measurement properties and values 406 (e.g., speed, suction pressure, discharge pressure, and suction pressure) associated with the selected compressor 310C for a specific point in time (e.g., May 21.sup.st at 6:46 AM) or a specific range of time.”), and
update, at least partially in response to data for the particular component, the at least one industrial-environment digital twin and at least one respective component digital twin of the plurality of component digital twins (pg. 5, par. [0057], pg. 2, par. [0082] and pg. 11, par. [0100]; i.e. [0057]: “… live sensor data can be provided as an input to one or more of the simulated models which represent, for example, a technical system in the real world. In response, a graphical user interface (GUI) can be generated that includes one or more panels to display technical objects (e.g., pumps, compressors, valves, machinery, welding stations, vats, containers, products or items, organizations, countries, counties, factories, customers, hospitals, etc.) and/or technical object properties (e.g., flow rate, suction temperature, volume, capacity, order volume, sales amounts, sales quantity during a time period (e.g., a day, a week, a year, etc.), population density, patient volume, etc.).”; [0082]: “In the case of a manufacturing site, events may include machinery malfunction, a structural vibration in a part of the machinery, changes in manufacturing conditions (e.g., temperature, efficiency, output, etc.), and/or the like.”; and [0100]: “In the case of a manufacturing site, events may include machinery malfunction, a structural vibration in a part of the machinery, changes in manufacturing conditions (e.g., temperature, efficiency, output, etc.), and/or the like.”).
Not explicitly taught are process the plurality of sensor data values to determine a recognized pattern associated with a particular component from the plurality of components in the industrial environment, wherein the recognized pattern indicates a particular fault condition, from among a plurality of different fault conditions, is exhibited by the particular component,
update, at least in response to determination of the recognized pattern for the particular component, the at least one industrial-environment digital twin and at least one respective component digital twin based on the plurality of sensor data values,
determine an operational status of the particular component based on the recognized pattern,
process the plurality of sensor data values and/or the recognized pattern with the at least one industrial-environment digital twin and at least one component digital twin of the plurality of component digital twins that corresponds to the particular component to generate a prediction of a cause of the operational status of the particular component the corresponds to the particular fault condition,
provide, via the client application and the at least one component digital twin corresponding to the particular component, a control signal to a control system of the industrial environment,
wherein the control signal is based on the particular fault condition and the prediction of the cause generated by the at least one component digital twin, and
wherein the control signal results in at least one of: a change in an operating speed of the particular component or a reduction in utilization of the particular component; and
display, in the client application, a visual rendering generated by the at least one industrial-environment digital twin and the at least one component digital twin corresponding to the particular component in response to the received request and based on the operational condition of the particular component, wherein the visual rendering visually indicates:
the operational status of the particular component, and
the cause of the operational status of the particular component based on the prediction.
However Wong, in an analogous art of a monitoring system (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitations of process a plurality of sensor data values to determine a recognized pattern (i.e. classification) associated with a particular component from a plurality of components in an industrial environment (pgs. 4-5, par. [0063], [0064], [0068], [0069] and [0070] and Fig. 1; i.e. [0064]: “A sensor data analysis system in accordance with an embodiment is illustrated in overview in FIG. 2. The system comprises a set of industrial process sensors 202 which provide the raw sensor data input.”, [0068]: “The context vector thus provides a summary of the operating state of the industrial process or machine at a given time.”, [0069]: “Context vectors generated by the neural network based on training data are provided to train the context vector classifier 210. This involves clustering of context vectors (step 308) to determine a set of context vector clusters representing different classifications of the system operating state.” and [0070]: “The real-time monitoring phase is illustrated in more detail in FIG. 4. Referring to FIGS. 2 and 4, the real-time sensor data is acquired in step 402 and optionally pre-processed in step 404. The (pre-processed) sensor data is then input to the trained neural network in step 406, which generates context vectors based on the real-time data. The context vectors are then classified (where possible) by the context vector classifier in step 408 and an operating state is identified based on the output of the classifier in step 410.”);
update, at least in response to determination of the recognized pattern for the particular component, a data representation based on the plurality of sensor data values (pg. 5, par. [0071] and pg. 15, par. [0246]; i.e. [0246]: “Applying real-time sensor data to a model results in generation of a series of context vectors and their associated classification in relation to the vector clustering established during the training phase. Based on the analysis (e.g. classification of a context vector or series of context vectors as being part of a particular cluster, or as deviating from a particular cluster), user alerts may be generated for transmission to an operator workstation or other device 1616. For example, certain alerts could be transmitted to a mobile telephone device of an operator in the form of a Short Message Service (SMS) message or other electronic/instant message, or could be displayed via a monitoring interface on a workstation. In some cases, control commands could also be transmitted directly to the process/machine via a control system 1618, for example to change operating parameters (e.g. to compensate for a detected operating state, e.g. raise pressure if sensor readings suggest pressure is falling below tolerances) or to initiate a safe shutdown of the process/machine.”); and
determine an operational status of the particular component based on the recognized pattern (pg. 14, par. [0238]; i.e. “Context vectors can be used to create clusters for manual labelling of vibration patterns, then alarms can be triggered when the context vector drifts beyond the pre-defined cluster boundary. Operators can then adjust process settings to reduce vibration (and hence prevent vibration tripping and causing shutdown of the system).”) for real-time monitoring (pg. 15, par. [0246]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard to include the addition of the limitation of process a plurality of sensor data values to determine a recognized pattern associated with a particular component from a plurality of components in an industrial environment; update, at least in response to determination of the recognized pattern for the particular component, a data representation based on the plurality of sensor data values; and determine an operational status of the particular component based on the recognized pattern to improve detection of normal and abnormal operating states of a process, machine, or system (Wong: pg. 1, par. [0003]).
Rickard in view of Wong does not expressly teach the recognized pattern indicates a particular fault condition, from among a plurality of different fault conditions, is exhibited by the particular component,
process the plurality of sensor data values and/or the recognized pattern with the at least one industrial-environment digital twin and at least one component digital twin of the plurality of component digital twins that corresponds to the particular component to generate a prediction of a cause of the operational status of the particular component the corresponds to the particular fault condition,
provide, via the client application and the at least one component digital twin corresponding to the particular component, a control signal to a control system of the industrial environment,
wherein the control signal is based on the particular fault condition and the prediction of the cause generated by the at least one component digital twin, and
wherein the control signal results in at least one of: a change in an operating speed of the particular component or a reduction in utilization of the particular component; and
display, in the client application, a visual rendering generated by the at least one industrial-environment digital twin and the at least one component digital twin corresponding to the particular component in response to the received request and based on the operational condition of the particular component, wherein the visual rendering visually indicates:
the operational status of the particular component, and
the cause of the operational status of the particular component based on the prediction.
However Cella, in analogous art of monitoring systems for collecting data related to an industrial process (pg. 2, par. [0014]), teaches the missing limitation of a recognized pattern indicates a particular fault condition, from among a plurality of different fault conditions, is exhibited by a particular component (pg. 31, par. [0276], pg. 32, par. [0279], pg. 69, par. [0488], and pgs. 94-95, par. [0592] and [0593]; i.e. [0276]: “The learning machine may then operate on other data, initially using a set of rules or elements of a model, such as to provide a variety of outputs, such as classification of data into types, recognition of certain patterns (such as those indicating the presence of faults, orthoses indicating operating conditions, such as fuel efficiency, energy production, or the like).”, [0279]: “In embodiments, machine learning may take advantage of a state machine, such as tracking states of multiple analog and/or digital sensors, feeding the states into a pattern analysis facility, and determining anticipated states of the industrial system based on historical data about sequences of state information. For example, where a temperature state of an industrial machine exceeds a certain threshold and is followed by a fault condition, such as breaking down of a set of bearings, that temperature state may be tracked by a pattern recognizer, which may produce an output data structure indicating an anticipated bearing fault state (whenever an input state of a high temperature is recognized).”; [0488]: “A modular neural network, where the expert system uses one type of neural network for recognizing a pattern and a different neural network for self-organizing an activity in the industrial environment. 2. A system of clause 1, wherein the pattern indicates a fault condition of a machine.”, and [0593]: “The system characterization value 11030 includes any value determined from the pattern recognition operations of the pattern recognition circuit 11020, including determining that a system condition of interest is present, a component condition of interest is present, an abstracted condition of the system or a component is present (e.g., a product quality value; an operation cost value; a component health, wear, or maintenance value; a component capacity value; and/or a sensor saturation value) and/or is predicted to occur within a time frame (e.g., calendar time, operational time, and/or a process stage) of interest. Pattern recognition operations include determining that operations compatible with a previously known pattern, operations similar to a previously known pattern and/or extrapolated from previously known pattern information (e.g., a previously known pattern includes a temperature response for a first component, and a known or estimated relationship between components allows for a determination that a temperature for a second component will exceed a threshold based upon the pattern recognition for the first component combined with the known or estimated relationship).”) for the purpose of obtaining a system characterization (pg. 95, par. [0593]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong to include the addition of the limitation of a recognized pattern indicates a particular fault condition, from among a plurality of different fault conditions, is exhibited by a particular component to advantageously provide improved monitoring, control, intelligent diagnosis of problems and intelligent optimization of operations in various heavy industrial environments (Cella: pg. 1, par. [0012]).
Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella does not expressly teach process the plurality of sensor data values and/or the recognized pattern with the at least one industrial-environment digital twin and at least one component digital twin of the plurality of component digital twins that corresponds to the particular component to generate a prediction of a cause of the operational status of the particular component that corresponds to the particular fault condition,
provide, via the client application and the at least one component digital twin corresponding to the particular component, a control signal to a control system of the industrial environment,
wherein the control signal is based on the particular fault condition and the prediction of the cause generated by the at least one component digital twin, and
wherein the control signal results in at least one of: a change in an operating speed of the particular component or a reduction in utilization of the particular component; and
display, in the client application, a visual rendering generated by the at least one industrial-environment digital twin and the at least one component digital twin corresponding to the particular component in response to the received request and based on the operational condition of the particular component, wherein the visual rendering visually indicates:
the operational status of the particular component, and
the cause of the operational status of the particular component based on the prediction.
However Deutsch, in an analogous art of monitoring a system (pg. 1, par. [0007], teaches the missing limitations of processing a plurality of sensor data values with at least one component digital twin of a plurality of component digital twins that corresponds to a particular component to generate a prediction of a cause of an operational status of the particular component that corresponds to a fault condition (pgs. 6-7, par. [0072] and [0073]; i.e. “Operational events may include actions, events, occurrences, and the like, which have affected or which may affect the operating characteristics of the asset. In the example of the gas turbine, operational events may include any event on the gas turbine that has caused or that is predicted to cause an issue with the asset such as a failure of a component, a deterioration of a component, an upgrade that is available, a case being opened, or the like.”),
provide, via a client application and at least one component digital twin corresponding to the particular component, a control signal to a control system of an industrial environment (pgs. 3-4, par. [0044], pg. 5, par. [0054]-[0056]; i.e. [0044]: “The example embodiments provide a system that can create and run full lifecycle digital twin models of all active entities in an industrial environment including, but not limited to, physical assets and systems of assets, software and physical processes, actors, resources, and the like.”, [0054]: “As another example, the user device 130 may display a graphical user interface that allows a user thereof to input commands to an asset via one or more applications hosted by the cloud platform 120.”, and [0056]: “Furthermore, an operation of the assets 110 may be enhanced or otherwise controlled by a user inputting commands though an application hosted by the cloud platform 120 or other remote host platform such as a web server. The data provided from the assets 110 may include time-series data or other types of data associated with the operations being performed by the assets 110”),
wherein the control signal is based on a fault condition and prediction of a cause generated by the at least one component digital twin (pgs. 6-7, par. [0065] and [0072]-[0075]; i.e. [0072]: “Operational events may include actions, events, occurrences, and the like, which have affected or which may affect the operating characteristics of the asset. In the example of the gas turbine, operational events may include any event on the gas turbine that has caused or that is predicted to cause an issue with the asset such as a failure of a component, a deterioration of a component, an upgrade that is available, a case being opened, or the like.” and [0075]: “As another example, the suggested course of action may also suggest a specific operator, machine, equipment, etc. to be used to perform the suggested course of action based on the other previous similar events.”), and
display a visual rendering (pg. 7, par. [0074] and Fig. 4, element 400; i.e. “In FIG. 4, the new operational event comprises a warning 410 of a current operational event (or predicted future event) indicating that a compressor on a gas turbine is likely to overheat causing damage to the gas turbine.”), wherein the visual rendering visually indicates:
the operational status of the particular component (pg. 7, par. [0074] and [0075] and Fig. 4, element 410; i.e. an indication of a predicted event), and
the cause of the operational status of the particular component based on the prediction (pg. 7, par. [0074] and [0075] and Fig. 4, element 410; i.e. a description of the predicted event) for the purpose of gathering knowledge from an asset and determining context for decision making from an accumulation of the knowledge (pg. 1, par. [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella to include the addition of the limitations of processing a plurality of sensor data values with at least one component digital twin of a plurality of component digital twins that corresponds to a particular component to generate a prediction of a cause of an operational status of the particular component that corresponds to a fault condition, provide, via a client application and at least one component digital twin corresponding to the particular component, a control signal to a control system of an industrial environment, wherein the control signal is based on a fault condition and prediction of a cause generated by the at least one component digital twin, and display a visual rendering, wherein the visual rendering visually indicates: the operational status of the particular component, and the cause of the operational status of the particular component based on the prediction to advantageously provide a unified platform that seamlessly encompasses a cloud and an edge and that generates and outputs context with a digital twin to further enhance and support interaction with the digital twin (Deutsch: pg. 1, par. [0006]).
Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella and Deutsch does not expressly teach display, in the client application, a visual rendering generated by the at least one industrial-environment digital twin and the at least one component digital twin corresponding to the particular component in response to the received request and based on the operational condition of the particular component; and
wherein the control signal results in at least one of: a change in an operating speed of the particular component or a reduction in utilization of the particular component.
However Eryurek, in an analogous art of monitoring a system (pg. 4, par. [0047] and pg. 6, par. [0054]), teaches the missing limitation of display a visual rendering generated by at least one industrial-environment digital twin and at least one component digital twin corresponding to a particular component in response to a received request and based on an operational condition of the particular component (pg. 17, par. [0121]-[0123]; i.e. [0123]: “ Thus, for example, a user may look at a view of the plant and see a particular set of indices for the plant. The user may then focus on one area, such as by clicking on one of the areas within the plant view, and see the indices associated with that area. Similarly, by clicking on units within the displayed area, the indices for different units may be viewed. Likewise indices for loops, sub units, devices etc. may then be viewed by focusing in on these different entities from a view of an entity in which these entities are located. In this manner, a user can quickly find the cause of a lower than (or higher than) expected index at any point or level of the plant.”) for the purpose of displaying information of a plant, loops, sub units, devices, etc. (pg. 17, par. [0121]-[0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella and Deutsch to include the addition of the limitation of display a visual rendering generated by at least one industrial-environment digital twin and at least one component digital twin corresponding to a particular component in response to a received request and based on an operational condition of the particular component to enable a user to quickly analyze performance status and performance of a process area within a plant (Eryurek: pg. 17, par. [0122]).
Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, and Eryurek do not expressly teach wherein the control signal results in at least one of: a change in an operating speed of the particular component or a reduction in utilization of the particular component.
However, Lymperopoulos in an angolous art of monitoring and controlling industrial processes and systems (col. 2-3, par. [0001] and [0011]), teaches the missing limitation of control signal results in at least one of: a change in an operating speed of a component or a reduction in utilization of the component (col. 12-13, par. [0053]; i.e. “The suggestion may be a specific control action, instruction to move a valve position or change a motor speed, or shut down the system or start up a parallel process, for example. Since a prediction may alert the human operator about a critical situation with a suggestion how to overcome the critical situation before it happens, the human operator may perform control actions in advance so that the critical situation will not occur, which in turn increases productivity (efficiency of production) and shortens shut-down times, compared to solutions in which alerts are generated in response to the critical situation happening.”) for the purpose of adjusting an industrial process (col. 12-13, par. [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, and Eryurek to include the addition of the limitation of control signal results in at least one of: a change in an operating speed of a component or a reduction in utilization of the component to advantageously assist a human operator with control tasks thereby increasing performance and long-term safety of equipment and personnel on a site where an industrial process is running (Lymperopoulous: col. 15, par. [0065]).
As per claim 73, Rickard teaches a given component of the plurality of components (pg. 4, par. [0044] and pg. 6, par. [0064]; i.e. [0044]: “… A device, system, or collection of devices or systems that can provide information associated with an entity (e.g., device, system, gauge, instrument, detector, antenna, monitor, or any kind of scope, meter, or graph).” and [0064]: “… manufacturing site physical system that may include sensors and/or measuring devices coupled to a machinery physical subsystem so that monitoring of the operation of machinery at the manufacturing site and variations in manufacturing conditions, such as temperature, efficiency, output, etc., and/or the like may occur.”).
Rickard does not expressly teach the cause of the operational status of the particular component is based on at least one system characteristic including at least one of: a fault operation for a given component of the plurality of components, an off-nominal operation for the given component of the plurality of components, or an exceedance value for the given component of the plurality of components.
However Wong, in an analogous art of a monitoring system (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitations of at least one system characteristic including a fault operation for a given component (i.e. a machine) of a plurality of components (pgs. 4-5, par. [0063], par. [0069], and [0070]; i.e. [0063]: “Although the discussion of the proposed approach is focused on the natural gas terminal use case, it can be further extended to any multi-sensor multi-state processes or machines.”; [0069]: “The clusters may be labelled (e.g. by an expert, or automatically based on prior knowledge of operating states associated with the historical sensor data) in step 310 to specify the type of operating state each cluster represents (e.g. “normal operation”, “system failure” etc.)”; and [0070]: “The context vectors are then classified (where possible) by the context vector classifier in step 408 and an operating state is identified based on the output of the classifier in step 410. This may involve assigning a known classification (cluster membership) to a context vector, representing a known operating state (whether normal or abnormal/faulty) and/or detecting a divergence from known classifications, representing a possible abnormal/failure state. The system then outputs the result of the operating state detection.”) for real-time monitoring (pg. 15, par. [0246]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard to include the addition of the limitation of at least one system characteristic including a fault operation for a given component of a plurality of components to improve detection of normal and abnormal operating states of a process, machine, or system (Wong: pg. 1, par. [0003]).
Rickard in view of Wong does not expressly teach the cause of the operational status of the particular component is based on at least one system characteristic including at least one of: a fault operation for a given component of the plurality of components, an off-nominal operation for the given component of the plurality of components, or an exceedance value for the given component of the plurality of components.
Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella does not expressly teach the cause of the operational status of the particular component is based on at least one system characteristic including at least one of: a fault operation for a given component of the plurality of components, an off-nominal operation for the given component of the plurality of components, or an exceedance value for the given component of the plurality of components.
However Deutsch, in an analogous art of monitoring a system (pg. 1, par. [0007], teaches the missing limitation of the cause of the operational status of the particular component is based on at least one system characteristic including at least one of: a fault operation for a given component of a plurality of components (pgs. 6-7, par. [0072] and [0073]; i.e. “Operational events may include actions, events, occurrences, and the like, which have affected or which may affect the operating characteristics of the asset. In the example of the gas turbine, operational events may include any event on the gas turbine that has caused or that is predicted to cause an issue with the asset such as a failure of a component, a deterioration of a component, an upgrade that is available, a case being opened, or the like.”) for the purpose of gathering knowledge from an asset and determining context for decision making from an accumulation of the knowledge (pg. 1, par. [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella to include the addition of the limitation of the cause of the operational status of the particular component is based on at least one system characteristic including at least one of: a fault operation for a given component of a plurality of components to advantageously provide a unified platform that seamlessly encompasses a cloud and an edge and that generates and outputs context with a digital twin to further enhance and support interaction with the digital twin (Deutsch: pg. 1, par. [0006]).
As per claim 74, Rickard teaches generate a notification for at least one user (pg. 18, par. [0171]; i.e. “… an alert and/or notification is automatically transmitted to the user device operated by the entity associated with the alert and/or notification from the system (e.g. system simulation server and/or physical or logical system). The alert and/or notification can be transmitted at the time that the alert and/or notification is generated or at some determined time after generation of the alert and/or notification. When received by the user device, the alert and/or notification can cause the user device to display the alert and/or notification via the activation of an application on the user device (e.g., a browser, a mobile application, etc.).”).
Rickard does not expressly generate a notification for at least one user in response to determining the recognized pattern relates to the at least one system characteristic for the given component.
However Wong, in an analogous art of a monitoring system (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of generate a notification in response to the determination that the recognized pattern relates to the at least one system characteristic for the given component (pg. 5, par. [0071]; i.e. “Output of the operating state indication and/or abnormal state indication/alert (steps 414, 416) may occur via a control panel associated with the process/machine (e.g. using indicator lights or a digital display), via an operator computer terminal displaying process diagnostics, via electronic messages to an operator device (e.g. email/instant message to an operator smartphone or table computer), or in any other appropriate way.”) for real-time monitoring (pg. 15, par. [0246]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard to include the addition of the limitation of generate a notification in response to the determination that the recognized pattern relates to the at least one system characteristic for the given component to improve detection of normal and abnormal operating states of a process, machine, or system (Wong: pg. 1, par. [0003]).
As per claim 75, Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella and Deutsch does not expressly teach the at least one processor is further configured to configure the client application to allow selection of the notification, and wherein the visual rendering of the at least one industrial-environment digital twin and the at least one component digital twin corresponding to the given component is in response to the selection of the notification.
However Eryurek, in an analogous art of monitoring a system (pg. 4, par. [0047] and pg. 6, par. [0054]), teaches the missing limitations of a configure a client application to allow selection of the notification (pg. 18, par. [0126]-[0128]; i.e. [0127]: “Generally speaking, a user may request device status information from a pop-up window such as the pop-up window 780 shown in FIG. 20.” and [0128]: “A user may then focus the diagnostic investigation on the devices displayed within the window 800 by clicking on or selecting one or more of the devices to thereby generate additional pop-up windows such as those described above that provide more detailed device status and performance information.”), and
wherein the visual rendering of the at least one industrial-environment digital twin (Fig. 20, element 750) and the at least one respective component digital twin (Fig. 25, element 800) corresponding to a given component is in response to the selection of the notification (pg. 18, par. [0126]-[0128]; i.e. [0126]: “A high level graphical view 750 of the plant 10 may include an alarm banner 760 having one or more pending alarms.” and [0128]: “A user may then focus the diagnostic investigation on the devices displayed within the window 800 by clicking on or selecting one or more of the devices to thereby generate additional pop-up windows such as those described above that provide more detailed device status and performance information.”) for the purpose of displaying information of a plant, loops, sub units, devices, etc. (pg. 17, par. [0121]-[0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella and Deutsch to include the addition of the limitations of a configure a client application to allow selection of the notification, and wherein the visual rendering of the at least one industrial-environment digital twin and the at least one respective component digital twin corresponding to a given component is in response to the selection of the notification to quickly analyze performance status and performance of a process area within a plant (Eryurek: pg. 17, par. [0122]).
As per claim 76, Rickard teaches the plurality of sensors (Fig. 1, element 134) is configured to generate the plurality of sensor data values to include data for temperature (pg. 6, par. [0063]; i.e. [0063]: “A plurality of logical computations (e.g., order volume, sales quantity during a time period, etc.), sensors, and/or measuring devices 134 may couple to the real world subsystems 132. … The sensors and/or measuring devices 134 may detect or measure physical properties, such as pressure, flow rate, acoustic signals, temperature or changes in temperature, vehicle speed, motion, images, and/or the like.”).
Rickard does not expressly teach the plurality of sensors is configured to generate the plurality of sensor data values to include a stream of phase-based data for at least one of temperature, humidity, or load.
Rickard in view of Wong does not expressly teach the plurality of sensors is configured to generate the plurality of sensor data values to include a stream of phase- based data for at least one of temperature, humidity, or load.
However Cella, in analogous art of monitoring systems for collecting data related to an industrial process (pg. 2, par. [0014]), teaches the missing limitation of a plurality of sensors (Fig. 41, element 9006; i.e. sensors) are configured to generate a plurality of sensor data values to include a stream of phase-based data for at least one of temperature, humidity, or load (pg. 59, par. [0425] and [0426]; i.e. “The sensors 9006 may provide a stream of data over time that has a phase component, such as relating to acceleration or vibration, allowing for the evaluation of phase or frequency analysis of different operational aspects of a piece of equipment or an operating component. The sensors 9006 may provide a stream of data that is not conventionally phase-based, such as temperature, humidity, load, and the like.”) for the purpose of gathering data related to equipment (pg. 59, par. [0425]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong to include the addition of the limitation of a plurality of sensors are configured to generate a plurality of sensor data values to include a stream of phase-based data for at least one of temperature, humidity, or load to advantageously provide improved monitoring, control, intelligent diagnosis of problems and intelligent optimization of operations in various heavy industrial environments (Cella: pg. 1, par. [0012]).
As per claim 77, Rickard in view of Wong does not expressly teach the plurality of sensors is configured to generate at least one of a continuous stream of data over time, a nearly continuous stream of data over time, periodic readings, event-driven readings, or readings according to a selected schedule.
However Cella, in analogous art of monitoring systems for collecting data related to an industrial process (pg. 2, par. [0014]), teaches the missing limitation of a plurality of sensors (Fig. 41, element 9006; i.e. sensors) is configured to generate at least one of a continuous stream of data over time, a nearly continuous stream of data over time, periodic readings, event-driven readings, or readings according to a selected schedule (pg. 59, par. [0425] and [0426]; i.e. “The sensors 9006 may provide a continuous or near continuous stream of data over time, periodic readings, event-driven readings, and/or readings according to a selected interval or schedule.”) for the purpose of gathering data related to equipment (pg. 59, par. [0425]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong to include the addition of the limitation of a plurality of sensors is configured to generate at least one of a continuous stream of data over time, a nearly continuous stream of data over time, periodic readings, event-driven readings, or readings according to a selected schedule to advantageously provide improved monitoring, control, intelligent diagnosis of problems and intelligent optimization of operations in various heavy industrial environments (Cella: pg. 1, par. [0012]).
As per claim 78, Rickard in view of Wong does not expressly teach the plurality of sensors includes a computer vision system from which to further determine the recognized pattern.
However Cella, in analogous art of monitoring systems for collecting data related to an industrial process (pg. 2, par. [0014]), teaches the missing limitation of a plurality of sensors (Fig. 83, element 11006; i.e. multiple sensors) includes a computer vision system (pgs. 107-111, par. [0683]; i.e. “Camera sensors are configured with a lens to capture continuous and still visible and invisible photon information cast upon or reflected by a target.”) from which to further determine a recognized pattern (pgs. 94-95, par. [0592]-[0593]; i.e. “… a pattern recognition circuit 11020 that determines a recognized pattern value 11028 in response to a least a portion of the sensor data values 11034, and a system characterization circuit 11022 that provides a system characterization value 11030 for the industrial system in response to the recognized pattern value 11028.”) for the purpose of gathering data related to equipment (pg. 59, par. [0425]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong to include the addition of the limitation of a plurality of sensors includes a computer vision system from which to further determine a recognized pattern to advantageously provide improved monitoring, control, intelligent diagnosis of problems and intelligent optimization of operations in various heavy industrial environments (Cella: pg. 1, par. [0012]).
As per claim 80, Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella and Deutsch does not expressly teach the plurality of sensor data values include vibration parameters related to a wobble in a motor of the particular component, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate maintenance indications based on the vibration parameters related to the wobble.
However Eryurek, in an analogous art of monitoring a system (pg. 4, par. [0047] and pg. 6, par. [0054]), teaches the missing limitations of a plurality of sensor data values include vibration parameters related to a wobble in a motor of at least one of a plurality of components (pg. 29, par. [0271] and [0272]; i.e. [0271]: “… the platform 100 may include the local data collection system 102 deployed in the environment 104 to monitor signals from additional large machines such as turbines, windmills, industrial vehicles, robots, and the like. These large mechanical machines include multiple components and elements providing multiple subsystems on each machine.” and [0272]: “… the platform 100 may include the local data collection system 102 deployed in the environment 104 to monitor signals from fault conditions of industrial machines that may include overheating, noise, grinding gears, locked gears, excessive vibration, wobbling, under-inflation, over-inflation, and the like.”), and
wherein at least one processor (Fig. 1, element 30) is further configured to generate maintenance indications based on the vibration parameters related to the wobble (pgs. 2-3. [0012], pg. 5, par. [0049]-[0051], pg. 7, par. [0063], and pg. 20, par. [0140]; i.e. [0012]: “A process control system uses data or information pertaining to the assets of a process plant from various devices within the process plant. … The data and information of the process plant, such as control, process and maintenance data, is manipulated in a coordinated manner by tools, such as to create status information regarding the device. The status information may be utilized to perform better or more optimal maintenance activities, such as corrective measures pertaining to a problem with the device.”; [0049]: “… the computer 30 stores and executes an asset utilization expert 50 that collects data and other information generated by the process control systems 12 and 14, the maintenance systems 18, 22 and 26 and the business systems 35 and 36 as well as information generated by data analysis tools executed in each of these systems.”; [0050]: “The asset utilization expert 50 can also provide maintenance data (such as device status information) and business data (such as data associated with scheduled orders, timeframes, etc.) to a control expert 52 associated with, for example, the process control system 14 to help an operator perform control activities such as optimizing control. The control expert 52 may be located in, for example, the user interface 14A or any other computer associated with the control system 14 or within the computer 30 if desired.”; and [0063]: “… one or more coordinated user interface routines 58 may communicate with the asset utilization expert 50 as well as any other applications within the plant 10 to provide help and visualization to operators, maintenance persons, business persons, etc. ”) for the purpose of displaying information of a plant, loops, sub units, devices, etc. (pg. 17, par. [0121]-[0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella and Deutsch to include the addition of the limitations of a plurality of sensor data values include vibration parameters related to a wobble in a motor of at least one of a plurality of components, and wherein at least one processor is further configured to generate maintenance indications based on the vibration parameters related to the wobble to enable a user to quickly analyze performance status and performance of a process area within a plant (Eryurek: pg. 17, par. [0122]).
As per claim 81, Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, and Deutsch does not expressly teach the at least one processor is further configured to at least one of: predict a bearing life for the motor, identify a bearing health parameter, identify a bearing performance parameter, identify wear on a bearing, identify presence of foreign matter in bearings, identify air gaps in bearings, identify a loss of fluid in fluid coated bearings, identify stress and strain of flexure bearings, or identify behavior at a selected operation frequency for the plurality of components.
However Eryurek, in an analogous art of monitoring a system (pg. 4, par. [0047] and pg. 6, par. [0054]), teaches the missing limitation of the at least one processor (Fig. 1, element 30) are further configured to identify a bearing performance parameter (pg. 5, par. [0049] and pg. 19, par. [0132]; i.e. [0049]: “… the computer 30 stores and executes an asset utilization expert 50 that collects data and other information generated by the process control systems 12 and 14, the maintenance systems 18, 22 and 26 and the business systems 35 and 36 as well as information generated by data analysis tools executed in each of these systems.” and [0132]: “Referring now to FIGS. 28-31, the GUI can provide other screens to a user to indicate current or future problems, such as predicted problems, which can be detected by the asset utilization expert 50 or any of the data analysis tools within the plant 10. In particular, FIGS. 28-31 illustrate displays showing spectral plots of vibration of an element, such as a shaft, within a rotary device performed by the vibration analysis programs 23 of FIG. 1 and conditions or problems detected by the analysis tool based on these plots. … FIG. 31 illustrates a detected worn bearing condition. Of course other conditions for rotary or other devices based on the results of data analysis tools can also be displayed. Still further, the results of these tools can be used to cause the work order generation routine 54 to automatically order replacement parts.”) for the purpose of displaying information of a plant, loops, sub units, devices, etc. (pg. 17, par. [0121]-[0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, and Deutsch to include the addition of the limitation of the at least one processor are further configured to identify a bearing performance parameter to quickly analyze performance status and performance of a process area within a plant (Eryurek: pg. 17, par. [0122]).
As per claim 83, Rickard substantially teaches the claimed invention. Rickard teaches the limitations of a method of diagnosing faults in an industrial environment having a plurality of components, the method comprising:
receiving, from a plurality of sensors (Fig. 1, element 134) associated with the industrial environment, a plurality of sensor data values, wherein each of the plurality of sensors is operatively coupled to at least one of the plurality of components and configured to generate the plurality of sensor values in response to one or more sensed parameters (pg. 4, par. [0044] and pg. 6, par. [0064] and [0065]; i.e. [0044]: “… A device, system, or collection of devices or systems that can provide information associated with an entity (e.g., device, system, gauge, instrument, detector, antenna, monitor, or any kind of scope, meter, or graph).”, [0064]: “… manufacturing site physical system that may include sensors and/or measuring devices coupled to a machinery physical subsystem so that monitoring of the operation of machinery at the manufacturing site and variations in manufacturing conditions, such as temperature, efficiency, output, etc., and/or the like may occur.”, and [0065]: “The real world system 130 may further include logical computations, sensors, and/or measuring devices 134 coupled to real world subsystems 132 that directly transmit the measurement data over the network 120 to the system simulation server 140. In another embodiment, the real world system 130 may include logical computations, sensors, and/or measuring devices 134 coupled to real world subsystems 132 that transmit the measurement data over the network 120 to the real world system data store 150.”);
receiving, by at least one processor (pgs. 14-15, par. [0130] and [0131] and Fig. 10, element 104; i.e. hardware processor(s)), a request from a client application to check an operational condition of a particular component from the plurality of components in the industrial environment (pg. 11, par. [0105]; i.e. “For example, the compressor 310C may be selected by a user, which causes the interactive equipment panel 404 to display a list of measurement properties and values 406 (e.g., speed, suction pressure, discharge pressure, and suction pressure) associated with the selected compressor 310C for a specific point in time (e.g., May 21.sup.st at 6:46 AM) or a specific range of time.”); and
displaying, by the at least one processor (pgs. 14-15, par. [0130] and [0131] and Fig. 10, element 104; i.e. hardware processor(s)), a visual rendering of the particular component in the client application in response to the received request (pgs. 5-6, par. [0055] and [0061] and pg. 10, par. [0094]; i.e. [0061]: “The real world system 130 can also be a physical system that has a structure that comprises various components and equipment and may be located in various areas. For example, the real world system 130 may be located at an environmental monitoring and/or research site such as a volcano, an ocean, a river, a lake, an ice sheet, a forest, and/or the like. In another example, the real world system 130 may be a technical system, e.g. a manufacturing site, such as a location in which machinery is used to make articles.” and [0094]: “FIG. 3 illustrates a user interface 300 that displays the internal structure of the system 214 with a time slider 306 in the viewing mode.”),
wherein the component digital twin is a visual digital twin that is configured to be visually rendered (pg. 10, par. [0094] and Fig. 3, element 310A-H; i.e. model specific objects), and
wherein the visual rendering is generated by the visual digital twin corresponding to the particular component (pg. 10, par. [0095] and [0096]; i.e. [0096]: “… some or all of the subsystems 204A-C depicted in the schematic panel 220 may further include model specific objects 310A-H with object properties that may be specific to the subsystem 204A-C.”).
Not explicitly taught are processing, by at least one processor, the plurality of sensor data values to determine a recognized pattern associated with a particular component from the plurality of components in the industrial environment, wherein the recognized pattern is indicative of a particular fault condition, from among a plurality of different fault conditions, exhibited by the particular component;
determining, by the at least one processor, an operational status of the particular component based on the recognized pattern;
processing, by the at least one processor, the plurality of sensor data values and/or the recognized pattern with a component digital twin that corresponds to the particular component to generate a prediction of a cause of the operational status of the particular component, wherein the prediction is based on the recognized pattern that corresponds to the particular fault condition;
providing, by the at least one processor, via the client application and the component digital twin corresponding to the particular component, a control signal to a control system of the industrial environment in response to the determined operational status of the particular component,
wherein the control signal is selected, based on the particular fault condition and the prediction of the cause, from a plurality of candidate control actions respectively corresponding to the plurality of different fault conditions, and
wherein the control signal results in at least one of: a change in an operating speed of the particular component or a reduction in utilization of the particular component; and
displaying, by the at least one processor, a visual rendering of the particular component in the client application in response to the received request and based on the operational condition of the particular component,
wherein the visual rendering visually indicates:
the operational status of the particular component, and
the cause of the operational status of the particular component.
However Wong, in an analogous art of a monitoring system (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitations of processing, by at least one processor (pgs. 15-16, par. [0250] and Fig. 17, element 1702; i.e. a server including one or more processors), a plurality of sensor data values to determine a recognized pattern (i.e. classification) associated with a particular component from a plurality of components in an industrial environment (pgs. 4-5, par. [0063], [0064], [0068], [0069] and [0070] and Fig. 1; i.e. [0064]: “A sensor data analysis system in accordance with an embodiment is illustrated in overview in FIG. 2. The system comprises a set of industrial process sensors 202 which provide the raw sensor data input.”, [0068]: “The context vector thus provides a summary of the operating state of the industrial process or machine at a given time.”, [0069]: “Context vectors generated by the neural network based on training data are provided to train the context vector classifier 210. This involves clustering of context vectors (step 308) to determine a set of context vector clusters representing different classifications of the system operating state.”, and [0070]: “The real-time monitoring phase is illustrated in more detail in FIG. 4. Referring to FIGS. 2 and 4, the real-time sensor data is acquired in step 402 and optionally pre-processed in step 404. The (pre-processed) sensor data is then input to the trained neural network in step 406, which generates context vectors based on the real-time data. The context vectors are then classified (where possible) by the context vector classifier in step 408 and an operating state is identified based on the output of the classifier in step 410.”); and
determining, by the at least one processor (pgs. 15-16, par. [0250] and Fig. 17, element 1702; i.e. the server including the one or more processors), an operational status of the particular component based on the recognized pattern (pg. 14, par. [0238]; i.e. “Context vectors can be used to create clusters for manual labelling of vibration patterns, then alarms can be triggered when the context vector drifts beyond the pre-defined cluster boundary. Operators can then adjust process settings to reduce vibration (and hence prevent vibration tripping and causing shutdown of the system).”) for real-time monitoring (pg. 15, par. [0246]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard to include the addition of the limitations of processing, by at least one processor, a plurality of sensor data values to determine a recognized pattern associated with a particular component from a plurality of components in an industrial environment; and
determining, by the at least one processor, an operational status of the particular component based on the recognized pattern to improve detection of normal and abnormal operating states of a process, machine, or system (Wong: pg. 1, par. [0003]).
Rickard in view of Wong does not expressly teach wherein the recognized pattern is indicative of a particular fault condition, from among a plurality of different fault conditions, exhibited by the particular component;
processing, by the at least one processor, the plurality of sensor data values and/or the recognized pattern with a component digital twin that corresponds to the particular component to generate a prediction of a cause of the operational status of the particular component, wherein the prediction is based on the recognized pattern that corresponds to the particular fault condition;
providing, by the at least one processor, via the client application and the component digital twin corresponding to the particular component, a control signal to a control system of the industrial environment in response to the determined operational status of the particular component,
wherein the control signal is selected, based on the particular fault condition and the prediction of the cause, from a plurality of candidate control actions respectively corresponding to the plurality of different fault conditions, and
wherein the control signal results in at least one of: a change in an operating speed of the particular component or a reduction in utilization of the particular component; and
displaying, by the at least one processor, a visual rendering of the particular component in the client application in response to the received request and based on the operational condition of the particular component,
wherein the visual rendering visually indicates:
the operational status of the particular component, and
the cause of the operational status of the particular component.
However Cella, in analogous art of monitoring systems for collecting data related to an industrial process (pg. 2, par. [0014]), teaches the missing limitation of a recognized pattern is indicative of a particular fault condition, from among a plurality of different fault conditions, exhibited by a particular component (pg. 31, par. [0276], pg. 32, par. [0279], pg. 69, par. [0488], and pgs. 94-95, par. [0592] and [0593]; i.e. [0276]: “The learning machine may then operate on other data, initially using a set of rules or elements of a model, such as to provide a variety of outputs, such as classification of data into types, recognition of certain patterns (such as those indicating the presence of faults, orthoses indicating operating conditions, such as fuel efficiency, energy production, or the like).”, [0279]: “In embodiments, machine learning may take advantage of a state machine, such as tracking states of multiple analog and/or digital sensors, feeding the states into a pattern analysis facility, and determining anticipated states of the industrial system based on historical data about sequences of state information. For example, where a temperature state of an industrial machine exceeds a certain threshold and is followed by a fault condition, such as breaking down of a set of bearings, that temperature state may be tracked by a pattern recognizer, which may produce an output data structure indicating an anticipated bearing fault state (whenever an input state of a high temperature is recognized).”; [0488]: “A modular neural network, where the expert system uses one type of neural network for recognizing a pattern and a different neural network for self-organizing an activity in the industrial environment. 2. A system of clause 1, wherein the pattern indicates a fault condition of a machine.”, and [0593]: “The system characterization value 11030 includes any value determined from the pattern recognition operations of the pattern recognition circuit 11020, including determining that a system condition of interest is present, a component condition of interest is present, an abstracted condition of the system or a component is present (e.g., a product quality value; an operation cost value; a component health, wear, or maintenance value; a component capacity value; and/or a sensor saturation value) and/or is predicted to occur within a time frame (e.g., calendar time, operational time, and/or a process stage) of interest. Pattern recognition operations include determining that operations compatible with a previously known pattern, operations similar to a previously known pattern and/or extrapolated from previously known pattern information (e.g., a previously known pattern includes a temperature response for a first component, and a known or estimated relationship between components allows for a determination that a temperature for a second component will exceed a threshold based upon the pattern recognition for the first component combined with the known or estimated relationship).”) for the purpose of obtaining a system characterization (pg. 95, par. [0593]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong to include the addition of the limitation of a recognized pattern is indicative of a particular fault condition, from among a plurality of different fault conditions, exhibited by a particular component to advantageously provide improved monitoring, control, intelligent diagnosis of problems and intelligent optimization of operations in various heavy industrial environments (Cella: pg. 1, par. [0012]).
Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella does not expressly teach processing, by the at least one processor, the plurality of sensor data values and/or the recognized pattern with a component digital twin that corresponds to the particular component to generate a prediction of a cause of the operational status of the particular component, wherein the prediction is based on the recognized pattern that corresponds to the particular fault condition;
providing, by the at least one processor, via the client application and the component digital twin corresponding to the particular component, a control signal to a control system of the industrial environment in response to the determined operational status of the particular component,
wherein the control signal is selected, based on the particular fault condition and the prediction of the cause, from a plurality of candidate control actions respectively corresponding to the plurality of different fault conditions, and
wherein the control signal results in at least one of: a change in an operating speed of the particular component or a reduction in utilization of the particular component; and
displaying, by the at least one processor, a visual rendering of the particular component in the client application in response to the received request and based on the operational condition of the particular component,
wherein the visual rendering visually indicates:
the operational status of the particular component, and
the cause of the operational status of the particular component.
However Deutsch, in an analogous art of monitoring a system (pg. 1, par. [0007], teaches the missing limitations of processing, by at least one processor, a plurality of sensor data values and/or recognized pattern with a component digital twin that corresponds to a particular component to generate a prediction of a cause of an operational status of the particular component (pg. 3, par. [0039] and pgs. 6-7, par. [0072]-[0074]; i.e. [0072]: “Operational events may include actions, events, occurrences, and the like, which have affected or which may affect the operating characteristics of the asset. In the example of the gas turbine, operational events may include any event on the gas turbine that has caused or that is predicted to cause an issue with the asset such as a failure of a component, a deterioration of a component, an upgrade that is available, a case being opened, or the like.” and [0074]: “… the new operational event comprises a warning 410 of a current operational event (or predicted future event) indicating that a compressor on a gas turbine is likely to overheat causing damage to the gas turbine. The warning may be determined based on data collected from the gas turbine and/or other sources of data associated with the gas turbine which may be collected in real-time.”), wherein the prediction is based on the recognized pattern (pg. 7, par. [0073]; i.e. “… the system may provide context associated with the new operational event. The context may include a description of previous operational events that have occurred and which are similar to the current operational event that has occurred or that is predicted to occur, a description of the previous operational events, a cause of the previous operational events, a response to the previous operational events, a result of the response, a description of the differences between the current operational event and the previous operational events, and the like.”); and
providing, by the at least one processor, via a client application and a component digital twin corresponding to the particular component, a control signal to a control system of an industrial environment in response to a determined operational status of the particular component (pgs. 3-4, par. [0044], pg. 5, par. [0054]-[0056] and pg. 7, par. [0074]; i.e. [0044]: “The example embodiments provide a system that can create and run full lifecycle digital twin models of all active entities in an industrial environment including, but not limited to, physical assets and systems of assets, software and physical processes, actors, resources, and the like.”, [0054]: “As another example, the user device 130 may display a graphical user interface that allows a user thereof to input commands to an asset via one or more applications hosted by the cloud platform 120.”, [0056]: “Furthermore, an operation of the assets 110 may be enhanced or otherwise controlled by a user inputting commands though an application hosted by the cloud platform 120 or other remote host platform such as a web server. The data provided from the assets 110 may include time-series data or other types of data associated with the operations being performed by the assets 110”, and [0074]: “… the new operational event comprises a warning 410 of a current operational event (or predicted future event) indicating that a compressor on a gas turbine is likely to overheat causing damage to the gas turbine. The warning may be determined based on data collected from the gas turbine and/or other sources of data associated with the gas turbine which may be collected in real-time.”),
wherein the control signal is selected, based on a fault condition and prediction of cause, from a plurality of candidate control actions respectively corresponding to a plurality of different fault conditions (pgs. 6-7, par. [0065] and [0072]-[0075]; i.e. [0072]: “Operational events may include actions, events, occurrences, and the like, which have affected or which may affect the operating characteristics of the asset. In the example of the gas turbine, operational events may include any event on the gas turbine that has caused or that is predicted to cause an issue with the asset such as a failure of a component, a deterioration of a component, an upgrade that is available, a case being opened, or the like.” and [0075]: “As another example, the suggested course of action may also suggest a specific operator, machine, equipment, etc. to be used to perform the suggested course of action based on the other previous similar events.”), and
displaying a visual rendering (pg. 7, par. [0074] and Fig. 4, element 400; i.e. “In FIG. 4, the new operational event comprises a warning 410 of a current operational event (or predicted future event) indicating that a compressor on a gas turbine is likely to overheat causing damage to the gas turbine.”),
wherein the visual rendering visually indicates:
the operational status of the particular component (pg. 7, par. [0074] and [0075] and Fig. 4, element 410; i.e. an indication of a predicted event), and
the cause of the operational status of the particular component (pg. 7, par. [0074] and [0075] and Fig. 4, element 410; i.e. a description of the predicted event) for the purpose of gathering knowledge from an asset and determining context for decision making from an accumulation of the knowledge (pg. 1, par. [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella to include the addition of the limitations of processing, by at least one processor, a plurality of sensor data values and/or recognized pattern with a component digital twin that corresponds to a particular component to generate a prediction of a cause of an operational status of the particular component, wherein the prediction is based on the recognized pattern; providing, by the at least one processor, via a client application and a component digital twin corresponding to the particular component, a control signal to a control system of an industrial environment in response to a determined operational status of the particular component, wherein the control signal is selected, based on a fault condition and prediction of cause, from a plurality of candidate control actions respectively corresponding to a plurality of different fault conditions; and displaying a visual rendering, wherein the visual rendering visually indicates: the operational status of the particular component, and the cause of the operational status of the particular component to advantageously provide a unified platform that seamlessly encompasses a cloud and an edge and that generates and outputs context with a digital twin to further enhance and support interaction with the digital twin (Deutsch: pg. 1, par. [0006]).
Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella and Deutsch does not expressly teach wherein the control signal results in at least one of: a change in an operating speed of the particular component or a reduction in utilization of the particular component; and
displaying, by the at least one processor, a visual rendering of the particular component in the client application in response to the received request and based on the operational condition of the particular component.
However Eryurek, in an analogous art of monitoring a system (pg. 4, par. [0047] and pg. 6, par. [0054]), teaches the missing limitation of displaying, by at least one processor (pg. 20, par. [0140]), a visual rendering of a particular component in a client application in response to a received request and based on an operational condition of the particular component (pg. 17, par. [0121]-[0123]; i.e. [0123]: “ Thus, for example, a user may look at a view of the plant and see a particular set of indices for the plant. The user may then focus on one area, such as by clicking on one of the areas within the plant view, and see the indices associated with that area. Similarly, by clicking on units within the displayed area, the indices for different units may be viewed. Likewise indices for loops, sub units, devices etc. may then be viewed by focusing in on these different entities from a view of an entity in which these entities are located. In this manner, a user can quickly find the cause of a lower than (or higher than) expected index at any point or level of the plant.”) for the purpose of displaying information of a plant, loops, sub units, devices, etc. (pg. 17, par. [0121]-[0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella and Deutsch to include the addition of the limitation of displaying, by at least one processor, a visual rendering of a particular component in a client application in response to a received request and based on an operational condition of the particular component to enable a user to quickly analyze performance status and performance of a process area within a plant (Eryurek: pg. 17, par. [0122]).
Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, and Eryurek do not expressly teach wherein the control signal results in at least one of: a change in an operating speed of the particular component or a reduction in utilization of the particular component.
However, Lymperopoulos in an angolous art of monitoring and controlling industrial processes and systems (col. 2-3, par. [0001] and [0011]), teaches the missing limitation of control signal results in at least one of: a change in an operating speed of a component or a reduction in utilization of the component (col. 12-13, par. [0053]; i.e. “The suggestion may be a specific control action, instruction to move a valve position or change a motor speed, or shut down the system or start up a parallel process, for example. Since a prediction may alert the human operator about a critical situation with a suggestion how to overcome the critical situation before it happens, the human operator may perform control actions in advance so that the critical situation will not occur, which in turn increases productivity (efficiency of production) and shortens shut-down times, compared to solutions in which alerts are generated in response to the critical situation happening.”) for the purpose of adjusting an industrial process (col. 12-13, par. [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, and Eryurek to include the addition of the limitation of control signal results in at least one of: a change in an operating speed of a component or a reduction in utilization of the component to advantageously assist a human operator with control tasks thereby increasing performance and long-term safety of equipment and personnel on a site where an industrial process is running (Lymperopoulous: col. 15, par. [0065]).
As per claim 85, Rickard teaches the visual rendering comprises a simulation, executed by the at least one component digital twin corresponding to the particular component, that simulates an effect of the data on an operation of the particular component (pg. 5, par. [0056], pg. 7, par. [0074], and pg. 8, par. [0081]; i.e. [0056]: “… visualize a simulation of a real world system based on the data models so that the impact a broken object in a particular data model has on another data model can be viewed, trends in how objects interact can be charted over time, an optimal coupling of data models can be viewed, etc.", [0074]: “The object simulator 149 may simulate one or more technical objects (e.g., measuring devices, components etc.) of the real world subsystem 132 and/or real world system 130. In some embodiments, the object simulator 149 may extract object data (e.g., measuring device data, logical computation data (e.g., statistical values), etc.) present in the real world system data store 150 to perform the simulation. The data may include unusual or periodic (e.g., some component oscillating) object properties or events that may have occurred (e.g., historical object properties) during operation of the real world system 130, real world subsystem 132, or any other structure in which the logical computations, sensors, and/or measuring devices 134 are present.”, and [0081]: “The model simulator 145 may obtain, generate, and/or simulate one or more models based on the one or more real world systems 130 and/or the error detection data stored in the real world system data store 150. The one or more models may be stored in the simulated system data store 146. The error detection data from the real world system data store 150 may include when the real world subsystem 132, logical computations, and/or physical sensor error may have occurred over a period of time (e.g., historical sensor error data, live sensor data, real-time sensor data, etc.) and may store this time-series data in the time-series data store 144.”).
Rickard does not expressly teach the recognized pattern on an operation.
However Wong, in an analogous art of a monitoring system (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of the recognized pattern (i.e. classification) on an operation (pgs. 4-5, par. [0068]-[0071] and pg. 15, par. [0246]; i.e. [0068]: “The context vector thus provides a summary of the operating state of the industrial process or machine at a given time.”, [0069]: “Context vectors generated by the neural network based on training data are provided to train the context vector classifier 210. This involves clustering of context vectors (step 308) to determine a set of context vector clusters representing different classifications of the system operating state.”, [0070]: “The real-time monitoring phase is illustrated in more detail in FIG. 4. Referring to FIGS. 2 and 4, the real-time sensor data is acquired in step 402 and optionally pre-processed in step 404. The (pre-processed) sensor data is then input to the trained neural network in step 406, which generates context vectors based on the real-time data. The context vectors are then classified (where possible) by the context vector classifier in step 408 and an operating state is identified based on the output of the classifier in step 410.”, [0246]: “Applying real-time sensor data to a model results in generation of a series of context vectors and their associated classification in relation to the vector clustering established during the training phase. Based on the analysis (e.g. classification of a context vector or series of context vectors as being part of a particular cluster, or as deviating from a particular cluster), user alerts may be generated for transmission to an operator workstation or other device 1616. For example, certain alerts could be transmitted to a mobile telephone device of an operator in the form of a Short Message Service (SMS) message or other electronic/instant message, or could be displayed via a monitoring interface on a workstation. In some cases, control commands could also be transmitted directly to the process/machine via a control system 1618, for example to change operating parameters (e.g. to compensate for a detected operating state, e.g. raise pressure if sensor readings suggest pressure is falling below tolerances) or to initiate a safe shutdown of the process/machine.”) for a monitoring a system (pg. 15, par. [0246]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard to include the addition of the limitation of the recognized pattern on an operation to improve detection of normal and abnormal operating states for a process, machine, or system (Wong: pg. 1, par. [0003]).
As per claim 86, Rickard teaches the at least one processor is further configured to receive, from the plurality of sensors, further sensor data values generated is provided, to update the at least one component digital twin corresponding to the particular component based on the further sensor data values, and to update the visual rendering in the client application to visually indicate a change in the operational condition of the particular component resulting from the generated further data (pg. 2, par. [0082], pgs. 3-4, par. [0044], pg. 5, par. [0054]-[0057], and pg. 11, par. [0100]; i.e. [0044]: “The example embodiments provide a system that can create and run full lifecycle digital twin models of all active entities in an industrial environment including, but not limited to, physical assets and systems of assets, software and physical processes, actors, resources, and the like.”, [0054]: “As another example, the user device 130 may display a graphical user interface that allows a user thereof to input commands to an asset via one or more applications hosted by the cloud platform 120.”, and [0056]: “Furthermore, an operation of the assets 110 may be enhanced or otherwise controlled by a user inputting commands though an application hosted by the cloud platform 120 or other remote host platform such as a web server. The data provided from the assets 110 may include time-series data or other types of data associated with the operations being performed by the assets 110.”; [0057]: “… live sensor data can be provided as an input to one or more of the simulated models which represent, for example, a technical system in the real world. In response, a graphical user interface (GUI) can be generated that includes one or more panels to display technical objects (e.g., pumps, compressors, valves, machinery, welding stations, vats, containers, products or items, organizations, countries, counties, factories, customers, hospitals, etc.) and/or technical object properties (e.g., flow rate, suction temperature, volume, capacity, order volume, sales amounts, sales quantity during a time period (e.g., a day, a week, a year, etc.), population density, patient volume, etc.).”; [0082]: “In the case of a manufacturing site, events may include machinery malfunction, a structural vibration in a part of the machinery, changes in manufacturing conditions (e.g., temperature, efficiency, output, etc.), and/or the like.”; and [0100]: “In the case of a manufacturing site, events may include machinery malfunction, a structural vibration in a part of the machinery, changes in manufacturing conditions (e.g., temperature, efficiency, output, etc.), and/or the like.”).
Rickard does not expressly teach sensor data generated after the control signal and the operation status resulting from the control signal.
However Wong, in an analogous art of a monitoring system (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation operational status pg. 14, par. [0238]; i.e. “Context vectors can be used to create clusters for manual labelling of vibration patterns, then alarms can be triggered when the context vector drifts beyond the pre-defined cluster boundary. Operators can then adjust process settings to reduce vibration (and hence prevent vibration tripping and causing shutdown of the system).”) for real-time monitoring (pg. 15, par. [0246]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard to include the addition of the limitation of the operational status to improve detection of normal and abnormal operating states of a process, machine, or system (Wong: pg. 1, par. [0003]).
Rickard in view of Wong does not expressly teach the operation status resulting from the control signal.
Rickard in view of Wong in further Cella does not expressly teach the operation status resulting from the control signal.
However Deutsch, in an analogous art of monitoring a system (pg. 1, par. [0007], teaches the missing limitation of the operational status (Fig. 4, element 410; i.e. the indication of the predicted event) resulting from the control signal (pg. 5, par. [0056] and pg. 7, par. [0074] and [0075] and; i.e. [0056]: “Information from the assets 110 may be communicated to the cloud platform 120. For example, external sensors can be used to sense information about a function of an asset, or to sense information about an environment condition at or around an asset, a worker, a downtime, a machine or equipment maintenance, and the like. The external sensor can be configured for data communication with the cloud platform 120 which can be configured to store the raw sensor information and transfer the raw sensor information to the user devices 130 where it can be accessed by users, applications, systems, and the like, for further processing. Furthermore, an operation of the assets 110 may be enhanced or otherwise controlled by a user inputting commands though an application hosted by the cloud platform 120 or other remote host platform such as a web server. The data provided from the assets 110 may include time-series data or other types of data associated with the operations being performed by the assets 110”) for the purpose of gathering knowledge from an asset and determining context for decision making from an accumulation of the knowledge (pg. 1, par. [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella to include the addition of the limitation of the operational status (Fig. 4, element 410; i.e. the indication of the predicted event) resulting from the control signal to further enhance and support interaction with the digital twin (Deutsch: pg. 1, par. [0006]).
As per claim 88, Rickard teaches the at least one processor is further configured to render the plurality of component digital twins as a set of discrete component digital twins embedded within the at least one industrial-environment digital twin based on imported properties of the particular component (pg. 8, par. [0081]; i.e. one or more models and [0081]: “The model simulator 145 may obtain, generate, and/or simulate one or more models based on the one or more real world systems 130 and/or the error detection data stored in the real world system data store 150. The one or more models may be stored in the simulated system data store 146.”) and on historical behavior (i.e. error detection data) of the particular component (pg. 8, par. [0081]; i.e. “The model simulator 145 may obtain, generate, and/or simulate one or more models based on the one or more real world systems 130 and/or the error detection data stored in the real world system data store 150. … The error detection data from the real world system data store 150 may include when the real world subsystem 132, logical computations, and/or physical sensor error may have occurred over a period of time (e.g., historical sensor error data, live sensor data, real-time sensor data, etc.) and may store this time-series data in the time-series data store 144.”).
As per claim 89, Rickard teaches receiving, from the plurality of sensors, further sensor data values generated is provided, updating the component digital twin corresponding to the particular component based on the further sensor data values, and updating the visual rendering in the client application to visually indicate a change in the operational status of the particular component resulting from the generated further sensor data values (pg. 2, par. [0082], pgs. 3-4, par. [0044], pg. 5, par. [0054]-[0057], and pg. 11, par. [0100]; i.e. [0044]: “The example embodiments provide a system that can create and run full lifecycle digital twin models of all active entities in an industrial environment including, but not limited to, physical assets and systems of assets, software and physical processes, actors, resources, and the like.”, [0054]: “As another example, the user device 130 may display a graphical user interface that allows a user thereof to input commands to an asset via one or more applications hosted by the cloud platform 120.”, and [0056]: “Furthermore, an operation of the assets 110 may be enhanced or otherwise controlled by a user inputting commands though an application hosted by the cloud platform 120 or other remote host platform such as a web server. The data provided from the assets 110 may include time-series data or other types of data associated with the operations being performed by the assets 110.”; [0057]: “… live sensor data can be provided as an input to one or more of the simulated models which represent, for example, a technical system in the real world. In response, a graphical user interface (GUI) can be generated that includes one or more panels to display technical objects (e.g., pumps, compressors, valves, machinery, welding stations, vats, containers, products or items, organizations, countries, counties, factories, customers, hospitals, etc.) and/or technical object properties (e.g., flow rate, suction temperature, volume, capacity, order volume, sales amounts, sales quantity during a time period (e.g., a day, a week, a year, etc.), population density, patient volume, etc.).”; [0082]: “In the case of a manufacturing site, events may include machinery malfunction, a structural vibration in a part of the machinery, changes in manufacturing conditions (e.g., temperature, efficiency, output, etc.), and/or the like.”; and [0100]: “In the case of a manufacturing site, events may include machinery malfunction, a structural vibration in a part of the machinery, changes in manufacturing conditions (e.g., temperature, efficiency, output, etc.), and/or the like.”).
Rickard does not expressly teach sensor data values generated after the control signal and the operation status resulting from the control signal.
However Wong, in an analogous art of a monitoring system (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation operational status pg. 14, par. [0238]; i.e. “Context vectors can be used to create clusters for manual labelling of vibration patterns, then alarms can be triggered when the context vector drifts beyond the pre-defined cluster boundary. Operators can then adjust process settings to reduce vibration (and hence prevent vibration tripping and causing shutdown of the system).”) for real-time monitoring (pg. 15, par. [0246]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard to include the addition of the limitation of the operational status to improve detection of normal and abnormal operating states of a process, machine, or system (Wong: pg. 1, par. [0003]).
Rickard in view of Wong does not expressly teach the operation status resulting from the control signal.
Rickard in view of Wong in further Cella does not expressly teach the operation status resulting from the control signal.
However Deutsch, in an analogous art of monitoring a system (pg. 1, par. [0007], teaches the missing limitation of the operational status (Fig. 4, element 410; i.e. the indication of the predicted event) resulting from the control signal (pg. 5, par. [0056] and pg. 7, par. [0074] and [0075] and; i.e. [0056]: “Information from the assets 110 may be communicated to the cloud platform 120. For example, external sensors can be used to sense information about a function of an asset, or to sense information about an environment condition at or around an asset, a worker, a downtime, a machine or equipment maintenance, and the like. The external sensor can be configured for data communication with the cloud platform 120 which can be configured to store the raw sensor information and transfer the raw sensor information to the user devices 130 where it can be accessed by users, applications, systems, and the like, for further processing. Furthermore, an operation of the assets 110 may be enhanced or otherwise controlled by a user inputting commands though an application hosted by the cloud platform 120 or other remote host platform such as a web server. The data provided from the assets 110 may include time-series data or other types of data associated with the operations being performed by the assets 110”) for the purpose of gathering knowledge from an asset and determining context for decision making from an accumulation of the knowledge (pg. 1, par. [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella to include the addition of the limitation of the operational status (Fig. 4, element 410; i.e. the indication of the predicted event) resulting from the control signal to further enhance and support interaction with the digital twin (Deutsch: pg. 1, par. [0006]).
As per claim 91, Rickard teaches the visual rendering comprises a simulation, executed by the component digital twin corresponding to the particular component, that simulates an effect of the data on an operation of the particular component (pg. 5, par. [0056], pg. 7, par. [0074], and pg. 8, par. [0081]; i.e. [0056]: “… visualize a simulation of a real world system based on the data models so that the impact a broken object in a particular data model has on another data model can be viewed, trends in how objects interact can be charted over time, an optimal coupling of data models can be viewed, etc.", [0074]: “The object simulator 149 may simulate one or more technical objects (e.g., measuring devices, components etc.) of the real world subsystem 132 and/or real world system 130. In some embodiments, the object simulator 149 may extract object data (e.g., measuring device data, logical computation data (e.g., statistical values), etc.) present in the real world system data store 150 to perform the simulation. The data may include unusual or periodic (e.g., some component oscillating) object properties or events that may have occurred (e.g., historical object properties) during operation of the real world system 130, real world subsystem 132, or any other structure in which the logical computations, sensors, and/or measuring devices 134 are present.”, and [0081]: “The model simulator 145 may obtain, generate, and/or simulate one or more models based on the one or more real world systems 130 and/or the error detection data stored in the real world system data store 150. The one or more models may be stored in the simulated system data store 146. The error detection data from the real world system data store 150 may include when the real world subsystem 132, logical computations, and/or physical sensor error may have occurred over a period of time (e.g., historical sensor error data, live sensor data, real-time sensor data, etc.) and may store this time-series data in the time-series data store 144.”).
Rickard does not expressly teach the recognized pattern on an operation.
However Wong, in an analogous art of a monitoring system (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of the recognized pattern (i.e. classification) on an operation (pgs. 4-5, par. [0068]-[0071] and pg. 15, par. [0246]; i.e. [0068]: “The context vector thus provides a summary of the operating state of the industrial process or machine at a given time.”, [0069]: “Context vectors generated by the neural network based on training data are provided to train the context vector classifier 210. This involves clustering of context vectors (step 308) to determine a set of context vector clusters representing different classifications of the system operating state.”, [0070]: “The real-time monitoring phase is illustrated in more detail in FIG. 4. Referring to FIGS. 2 and 4, the real-time sensor data is acquired in step 402 and optionally pre-processed in step 404. The (pre-processed) sensor data is then input to the trained neural network in step 406, which generates context vectors based on the real-time data. The context vectors are then classified (where possible) by the context vector classifier in step 408 and an operating state is identified based on the output of the classifier in step 410.”, [0246]: “Applying real-time sensor data to a model results in generation of a series of context vectors and their associated classification in relation to the vector clustering established during the training phase. Based on the analysis (e.g. classification of a context vector or series of context vectors as being part of a particular cluster, or as deviating from a particular cluster), user alerts may be generated for transmission to an operator workstation or other device 1616. For example, certain alerts could be transmitted to a mobile telephone device of an operator in the form of a Short Message Service (SMS) message or other electronic/instant message, or could be displayed via a monitoring interface on a workstation. In some cases, control commands could also be transmitted directly to the process/machine via a control system 1618, for example to change operating parameters (e.g. to compensate for a detected operating state, e.g. raise pressure if sensor readings suggest pressure is falling below tolerances) or to initiate a safe shutdown of the process/machine.”) for a monitoring a system (pg. 15, par. [0246]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard to include the addition of the limitation of the recognized pattern on an operation to improve detection of normal and abnormal operating states for a process, machine, or system (Wong: pg. 1, par. [0003]).
Claim 71 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, Eryurek, Lymperopoulos, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0089054 A1 (hereinafter Knapp).
As per claim 71, Rickard teaches an executive digital twin configured to provide financial information (i.e. sales amount) for a given component (pg. 7, par. [0075] and [0077] and pg. 16, par. [0145]).
Rickard does not expressly teach forecasted financial information for a given component based, at least in part, on at least one system characteristic determined to be related to the recognized pattern.
Rickard in view of Wong does not expressly teach forecasted financial information for a given component based, at least in part, on at least one system characteristic determined to be related to the recognized pattern.
Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella does not expressly teach forecasted financial information for a given component based, at least in part, on at least one system characteristic determined to be related to the recognized pattern.
Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella and Deutsch does not expressly teach forecasted financial information for a given component based, at least in part, on at least one system characteristic determined to be related to the recognized pattern.
Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, and Eryurek does not expressly teach forecasted financial information for a given component based, at least in part, on at least one system characteristic determined to be related to the recognized pattern.
Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, Eryurek, and Lymperopoulos does not expressly teach forecasted financial information for a given component based, at least in part, on at least one system characteristic determined to be related to the recognized pattern.
However Knapp, in an analogous art of maintenance systems (pg. 2, par. [0019] and pg. 3, par. [0027]), teaches the missing limitation of forecasted financial information for a given component based, at least in part, on at least one system characteristic (i.e. need for repair) determined to be related to a recognized pattern (pgs. 1-2, par. [0018] and [0022] and pg. 3, par. [0029]; i.e. [0022]: “In an embodiment, the forecast component can utilize the ascertained cost fluctuation over the time period to create the projected cost. In another example, a season or timing of a purchase can be utilized to identify pricing patterns for a repair or a part used with a repair. The forecast component can leverage an identified pricing pattern to forecast a projected cost for a repair to be performed on one or more assets.” and [0029]: “The cost component can evaluate a portion of historic data related to a cost of a repair on one or more assets (e.g., also referred to as repair information). Based at least in part upon the evaluation, the forecast component can generate a projected cost related to a repair that is to be performed on one or more assets.”) for the purpose of indicating a projected cost for a repair to be performed on one or more assets (pg. 2, par. [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, Eryurek, and Lymperopoulos to include the addition of the limitation of forecasted financial information for a given component based, at least in part, on at least one system characteristic determined to be related to a recognized pattern to accurately project or forecast repair cost that can be budgeted and/or managed effectively (Knapp: pg. 3, par. [0029]).
Claim 72 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, Eryurek, Lymperopoulos, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0027339 A1 (hereinafter Gutberlet).
As per claim 72, Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella and Deutsch does not expressly teach an operator digital twin configured to provide workflow information for performing maintenance for a given component based, at least in part, on at least one system characteristic determined to be related to the recognized pattern.
However Eryurek, in an analogous art of monitoring a system (pg. 4, par. [0047] and pg. 6, par. [0054]), teaches the missing limitation of an operator digital twin configured to provide workflow information for performing an action (pg. 18, par. [0127]; i.e. “This detailed help may provide step-by-step instructions to guide the user or some other person in rectifying the problem diagnosed by the system. This information may be made available to the GUI from the asset utilization expert 50 and/or from devices themselves, from the process control diagnostic expert 65, from other analysis tools, etc.”) for the purpose of displaying information of a plant, loops, sub units, devices, etc. (pg. 17, par. [0121]-[0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella and Deutsch to include the addition of the limitation of an operator digital twin configured to provide workflow information for performing an action to quickly analyze performance status and performance of a process area within a plant (Eryurek: pg. 17, par. [0122]).
Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, and Eryurek does not expressly teach an operator digital twin configured to provide workflow information for performing maintenance for a given component based, at least in part, on at least one system characteristic determined to be related to the recognized pattern.
Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, Eryurek, and Lymperopoulos does not expressly teach an operator digital twin configured to provide workflow information for performing maintenance for a given component based, at least in part, on at least one system characteristic determined to be related to the recognized pattern.
However Gutberlet, in an analogous art of a monitoring system (pg. 3, par. [0061]), teaches the missing limitation of an operator digital twin (Fig. 1, element 9; i.e. a display) configured to provide workflow information (i.e. instructions for maintenance) for performing maintenance for a given component based, at least in part, on at least one system characteristic determined to be related to a recognized pattern (pg. 2, par. [0023], pg. 3, par. [0044], [0048], and [0060] and pg. 4, claim 35; i.e. [0044]: “It is possible to directly take the measured signal as a time stamp or it would be possible to transfer the signal in order to come to a “signature” or “pattern” of the sensor.”; [0060]: “… displaying can comprise giving an alert via a display of the system control or a mobile display 9, which is connected over a network 8 to the system control 6.”; and claim 35: “… generating an alert or warning to the operator comprises giving instructions for maintenance to be done as a result of the data irregularity.”) for the purpose of displaying information (pg. 2, par. [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, Eryurek, and Lymperopoulos to include the addition of the limitation of an operator digital twin configured to provide workflow information for performing maintenance for a given component based, at least in part, on at least one system characteristic determined to be related to a recognized pattern to effectively implement a predictive maintenance (Gutberlet: pg. 2, par. [0023]).
Claim 79 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, Eryurek, Lymperopoulos, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0390677 A1 (hereinafter Do).
As per claim 79, Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, Eryurek, and Lymperopoulos does not expressly teach the computer vision system includes one or more liquid lenses..
However Do, in an analogous art of monitoring a system (pgs. 10-11, par. [0109]), teaches the missing limitation of a computer vision systems (Fig. 12, element 11051...n; i.e. inspection camera modules comprising of a liquid lens) includes one or more liquid lenses (pg.5, par. [0076] and [0077] and pgs. 10-11, par. [0109]) for the purpose of providing quality assurance (pg. 1, par. [0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, Eryurek, and Lymperopoulos to include the addition of the limitation of a computer vision systems includes one or more liquid lenses to advantageously allow users to easily use camera-based quality inspection systems to quickly monitor and maintain a desired performance of a system (Do: pgs. 1-2, par. [0003], [0051] and [0052], pars. 5-6, par. [0080]).
Claims 82 and 84 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, Eryurek, Lymperopoulos, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0225118 A1 (hereinafter Billing).
As per claim 82, Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella does not expressly teach the prediction of the cause of the operational status of the particular component includes on at least one of:
a prediction of a degree of wear of at least one element of the particular component,
a prediction of a presence of foreign matter in at least one element of the particular component,
a prediction of an air gap in at least one element of the particular component,
a prediction of a loss of fluid in at least one element of the particular component, or
a prediction of stress and/or strain of at least one element of the particular component.
However Deutsch, in an analogous art of monitoring a system (pg. 1, par. [0007], teaches the missing limitation of the prediction of the cause of the operational status of the particular component (pgs. 6-7, par. [0072] and [0073]; i.e. “Operational events may include actions, events, occurrences, and the like, which have affected or which may affect the operating characteristics of the asset. In the example of the gas turbine, operational events may include any event on the gas turbine that has caused or that is predicted to cause an issue with the asset such as a failure of a component, a deterioration of a component, an upgrade that is available, a case being opened, or the like.”) for the purpose of gathering knowledge from an asset and determining context for decision making from an accumulation of the knowledge (pg. 1, par. [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella to include the addition of the limitation of the prediction of the cause of the operational status of the particular component to advantageously provide a unified platform that seamlessly encompasses a cloud and an edge and that generates and outputs context with a digital twin to further enhance and support interaction with the digital twin (Deutsch: pg. 1, par. [0006]).
Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella and Deutsch does not expressly teach the prediction includes on at least one of:
a prediction of a degree of wear of at least one element of the particular component,
a prediction of a presence of foreign matter in at least one element of the particular component,
a prediction of an air gap in at least one element of the particular component,
a prediction of a loss of fluid in at least one element of the particular component, or
a prediction of stress and/or strain of at least one element of the particular component.
Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, and Eryurek does not expressly teach the prediction includes on at least one of:
a prediction of a degree of wear of at least one element of the particular component,
a prediction of a presence of foreign matter in at least one element of the particular component,
a prediction of an air gap in at least one element of the particular component,
a prediction of a loss of fluid in at least one element of the particular component, or
a prediction of stress and/or strain of at least one element of the particular component.
Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, Eryurek, and Lymperopoulos does not expressly teach the prediction includes on at least one of:
a prediction of a degree of wear of at least one element of the particular component,
a prediction of a presence of foreign matter in at least one element of the particular component,
a prediction of an air gap in at least one element of the particular component,
a prediction of a loss of fluid in at least one element of the particular component, or
a prediction of stress and/or strain of at least one element of the particular component.
However Billing, in an analogous art of monitoring a system (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teach the limitation of a prediction of a degree of wear (pg. 5, par. [0042]; i.e. “… the machine learning model may output an indication of whether the part is experiencing a possible issue, whether the part has experienced a failure, whether the part is predicted to experience a possible issue in a period of time, whether the part is predicted to experience a failure in a period of time, a remaining useful life of the part, an amount of wear and tear the part has experienced, and/or the like based on the operations data (e.g., based on a trend and/or pattern in the operations data that the machine learning model has been trained to identify), based on operating condition data (e.g., to account for an effect that operating conditions may have on operations of the part), and/or the like.”) for the purpose of outputting a recommended operation (pg. 5, par. [0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, Eryurek, and Lymperopoulos to include the addition of the limitation of a prediction of a degree of wear to advantageously improve accuracy of detecting an issue (Billing: pgs. 3-4, par. [0036]).
As per claim 84, Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella does not expressly teach the prediction of the cause of the operational status of the particular component includes on at least one of:
a prediction of a degree of wear of at least one element of the particular component,
a prediction of a presence of foreign matter in at least one element of the particular component,
a prediction of an air gap in at least one element of the particular component,
a prediction of a loss of fluid in at least one element of the particular component, or
a prediction of stress and/or strain of at least one element of the particular component.
However Deutsch, in an analogous art of monitoring a system (pg. 1, par. [0007], teaches the missing limitation of the prediction of the cause of the operational status of the particular component (pgs. 6-7, par. [0072] and [0073]; i.e. “Operational events may include actions, events, occurrences, and the like, which have affected or which may affect the operating characteristics of the asset. In the example of the gas turbine, operational events may include any event on the gas turbine that has caused or that is predicted to cause an issue with the asset such as a failure of a component, a deterioration of a component, an upgrade that is available, a case being opened, or the like.”) for the purpose of gathering knowledge from an asset and determining context for decision making from an accumulation of the knowledge (pg. 1, par. [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella to include the addition of the limitation of the prediction of the cause of the operational status of the particular component to advantageously provide a unified platform that seamlessly encompasses a cloud and an edge and that generates and outputs context with a digital twin to further enhance and support interaction with the digital twin (Deutsch: pg. 1, par. [0006]).
Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella and Deutsch does not expressly teach the prediction includes on at least one of:
a prediction of a degree of wear of at least one element of the particular component,
a prediction of a presence of foreign matter in at least one element of the particular component,
a prediction of an air gap in at least one element of the particular component,
a prediction of a loss of fluid in at least one element of the particular component, or
a prediction of stress and/or strain of at least one element of the particular component.
Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, and Eryurek does not expressly teach the prediction includes on at least one of:
a prediction of a degree of wear of at least one element of the particular component,
a prediction of a presence of foreign matter in at least one element of the particular component,
a prediction of an air gap in at least one element of the particular component,
a prediction of a loss of fluid in at least one element of the particular component, or
a prediction of stress and/or strain of at least one element of the particular component.
Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, Eryurek, and Lymperopoulos does not expressly teach the prediction includes on at least one of:
a prediction of a degree of wear of at least one element of the particular component,
a prediction of a presence of foreign matter in at least one element of the particular component,
a prediction of an air gap in at least one element of the particular component,
a prediction of a loss of fluid in at least one element of the particular component, or
a prediction of stress and/or strain of at least one element of the particular component.
However Billing, in an analogous art of monitoring a system (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teach the limitation of a prediction of a degree of wear (pg. 5, par. [0042]; i.e. “… the machine learning model may output an indication of whether the part is experiencing a possible issue, whether the part has experienced a failure, whether the part is predicted to experience a possible issue in a period of time, whether the part is predicted to experience a failure in a period of time, a remaining useful life of the part, an amount of wear and tear the part has experienced, and/or the like based on the operations data (e.g., based on a trend and/or pattern in the operations data that the machine learning model has been trained to identify), based on operating condition data (e.g., to account for an effect that operating conditions may have on operations of the part), and/or the like.”) for the purpose of outputting a recommended operation (pg. 5, par. [0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, Eryurek, and Lymperopoulos to include the addition of the limitation of a prediction of a degree of wear to advantageously improve accuracy of detecting an issue (Billing: pgs. 3-4, par. [0036]).
Claims 87 and 90 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, Eryurek, Lymperopoulos, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0301792 A1 (hereinafter Tiwari).
As per claim 87, Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella and Deutsch does not expressly teach the particular component comprises a motor, and wherein the recognized pattern comprises at least one of broken or cracked rotor bars in the motor, a misalignment in the motor, an imbalance in the motor, or a material build-up in the motor.
However Eryurek, in an analogous art of monitoring a system (pg. 4, par. [0047] and pg. 6, par. [0054]), teaches the missing limitation of a recognized pattern comprises a broken components in the motor (pg. 4, par. [0043], pg. 18, par. [0125], and pg. 32, par. [0279]; i.e. [0043]: “The process plant 10 also includes various rotating equipment 20, such as turbines, motors, etc. which are connected to a maintenance computer 22 via some permanent or temporary communication link (such as a bus, a wireless communication system or hand held devices which are connected to the equipment 20 to take readings and are then removed).” and [0279]: “Methods and systems are disclosed herein for cloud-based, machine pattern analysis of state information from multiple industrial sensors to provide anticipated state information for an industrial system. In embodiments, machine learning may take advantage of a state machine, such as tracking states of multiple analog and/or digital sensors, feeding the states into a pattern analysis facility, and determining anticipated states of the industrial system based on historical data about sequences of state information. For example, where a temperature state of an industrial machine exceeds a certain threshold and is followed by a fault condition, such as breaking down of a set of bearings, that temperature state may be tracked by a pattern recognizer, which may produce an output data structure indicating an anticipated bearing fault state (whenever an input state of a high temperature is recognized). A wide range of measurement values and anticipated states may be managed by a state machine, relating to temperature, pressure, vibration, acceleration, momentum, inertia, friction, heat, heat flux, galvanic states, magnetic field states, electrical field states, capacitance states, charge and discharge states, motion, position, and many others.”) for the purpose of displaying information for a plant, loops, sub units, devices, etc. (pg. 17, par. [0121]-[0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella and Deutsch to include the addition of the limitation of a recognized pattern comprises a broken component in the motor to enable a user to quickly analyze and identify a performance of a process area within a plant (Eryurek: pg. 17, par. [0122]).
Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, and Eryurek does not expressly at least one of broken or cracked rotor bars in the motor, a misalignment in the motor, an imbalance in the motor, or a material build-up in the motor.
Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, Eryurek, and Lymperopoulos does not expressly at least one of broken or cracked rotor bars in the motor, a misalignment in the motor, an imbalance in the motor, or a material build-up in the motor.
However Tiwari, in an analogous art of monitoring a device (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of one of broken or cracked rotor bars in the motor (pg. 2, par. [0042] and pg. 6, par. [0091]; i.e. [0042]: “In some embodiments, the machine 10 is a synchronous motor, and in other embodiments, the machine 10 is an asynchronous motor. Synchronous motors rotate at exactly the source frequency scaled up by the pole pair count, while asynchronous motors exhibit a slower frequency characterized by the presence of slip.” and [0091]: “… detecting broken rotor bar may involve three steps namely, amplification of the signature, processing the signature and thereby coming to a unique number which can confidently alarm and notify the user about broken rotor bar.”) for the purpose of detecting anomalies (pg. 1, par. [0002] and [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, Eryurek, and Lymperopoulos to include the addition of the limitation of one of broken or cracked rotor bars in the motor to accurately detect a fault (Tiwari: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
As per claim 90, Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella and Deutsch does not expressly teach the particular component comprises a motor, and wherein the recognized pattern comprises at least one of broken or cracked rotor bars in the motor, a misalignment in the motor, an imbalance in the motor, or a material build-up in the motor.
However Eryurek, in an analogous art of monitoring a system (pg. 4, par. [0047] and pg. 6, par. [0054]), teaches the missing limitation of a recognized pattern comprises a broken components in the motor (pg. 4, par. [0043], pg. 18, par. [0125], and pg. 32, par. [0279]; i.e. [0043]: “The process plant 10 also includes various rotating equipment 20, such as turbines, motors, etc. which are connected to a maintenance computer 22 via some permanent or temporary communication link (such as a bus, a wireless communication system or hand held devices which are connected to the equipment 20 to take readings and are then removed).” and [0279]: “Methods and systems are disclosed herein for cloud-based, machine pattern analysis of state information from multiple industrial sensors to provide anticipated state information for an industrial system. In embodiments, machine learning may take advantage of a state machine, such as tracking states of multiple analog and/or digital sensors, feeding the states into a pattern analysis facility, and determining anticipated states of the industrial system based on historical data about sequences of state information. For example, where a temperature state of an industrial machine exceeds a certain threshold and is followed by a fault condition, such as breaking down of a set of bearings, that temperature state may be tracked by a pattern recognizer, which may produce an output data structure indicating an anticipated bearing fault state (whenever an input state of a high temperature is recognized). A wide range of measurement values and anticipated states may be managed by a state machine, relating to temperature, pressure, vibration, acceleration, momentum, inertia, friction, heat, heat flux, galvanic states, magnetic field states, electrical field states, capacitance states, charge and discharge states, motion, position, and many others.”) for the purpose of displaying information for a plant, loops, sub units, devices, etc. (pg. 17, par. [0121]-[0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella and Deutsch to include the addition of the limitation of a recognized pattern comprises a broken component in the motor to enable a user to quickly analyze and identify a performance of a process area within a plant (Eryurek: pg. 17, par. [0122]).
Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, and Eryurek does not expressly at least one of broken or cracked rotor bars in the motor, a misalignment in the motor, an imbalance in the motor, or a material build-up in the motor.
Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, Eryurek, and Lymperopoulos does not expressly at least one of broken or cracked rotor bars in the motor, a misalignment in the motor, an imbalance in the motor, or a material build-up in the motor.
However Tiwari, in an analogous art of monitoring a device (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of one of broken or cracked rotor bars in the motor (pg. 2, par. [0042] and pg. 6, par. [0091]; i.e. [0042]: “In some embodiments, the machine 10 is a synchronous motor, and in other embodiments, the machine 10 is an asynchronous motor. Synchronous motors rotate at exactly the source frequency scaled up by the pole pair count, while asynchronous motors exhibit a slower frequency characterized by the presence of slip.” and [0091]: “… detecting broken rotor bar may involve three steps namely, amplification of the signature, processing the signature and thereby coming to a unique number which can confidently alarm and notify the user about broken rotor bar.”) for the purpose of detecting anomalies (pg. 1, par. [0002] and [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Cella, Deutsch, Eryurek, and Lymperopoulos to include the addition of the limitation of one of broken or cracked rotor bars in the motor to accurately detect a fault (Tiwari: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to monitoring systems/methods.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0133289 A1 discloses diagnosing of a flow system, using status signals carrying information about said flow system, whereby new status information is generated, which relates to a plurality of aspects of the flow system based on said status signals and dependent on a functional model and on a set of predetermined rules.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0153806 A1 discloses defining and executing predictive models for outputting health metrics that estimate an operating health of an asset or a part thereof, analyzing health metrics to determine variables that are associated with high health metrics, and modifying a handling of abnormal-condition indicators in accordance with a prediction of a likely response to such abnormal-condition indicator.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0376024 A1 discloses an apparatus and method for identifying anomalies in an industrial plant for implementing a production process, where the plant comprises a plurality of sensors for measuring process variables of the production process.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0047015 A1 discloses a synthetic fuel generation plant can be automatically and continuously monitored in order to optimise a fuel generation process.
U.S. Patent No. 11,209,807 B2 discloses systems, methods, and devices are provided that facilitate detecting anomalies in performance of industrial systems.
U.S. Patent No. 11,567,823 B2 discloses a method and system for identifying and evaluating common cause failures of system components of an investigated technical system of interest such as an industrial facility.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights