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 and amendment have persuasively overcome the double patenting rejection, all but one of the 112a rejections, and the 112b rejections.
The remaining issues are addressed below.
112
Applicant argues:
“ … and alleges that the specification does not discuss techniques beyond determining a change in a position of a valve or dial. Applicant respectfully disagrees.”
Examiner responds:
The issue is that the claim reads on more than the specification has disclosed. The issue is that the claim covers all of the ways of performing this, not just those disclosed in a given specification. The examiner notes that the dependent claims resolve this issue.
101
Applicant argues:
The Office further explains that this provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring, and concludes that the claim as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application and therefore is patent eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception.
Examiner responds:
In example 40, the claimed improvement is relative to an already automated system. For example 40, the inventors discovered that one would collect a different amount of data. In contrast, the present invention is merely automating a manual process. See, e.g., specification, [0003].
Applicant argues:
“… which avoids excess use of the cameras and processing resources of the monitoring system.”
Examiner responds:
This excess use appears to be hypothetical, the examiner is unaware of evidence of someone actually implementing the cameras and processing resources that Applicant is purporting to save. A declaration, or other testimonial evidence, that shows that the present invention provides an improvement over an actual system may be persuasive. See, e.g., https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/smeds-corps.pdf (attached).
As to the arguments regarding the prior art, see the updated claim mapping.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 8 recite “determine whether the change deviates from the expected change,” but this is unlimited functional claiming. MPEP 2173.05(g). However, dependent claims 2-5, 9, 11, and 12 overcome this issue by specifying what is compared (in other words, claims 1 and 8 read on more than just checking the position of the dial, but the specification does not discuss techniques beyond determining position).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15-17, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: Claims 1 and 15 (and their dependents) recite a system, i.e., a machine, which is eligible subject matter. Claim 8 and its dependents recite a method, i.e., a process, which is eligible subject matter.
Step 2A, prong one: All of the elements of claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15-17, 20 and 21 are a mental process. MPEP 2106.04(a) directs that a claim may recite elements that fall within more than one grouping. Here, the limitations also fall into the category of managing personal behavior, such as the instructions given to an employee assigned to monitor a process station. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) explains that use of a generic computer or in a computer environment is still a mental process. In particular, this section begins by citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 US 63 (1972). “The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea.” In Benson the Supreme Court did not separately analyze the computer hardware at issue; the specifics of what hardware was claimed is only included in an appendix to the decision.
Because there are no additional elements, no further analysis is required for Step 2A, prong two or Step 2B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by US20160282872A1 (“Ahmed”).
1. (Currently Amended) A system for monitoring a process station, (Ahmed, title “System and method of monitoring an industrial plant”)
the system comprising:
at least one processor configured to: (Ahmed, abstract “The industrial plant monitoring system includes one or more processors”)
detect a trigger event indicative of a potential change in a condition or performance of the process station, (Ahmed, abstract “the analysis module being configured to detect an event related to the industrial plant based on the sensor data and historic sensor data.”)
the trigger event including at least one of a valve position change at the process station, vibration at the process station, valve actuation at the process station or opening an enclosure at the process station; (Ahmed, [0084] “For example, a vibration sensor is used to collect sensor data at waypoint 112 for equipment 114.”)
identify, in response to the trigger event, a first digital image of the process station captured prior to the trigger event; (Ahmed, [0079] “at step S716, a sensor 202 is activated to collect sensor data. … In another embodiment, the camera 230 can read the digital display present on a field device 110 and use optical character recognition to read the value shown on the digital display of the field device 110.”)
identify a second digital image of the process station captured in response to the trigger event; (Ahmed, [0079] “at step S716, a sensor 202 is activated to collect sensor data. … In another embodiment, the camera 230 can read the digital display present on a field device 110 and use optical character recognition to read the value shown on the digital display of the field device 110.”)
wherein detection of the trigger event initiates capturing of the second digital image during or immediately after the trigger event; (Ahmed, [0089] “If the severity of the event is medium, a recommendation to watch the equipment 114 is generated.”)
identify, in the first digital image and the second digital image, a visual indicator of the process station using a quick response (QR) code arranged proximate to the visual indicator; (Ahmed, [0057] “the equipment 114 present near waypoint 112 is identified using a Quick Response code as the value for the attribute is ‘QR CODE’.”)
compare the visual indicator in the first digital image to the visual indicator in the second digital image to identify a change in the visual indicator from the first digital image to the second digital image; (Ahmed, abstract “the analysis module being configured to detect an event related to the industrial plant based on the sensor data and historic sensor data.”)
identify, using the QR code, configuration data for the process station that defines an expected change in the visual indicator from the first digital image to the second digital image; (Ahmed, Fig. 3)
determine whether the change deviates from the expected change; and (Ahmed, Fig. 8, Step S808)
generate indicia representative of the identified change in response to determining that the change deviates from the expected change. (Ahmed, Fig. 8, Step S814)
2. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 1, wherein:
the visual indicator comprises a measurement displayed by an instrument of the process station, the change comprises a change in a value of the measurement, and the expected change comprises an expected change in the value of the measurement. (Ahmed, [0079] “In another embodiment, the camera 230 can read the digital display present on a field device 110 and use optical character recognition to read the value shown on the digital display of the field device 110.”)
3. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 2, wherein:
the measurement comprises at least one of a flow rate, a temperature, and a pressure. (Ahmed, [0044] “In general, distributed control systems are connected to various field devices such as measurement devices for pressure, temperature, and flow transmitters in order to measure various parameters related to a processes.”)
4. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 1, wherein:
the visual indicator comprises a measurement displayed by an instrument of the process station, the change comprises a rate of change in a value of the measurement, and the expected change comprises an expected rate of change in the value of the measurement. (Ahmed, [0088] “For example, if the vibration sensor data is 10% more than the average for the past seven days … .” Ahmed’s change per amount of time teaches the claimed rate of change.)
5. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 1, wherein:
the visual indicator comprises a valve position indicator displayed by a valve of the process station, the change comprises a change in a position of the valve, and the expected change comprises an expected change in the position of the valve. (Ahmed, [0003] “the console operator diagnoses a problem with the use of DCS such as shutting down manual valves.” Ahmed teaches that the DCS used to see if the valve is open is connected to a display. See also [0047] “The DCS 124 is connected to the PIMS 122 using a communication network (not shown). The PIMS 122 is connected to a Human Machine Interface (HMI) 102 that allows a console operator to view information from the DCS 124 and PIMS 122.”)
Claim 8 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2. Additionally, Ahmed teaches checking a valve (i.e., Ahmed’s field device 110 teaches the claimed valve indicator). Ahmed, [0003].
Claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 12. See also, Ahmed, title, teaches the claimed system.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3. Additionally, Ahmed teaches checking a valve (i.e., Ahmed’s field device 110 teaches the claimed valve indicator). Ahmed, [0003].
Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4. Additionally, Ahmed teaches checking a valve (i.e., Ahmed’s field device 110 teaches the claimed valve indicator). Ahmed, [0003].
21. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 15, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
cause the system to transmit the indicia to a remote device via a communication network. (Ahmed, Fig. 2A)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160282872A1 (“Ahmed”) in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”).
While Ahmed teaches the system of claim 15 (as per above), Ahmed is not relied on for the below language of claim 20.
However, Applicant Admitted Prior Art teaches wherein:
the process station comprises a sample conditioning system configured to pre- condition samples of at least one of a liquid and a gas prior to submission of the samples to an analysis system. (AAPA, [0003] “Sample conditioning systems include multiple components that work together to ensure that the samples are conditioned properly.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of AAPA to the teachings of Ahmed to provide implementation details. For example, Ahmed [0047] teaches “Examples of field devices may include, but are not limited to, pressure transmitters, temperature sensors and flow meters.” AAPA [0002] provides useful background on this with “Samples taken for analysis often require conditioning before the samples are suitable for analysis by an analysis system. For example, samples may be processed to remove unwanted components and to ensure that the sample is presented to the analysis system at the correct temperature, pressure, and flow rate to meet the requirements of the analysis system.”
Based on the above, this is an example of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20190042819A1 – titled “Dynamic and soft qr based monitoring of process equipment health/status in a connected plant”
US20150014409A1 – claim 1 “A servicing system for a field device in an automation engineering 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 DAVID ORANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1799. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9-5.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/DAVID ORANGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663