DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is responsive to pending claims 1-11 filed 5/4/2023.
Claim Objections
The following claim(s) are objected to for formality issues:
In claim 7, “the asset relationship” lacks antecedent basis as claim 1 only declares asset relationships in the plural; hence, amendment to “an asset relationship” is needed.
Appropriate correction(s) are required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for retrieving, building, determining, providing (claim 10).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The 35 U.S.C. 101 subject matter eligibility analysis first asks whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories (Step 1). It next asks whether the claim is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A), via Prong 1, whether an abstract idea (e.g., mathematical concept, mental process, certain methods of organizing human activity) is recited, and Prong 2, whether it is integrated into a practical application. It finally asks whether the claim as a whole includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). See MPEP 2106.
STEP 1: The claims falls within one of the four statutory categories:
All claims are directed to methods, hardware systems, and non-transitory media and hence fall within one of the four statutory categories.
STEP 2A PRONG 1: The claims recite a judicial exception:
The claims are directed to organizing a cross domain model based on assets from various engineering domains. Hence, it is directed to a mental process, akin to something being performed by a project overseer. In particular:
For claim 1: A method for providing a set of services relating to a semantic model of a plant infrastructure comprising assets belonging to different engineering domains (providing of services, e.g., answering questions, related to a semantic model of a plant, such as a graph representation, may be performed in the mind), the method comprising:for each engineering domain, retrieving
for each engineering domain, building an engineering domain model comprising assets identifiers that are linked between them based on said asset relationships (constructing a model of assets including nodes and links may be performed in the mind),
determining at least one asset identifier that belongs or is connected to at least two different engineering domain models and linking said at least two different engineering domain models via said at least one asset identifier to build a semantic model of the infrastructure (forming cross domain connections may be performed in the mind), and
providing a set of services for the semantic model of the infrastructure, the services using sets of attributes associated with asset identifiers that belong to different engineering domain models (provision of services, e.g., answering questions via or about the model, may be performed in the mind).
For claim 2: The method according to claim 1, wherein each engineering domain is associated with at least one dedicated application allowing access to information relating to at least one asset of the engineering domain by means of the sets of attributes associated with said at least one asset, and the set of services is delivered by dedicated applications associated with engineering domains (The association of engineering domains with dedicated applications does not preclude the performance of the method in the mind).
For claim 3: The method according to claim 1,wherein asset relationships are categorized in at least two types of relationship including composition relationship and connection relationship, wherein composition relationship defines physical link between assets and connection relationship defines physical interaction between assets (forming specialized relationships for the model may be performed in the mind).
For claim 4: The method according to claim 1, wherein the engineering domain model corresponds to a domain knowledge graph, wherein nodes correspond to asset identifiers and edges correspond to asset relationships between asset identifiers (Formation of domain models corresponding to domain knowledge graphs and associated asset relationships may be performed in the mind).
For Claim 5: The method according to claim 4, wherein a tool is provided to navigate through the domain knowledge graph and to interface with the dedicated applications of the engineering domain (The interacting of knowledge graphs or interacting with applications with may be performed mentally).
For claim 6: The method according to claim 1, wherein the set of attributes of assets correspond to semantically meaningful elements (The association of assets with semantically meaningful elements may be performed in the mind).
For claim 7: The method according to claim 1, wherein the asset relationship is defined by a triple composed of one asset, a relationship and another asset (the formation of triple relationships may be performed in them mind).
For claim 8: The method according to claim 1,wherein each engineering domain is associated with a domain ontology defining the format of the set of attributes and of the asset relationships (The association of domains with ontologies for defining attributes may be performed in the mind).
For claim 9: The method according to claim 1, wherein the assets comprise physical assets (the association of physical assets with the model does not preclude performance of the method in the mind).
Claim 10 recites a server corresponding to the method of claim 1 and is hence likewise analyzed.
Claim 11 recites a computer-readable medium corresponding to the method of claim 1 and is hence likewise analyzed.
STEP 2A PRONG 2: The claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application:
Claim 5 recites the additional element of a tool, such as a human-machine interface, for navigating through the graph and interacting with applications. However, these are mere instructions to implement the mental process in a general purpose computing environment and hence do not comprise an integration into a practical application.
Claim 10 recites the additional element of an application server for providing a set of services relating to a semantic model of an infrastructure comprising assets belonging to different engineering domains, the application server comprising: means for retrieving, means for building, means for determining, and means for providing. However, these are mere instructions to implement the mental process in a general purpose networked computing environment and hence do not comprise an integration into a practical application.
Claim 11 recites the additional element of a non-transitory computer-readable medium having embodied thereon a computer program for executing the method. However, these are mere instructions to implement the mental process in a general purpose computing environment and hence do not comprise an integration into a practical application.
STEP 2B: The claim as a whole do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
Claim 5 recites the additional element of a tool, such as a human-machine interface, for navigating through the graph and interacting with applications. However, these are mere instructions to implement the mental process in a general purpose computing environment including a human-machine interface or GUI and hence do not comprise an integration into a practical application.
Claim 10 recites the additional element of an application server for providing a set of services relating to a semantic model of an infrastructure comprising assets belonging to different engineering domains, the application server comprising: means for retrieving, means for building, means for determining, and means for providing. However, the use of networked computing environments is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of multi-disciplinary engineering and hence does not constitute significantly more.
Claim 11 recites the additional element of a non-transitory computer-readable medium having embodied thereon a computer program for executing the method. However, these are mere instructions to implement the mental process in a general purpose computing environment and hence do not comprise an integration into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kovalenko ("Automating cross-disciplinary defect detection in multi-disciplinary engineering environments", published 2014).
For claim 1, Kovalenko discloses: a method for providing a set of services relating to a semantic model of a plant infrastructure comprising assets belonging to different engineering domains (§4, fig.3 gives overview of the ontology-based semantic web model, the model providing services such as responding to queries (fig.3), the model being of a power plant (§4.1 ¶1) with corresponding assets related to various engineering domains, such as Hardware Configuration (HC), Control System (CS), Project Configuration (PC) (§4.2 ¶1)), the method comprising:
for each engineering domain, retrieving(§4.2 Table 1 shows assets for each domain; see also figs.4-6 disclosing various assets identifiers for each domain including relational structures as indicated by arrows between asset identifiers and attribute sets such as elements within each block),
for each engineering domain, building an engineering domain model comprising assets identifiers that are linked between them based on said asset relationships (§4.2 Table 1, figs.4-6),
determining at least one asset identifier that belongs or is connected to at least two different engineering domain models and linking said at least two different engineering domain models via said at least one asset identifier to build a semantic model of the infrastructure (§4.3 ¶1-3, fig.7: shows construction of a cross-domain semantic model via connections between various asset identifiers, hence, these asset identifiers belonging to and being connected to the two domains via the shown arrow relationships), and
providing a set of services for the semantic model of the infrastructure, the services using sets of attributes associated with asset identifiers that belong to different engineering domain models (§4.3 ¶3-6: provision of querying service for the semantic model, the querying service using the sets of attributes associated with asset identifiers and belonging to different fields).
For claim 2, Kovalenko discloses the method of claim 1, as described above. Kovalenko further discloses: wherein each engineering domain is associated with at least one dedicated application allowing access to information relating to at least one asset of the engineering domain by means of the sets of attributes associated with said at least one asset (fig.3, §4 ¶2-3 gives an overview of a system with domain-specific tools operating on domain specific data models and data formats accessed by domain specific engineers, hence, user-interactive domain-specific or dedicated software applications allowing access to domain assets and associated attributes), and the set of services is delivered by dedicated applications associated with engineering domains (ibid: creating an ontology layer via Semantic Web on top of domain-specific applications and data models in order to allow various services, hence services being delivered by underlying dedicated applications interfacing with the connected ontology layer).
For claim 4, Kovalenko discloses the method of claim 1, as described above. Kovalenko further discloses: wherein the engineering domain model corresponds to a domain knowledge graph (figs. 4-6), wherein nodes correspond to asset identifiers and edges correspond to asset relationships between asset identifiers (ibid: various asset identifier instances and relationships between identifiers).
For claim 6, Kovalenko discloses the method of claim 1, as described above. Kovalenko further discloses: wherein the set of attributes of assets correspond to semantically meaningful elements (figs.4-6 shows semantically meaningful elements in an ontology of assets and attributes).
For claim 8, Kovalenko discloses the method of claim 1, as described above. Kovalenko further discloses: wherein each engineering domain is associated with a domain ontology defining the format of the set of attributes and of the asset relationships (figs.4-7: hardware physical assets, control system physical assets, human physical assets).
For claim 9, Kovalenko discloses the method of claim 1, as described above. Kovalenko further discloses: wherein the assets comprise physical assets (figs.4-7: the assets in the .
For claim 10, Kovalenko discloses: an application server for providing a set of services relating to a semantic model of an infrastructure comprising assets belonging to different engineering domains (fig.3, §4.3 ¶3-6: provision of querying service for a semantic model, the querying service using the sets of attributes associated with asset identifiers and belonging to different fields, hence, application server), the application server comprising:
means for retrieving, for each engineering domain, asset identifiers respectively associated with assets of the engineering domain and with sets of attributes and for determining asset relationships between said asset identifiers (§4.2 Table 1 shows assets for each domain; see also figs.4-6 disclosing various assets identifiers for each domain including relational structures as indicated by arrows between asset identifiers and attribute sets such as elements within each block),
means for building, for each engineering domain, an engineering domain model comprising assets identifiers that are linked between them based on said asset relationships (§4.2 Table 1, figs.4-6),
means for determining at least one asset identifier that belongs or is connected to at least two different engineering domain models and linking said at least two different engineering domain models via said at least one asset identifier to build a semantic model of the infrastructure (§4.3 ¶1-3, fig.7: shows construction of a cross-domain semantic model via connections between various asset identifiers, hence, these asset identifiers belonging to and being connected to the two domains via the shown arrow relationships), and
means for providing a set of services for the semantic model of the infrastructure, the services using sets of attributes associated with asset identifiers that belong to different engineering domain models (§4.3 ¶3-6: provision of querying service for the semantic model, the querying service using the sets of attributes associated with asset identifiers and belonging to different fields).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 7, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovalenko ("Automating cross-disciplinary defect detection in multi-disciplinary engineering environments", published 2014) in view of Hams (US 20170293418 A1).
For claim 3, Kovalenko discloses the method of claim 1, as described above. Kovalenko further does not disclose: wherein asset relationships are categorized in at least two types of relationship including composition relationship and connection relationship, wherein composition relationship defines physical link between assets and connection relationship defines physical interaction between assets.
Hams discloses: wherein asset relationships are categorized in at least two types of relationship including composition relationship and connection relationship, wherein composition relationship defines physical link between assets and connection relationship defines physical interaction between assets (fig.3-4, 0048-49 shows further asset relationships including connections showing physical links (e.g., passage of materials between assets via conduits) and physical interactions (receiving and provision of materials)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kovalenko by incorporating the additional asset relationships of Hams. Both concern the art of networked representation of factory systems and the incorporation would have, according to Ham, allow representations of industrial processes (0047), hence, allowing additional monitoring and controlling (0005-6).
For claim 5, Kovalenko discloses the method of claim 4, as described above. Kovalenko does not disclose: wherein a tool is provided to navigate through the domain knowledge graph and to interface with the dedicated applications of the engineering domains.
Ham discloses: wherein a tool is provided to navigate through the domain knowledge graph and to interface with the dedicated applications of the engineering domains (fig.3-4, 0048-49, 0066-67 shows interactive tools for navigating through and interfacing with domain knowledge graphs).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kovalenko by incorporating the navigation tool of Ham. Both concern the art of networked representation of factory systems and the incorporation would have, according to Ham, allow representations of industrial processes (0047), hence, allowing additional monitoring and controlling (0005-6).
For claim 7, Kovalenko discloses the method of claim 1, as described above. Kovalenko does not disclose: wherein the asset relationship is defined by a triple composed of one asset, a relationship and another asset.
Hams discloses: wherein the asset relationship is defined by a triple composed of one asset, a relationship and another asset (fig.3-4, 0048-49 shows various pairs of asset connected by asset relationships).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kovalenko by incorporating the additional asset relationships of Hams. Both concern the art of networked representation of factory systems and the incorporation would have, according to Ham, allow representations of industrial processes (0047), hence, allowing additional monitoring and controlling (0005-6).
Claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium corresponding to the method of claim 1 and is hence rejected under the same rationale. Kovalenko odes not disclose: a non-transitory computer-readable medium having embodied thereon a computer program for executing the method according to claim 1.
Ham discloses: a non-transitory computer-readable medium having embodied thereon a computer program for executing the method according to claim 1 (fig.2:206, 0043).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kovalenko by incorporating the additional asset relationships of Hams. Both concern the art of networked representation of factory systems and the incorporation would have, according to Ham, allow implementation on typical computing devices (0041).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Heindl (US 20230297082 A1) discloses a multi-disciplinary platform for total factory control.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIANG LI whose telephone number is (303)297-4263. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-12p, 3-11p MT (11-2p, 5-1a ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner is available for interviews Mon-Fri 6-11a, 2-7p MT (8-1p, 4-9p ET).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Jennifer Welch can be reached on (571)272-7212. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/LIANG LI/
Primary examiner AU 2143
Prosecution Insights