DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, the term "signal effectiveness" in lines 11 and 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "effectiveness" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination the signal effectiveness will be interpreted as receiving signals as data. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-11 are dependent from, and inherit the limitations of claim 1 respectively. Thus, claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 USC 112 second paragraph for at least the same reasons specified above with respect to claim 1.
Further, claim 1 recites: “one role type” in line 5. The addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression (e.g., Friedel-Crafts catalyst) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. App. 1955). Likewise, the phrase “ZSM-5-type aluminosilicate zeolites” was held to be indefinite because it was unclear what “type” was intended to convey. The interpretation was made more difficult by the fact that the zeolites defined in the dependent claims were not within the genus of the type of zeolites defined in the independent claim. Ex parte Attig, 7 USPQ2d 1092 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). See MPEP 2173.05.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it recites, “one role type”, and the addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. It is unclear what “type” is intended to convey and the specification does not define the term. (See MPEP 2173.05(b)(E))
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Nixon et al. (US 2002/0077711 A1, hereinafter Nixon).
Regarding claim 1, Nixon discloses a monitoring system for collecting data related to an industrial environment (see abstract and paragraph [0002] teach a process control system as a monitoring system for collecting data related to a process plant (industrial environment)), the monitoring system comprising:
a data collector communicatively coupled to a plurality of input channels, wherein the plurality of input channels comprises data relating to an aspect of an industrial production process and data relating to at least one role type stored within a role taxonomy (see paragraphs [0013], [0032], [0054], [0057], and [0080] teach where the process control system includes a data collection and distribution system that collects production process data from different data source elements across a plurality of input/output (I/O) card channels);
a data storage structured to store a plurality of detection values that corresponds to the plurality of input channels (see paragraphs [0013], [0041], and [0055] teach where the data collection and distribution system contains a database storage for storing the collected data from the different data sources (input channels));
a data analysis circuit structured to interpret at least a subset of the plurality of detection values to determine a state value comprising at least one of a process state or a component state (see paragraphs [0013]-[0014], [0033]-[0035], and [0058]-[0059] teach a maintenance computer executing an application for interpreting the plurality of stored data (including at least a reconciled subset of the detection values) to determine a better overall view or state of the process control plant and its assets and provide a better view or insight into the current operational status of the plant);
an optimization circuit structured to analyze a subset of the plurality of detection values and the state value using at least one of a neural net or an expert system to determine a signal effectiveness of at least one of the plurality of input channels relative to the state value, and to provide an adjustment recommendation based, at least in part, on the signal effectiveness (see paragraphs [0032], [0042]-[0046], [0048], [0062], [0065], [0071], and [0120] teach computer-based operator interfaces (as an optimization circuit) running diagnostic applications in an asset utilization suite based on neural networks or diagnostic expert systems for providing recommended process control, replacement, or repair actions in response to the detection values and determined process plant status) ; and
an analysis response circuit structured to adjust the industrial production process in response to the adjustment recommendation (see paragraphs [0073]-[0074] and [0143] teach action applications run on the asset utilization suite of the computer (as an analysis response circuit) to automatically take adjustment actions within the plant in response to the adjustment recommendations).
Regarding claim 2, Nixon discloses the monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the optimization circuit is further structured to provide the adjustment recommendation as one of an equipment change for a component of the industrial production process, or an equipment operating parameter change for the component of the industrial production process (see paragraphs [0033], [0042], and [0074] teaches the application of the optimization circuit computer providing adjustment recommendations including equipment replacement or repair (equipment change) for a component of the process plant, or resetting set points or tuning loops (equipment operating parameter change) for a component of the process plant).
Regarding claim 3, Nixon discloses the monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the optimization circuit is further structured to provide the adjustment recommendation as a process parameter change for the industrial production process (see paragraph [0074] teaches the application of the optimization circuit computer providing an adjustment recommendation as a resetting of set points or tuning loops (process parameter change) for the process plant).
Regarding claim 4, Nixon discloses the monitoring system of claim 3, wherein the process parameter change comprises a command to rebalance process loads between components of the industrial production process (see paragraphs [00074] and [0120] teach where the process parameter change (from resetting set points, tuning loops, reconfiguring equipment, etc.) may reconfigure the plant to make a different or more of one type of product, including bringing more components online to rebalance the process loads between components).
Regarding claim 5, Nixon discloses the monitoring system of claim 4, wherein the optimization circuit is further structured to provide the process parameter change to achieve at least one of: extending a life of one of the components of the industrial production process, improving a probability of success of the industrial production process, or facilitating maintenance on one of the components of the industrial production process (see paragraph [0065] teaches where the application of the optimization circuit runs the plant more optimally by changing the control process parameter to achieve: higher process and equipment uptime (extending the life of equipment in the industrial production process), avoidance of catastrophic process and/or equipment failures (improvement of a probability of success of the production process), and higher ability to safely and securely run faster and closer to design and manufacturing warrantee limits which would facilitate maintenance)..
Regarding claim 6, Nixon discloses the monitoring system of claim 4, wherein the optimization circuit is further structured to provide the process parameter change to facilitate maintenance of one of the components of the industrial production process (see paragraph [0065] teaches where the application of the optimization circuit runs the plant more optimally by changing the control process parameter to achieve a higher ability to safely and securely run faster and closer to design and manufacturing warrantee limits, which would facilitate maintenance).
Regarding claim 7, Nixon discloses the monitoring system of claim 6, wherein the optimization circuit is further structured to facilitate the maintenance of one of the components by performing at least one operation including extending a maintenance interval of one of the components; synchronizing a first maintenance interval of a first one of the components with a second maintenance interval of a second one of the components; and differentiating the first maintenance interval of the first one of the components from the second maintenance interval of the second one of the components (see paragraph [0065] teaches where the application of the optimization circuit runs the plant more optimally by at least extending a maintenance interval of one of the components through higher process and equipment uptime, which would indicate longer times of operation before maintenance is needed).
Regarding claim 8, Nixon discloses the monitoring system of claim 6 wherein the optimization circuit is further structured to facilitate the maintenance of one of the components by aligning a maintenance interval of one of the components with an external reference time (see paragraph [0145] teaches facilitating maintenance of the components by automatic scheduling of work (such as repair or maintenance) at an external scheduled time within the plant).
Regarding claim 9, Nixon discloses the monitoring system of claim 8, wherein the external reference time comprises at least one time including a planned shutdown time for the industrial production process, a time that is past an expected completion time of the industrial production process, or a scheduled maintenance time for one of the components (see paragraphs [0145] teaches facilitating maintenance of the components by automatic scheduling of work (such as repair or maintenance) at an external time comprising at least a scheduled maintenance time for components within the plant).
Regarding claim 10, Nixon discloses the monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the optimization circuit is further structured to determine a sensitivity of at least one of the plurality of input channels relative to the state value (see paragraph [0079] teaches a diagnostic application of the optimization circuit determining a signal effectiveness of the plurality of the input channels from the monitored sensor outputs, by performing pattern recognition on the signal data with alarm bounds).
Regarding claim 11, Nixon discloses the monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the optimization circuit is further structured to determine a predictive accuracy of at least one of the plurality of input channels relative to the state value (see paragraph [0115]-[0117] teach the asset utilization suite of the optimization circuit determining a predictive accuracy of at least one of the plurality of sensor input channels relative to the plant status by recognizing whether the sensor appears to have a high or otherwise unacceptable error (inaccuracy) associated therewith).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
