DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment/Remarks received on 8 December 2025. Claims 26-37 and 67-69 were cancelled. Claims 1-25 and 38-66 were previously cancelled. Claims 70-84 have been newly added. Claims 70-84 remain are 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 8 December 2025, with respect to the restriction of claim 26-37 and 67-69 in the Notice of Non-Responsive Amendment mailed on 7 October 2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the cancellation of claim 26-37 and 67-69.
Claim Objections
Claims 70, 73, 75, 83, and 84 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 70 includes the punctuation issues of “wherein,” in line 9 and “configured to,” in line 15. Suggested claim language: “wherein” in line 9 and “configured to” in line 15; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 73 includes the punctuation issue of “at least one of,” in line 2. Suggested claim language: “at least one of”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 70 recites “a client application” in line 16 and claim 75 recites “a client application” in line 2. The limitation of “a client application” in claim 75 should read “the client application” since the limitation has antecedent support from the limitation of “a client application” in claim 70; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 83 recites the limitation "the at least one processor" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Suggested claim language: “at least one processor”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 83 includes the punctuation issues of “wherein,” in line 21 and “indicates,” in line 26. Suggested claim language: “wherein” in line 21 and “indicate” in line 26; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 84 includes the punctuation issue of “at least one of,” in line 2. Suggested claim language: “at least one of”; 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 70-84 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 “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” and “… the plurality of sensor data values and/or the recognized pattern with 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 limitation of “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” (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 “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”, 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 “… the plurality of sensor data values and/or the recognized pattern with 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 …” (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 are 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 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, determine an operational status of the particular component based on the recognized pattern, … , 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 for … process …, update …, determine …, processing …, displaying …”; “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 are 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 represent a mere means for data gathering (i.e. sensor data values) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, as the gathering data is used in the abstract mathematical concepts of “determine” and “prediction”. The use of the “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”; 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)” and “display(ing) are recited at a high level of generally 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 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 …”) represent mere data gathering. The “receiv(ing)”, “updat(ing)”, and “determin(ing)” are recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically they represent 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 elements of “at least on processor configured for … process …, update …, determine …, processing …, displaying …”; “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. Wherein, 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 are 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, represents 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 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”.
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 [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 generally 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 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 elements 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 generally 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: pgs. 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, “determination” 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 generally 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 a 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 a 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 generally 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 generally 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 a 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 sensor data values (claims 76 and 77) of claim 70 and the plurality of sensors (claims 78 and 79) 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 generally 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, these 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.
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, 73-75, 80, and 83 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. 2002/0169514 A1 (hereinafter Eryurek) and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0138970 A1 (hereinafter Deutsch).
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 are 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 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 determine an operational status of the particular component based on the recognized pattern,
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,
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,
processing the plurality of sensor data values and/or the recognized pattern with 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, 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 a data representation based on the plurality of sensor data values, at least in part, in response to determination of the recognized pattern for the particular component (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
determining 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 a data representation 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 determining 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 processing the plurality of sensor data values and/or the recognized pattern with 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, 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 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 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 Eryurek does not expressly teach processing the plurality of sensor data values and/or the recognized pattern with 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, 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.
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 (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.”), 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 Eryurek 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, 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]).
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], [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 Eryurek 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 Eryurek 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 does not expressly teach the at least one processor is further configured to 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 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 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 80, Rickard in view of Wong 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, [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 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 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 the 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
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 the 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;
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; 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 based on the prediction.
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 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; 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 based on the prediction.
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 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 Eryurek 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; and
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, 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
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.”) 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 o
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 Eryurek 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; and a 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]).
Claim 71 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Eryurek, Deutsch, 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 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 Eryurek 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.
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 Eryurek and Deutsch 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]).
Claims 72 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Eryurek, Deutsch, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0027339 A1 (hereinafter Gutberlet).
As per claim 72, Rickard in view of Wong 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 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 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 Eryurek 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 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 Eryurek and Deutsch 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]).
Claims 76-78 and 81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Eryurek, Deutsch and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0041846 A1 (hereinafter Cella3).
As per claim 76, Rickard teaches the plurality of sensors (Fig. 1, element 134) are 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 are 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 are 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 in further view of Eryurek does not expressly teach the plurality of sensors are 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 in further view of Eryurek and Deutsch does not expressly teach the plurality of sensors are 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 Cella3, 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 in further view of Eryurek and Deutsch 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 (Cella3: pg. 1, par. [0012]).
As per claim 77, Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Eryurek and Deutsch does not expressly teach the plurality of sensors are 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 Cella3, 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) 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 in further view of Eryurek and Deutsch to include the addition of the limitation of a plurality of sensors 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 (Cella3: pg. 1, par. [0012]).
As per claim 78, Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Eryurek and Deutsch does not expressly teach the plurality of sensors include a computer vision system from which to further determine the recognized pattern.
However Cella3, 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) include 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 in further view of Eryurek and Deutsch to include the addition of the limitation of a plurality of sensors include 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 (Cella3: pg. 1, par. [0012]).
As per claim 81, Rickard in view of Wong 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, [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 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]).
Claim 79 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Eryurek, Deutsch, Cella3, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0390677 A1 (hereinafter Do).
As per claim 79, Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Eryurek, Deutsch, and Cella3 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 Eryurek and Cella3 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 Eryurek, Deutsch, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0225118 A1 (hereinafter Billing).
As per claim 82, Rickard in view of Wong in further view of Eryurek 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 Eryurek 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 Eryurek 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.
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 Eryurek and Deutsch 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 Eryurek 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 Eryurek 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 Eryurek 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.
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 Eryurek and Deutsch 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]).
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. 2009/0240366 A1 discloses autonomous biologically based learning tool system(s) and method(s) that the tool system(s) employs for learning and analysis of performance degradation and mismatch
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0253563 A1 discloses a system and method that conducts a prognostics and/or health, maintenance, and/or management (HMM) service on collected data to determine system health and projected health of a plurality of subsystems (PLoS) and/or system under test (SUT),
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0174462 A1 discloses a method and system for eliminating a fault condition in a technical installation
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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