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 § 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.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A prong 2 determines whether any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more.
The 35 USC 101 analysis between each element of claims and its combination is presented in the table below
Claim number and elements
Judicial exception (Step 2A Prong one)
Practical application (Step 2A Prong two)/ Significantly more (Step 2B)
Claim 1
Step 1: Yes, statutory class
Step 2A Prong two: No / Step 2B: No
A predictive monitoring system configured to both communicate with IoT devices and also integrate with BACNet devices to
receive data streams from said IoT and BACNet devices and
reconcile differences in communications protocols so that data is usable with said predictive monitoring system for monitoring commercial equipment in a BACNet environment, said predictive monitoring system comprising:
Step2A Prong one: Yes
“both communicate with IoT device ~”, “receive data streams ~” is insignificant extra-solution activities to perform generic computer functions of a generic computer component.
“reconcile differences in communication protocols~” is a math or mental process
a processing module or subsystem for data processing, analytics and communication of data trends and alert conditions;
“a processing module or subsystem” is a high level of generality to perform a generic computer function of a generic computer component.
a first edge gateway communicating with said processing module and connected to a first plurality of IoT sensors to
receive a data stream from each of said IoT sensors by a first communication protocol and
transmit data to said processing module to perform various predictive and analytic processes on said data; and
abstract idea
mental process or mathematical concept
“a first edge gateway” and “IoT sensors” are high level of generalities to collect routine data (i.e., data stream).
“a first communication protocol” is a high level of generality recited to perform a generic computer function of a generic computer component.
“to receive a data stream ~” and “transmit data to ~” are insignificant extra-solution activities to collect data which are used to perform abstract idea itself.
“perform various predictive and analytic processes on said data” is math or mental process.
a second edge gateway configured for
receiving one or more data streams from a second plurality of sensors configured as BACNet sensors, which use a BACNet protocol that defines a second communications protocol that is disparate or different in comparison to said first communications protocol of said first plurality of sensors,
abstract idea
mental process or mathematical concept
“a second edge gateway” and “BACNet sensors” are high level of generalities to collect routine data (i.e., one or more data streams).
“receiving one or more data streams ~” is insignificant extra-solution activity to collect data which are used to perform abstract idea itself.
“defines a second communications protocol that is disparate or different in comparison to said first communications protocol of said first plurality of sensors” is math or mental process.
said second gateway either being configured different from said first gateway referenced above to handle only said second communication protocol, or being configured to handle multiple communications protocols to communicate with both said first and second pluralities of sensors communicating with said first and second communication protocols;
“said second gateway either being configured different from said first gateway referenced above to handle only said second communication protocol, or being configured to handle multiple communications protocols …” is insignificant extra-solution activity.
said predictive monitoring system being configured to use said first communications protocol used by said first gateway, wherein said second gateway transforms said data stream of said second communications protocol to a data stream usable by said predictive monitoring system.
“said predictive monitoring system being configured to use said first communications protocol used by said first gateway” is insignificant extra-solution activity.
“said second gateway transforms said data stream of said second communications protocol ~” is insignificant extra-solution activity to perform a generic computer function of a generic computer component.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as addressed below and presented in the above table.
Step 2A: Prong One
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations recited in Claim 1, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mathematical calculations and/or the mind, as presented in the above table. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or the mathematical calculations. For example, “reconcile differences in communications protocols so that data is usable with said predictive monitoring system for monitoring commercial equipment in a BACNet environment” in the context of this claim may encompass mathematical calculations related to data processing itself and/or manually inferring reconciling the differences. For example, “a first edge gateway … perform various predictive and analytic processes on said data” in the context of this claim may encompass mathematical calculations related to data processing itself and/or manually inferring predictive and analytic process on the received data. For example, “a second edge gateway … defines a second communications protocol that is disparate or different in comparison to said first communications protocol of said first plurality of sensors” in the context of this claim may encompass manually mathematical calculations and/or inferring a characteristic/definition of a communication protocol by performing a process for comparing with the first communications protocol, where the communication protocols are high level of generality to be configured by a generic function of a generic computer component under an environment of a generic computer network.
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is abstract ideal itself and not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the specification details use of a computer to perform mathematical calculations/data processing of “reconcile differences in communications protocols so that data is usable with said predictive monitoring system for monitoring commercial equipment in a BACNet environment”, “a first edge gateway … perform various predictive and analytic processes on said data” and “a second edge gateway … defines a second communications protocol that is disparate or different in comparison to said first communications protocol of said first plurality of sensors”. The first edge gateway, the IoT sensors, the second edge gateway and the BACNet sensors are recited at high-level of generalities to merely gather routine data (i.e., data stream, one or more data streams). The processing module or subsystem is recited at high-level of generalities recited to merely to perform generic computer functions (such as data processing, analytics and communication of data trends and alert conditions) of a generic computer component. The limitations of “both communicate with IoT devices and also integrate with BACNet devices to receive data streams from said IoT and BACNet devices”, “receive a data stream from each of said IoT sensors by a first communication protocol and transmit data to said processing module to perform various predictive and analytic processes on said data” and “receiving one or more data streams from a second plurality of sensors configured as BACNet sensors, which use a BACNet protocol” are insignificant extra-solution activities necessary to merely gather routine data (i.e., data stream, one or more data streams) to be used for performing the abstract idea (i.e., the step of defining the second communications protocol). See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitations of “said second gateway either being configured different from said first gateway referenced above to handle only said second communication protocol, or being configured to handle multiple communications protocols to communicate with both said first and second pluralities of sensors communicating with said first and second communication protocols” and “said predictive monitoring system being configured to use said first communications protocol used by said first gateway, wherein said second gateway transforms said data stream of said second communications protocol to a data stream usable by said predictive monitoring system” are insignificant extra-solution activities to configure a communication protocol type based on the calculated and/or inferred process related to the step of defining the communications protocol. There is no showing of integration into a practical application such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, or use of a particular machine.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of “both communicate with IoT devices and also integrate with BACNet devices to receive data streams from said IoT and BACNet devices”, “receive a data stream from each of said IoT sensors by a first communication protocol and transmit data to said processing module to perform various predictive and analytic processes on said data” and “receiving one or more data streams from a second plurality of sensors configured as BACNet sensors, which use a BACNet protocol” are insignificant extra-solution activities necessary to merely gather routine data (i.e., data stream, one or more data streams) to be used for performing the abstract idea (i.e., the step of defining the second communications protocol). The limitations of “said second gateway either being configured different from said first gateway referenced above to handle only said second communication protocol, or being configured to handle multiple communications protocols to communicate with both said first and second pluralities of sensors communicating with said first and second communication protocols” and “said predictive monitoring system being configured to use said first communications protocol used by said first gateway, wherein said second gateway transforms said data stream of said second communications protocol to a data stream usable by said predictive monitoring system.” are insignificant extra-solution activities to configure a communication protocol type based on the calculated and/or inferred process related to the step of defining the communications protocol. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the functions and/or structures related to the “predictive monitoring system”, the “BACNet sensors” and the “IoT sensor” are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception, as Applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) teaches (see “BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION” presented in at least paragraphs 0014-0017 of the instant application). See MPEP 2106.05(d). As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the computer to perform “reconcile differences in communications protocols so that data is usable with said predictive monitoring system for monitoring commercial equipment in a BACNet environment”, “a first edge gateway … perform various predictive and analytic processes on said data” and “a second edge gateway … defines a second communications protocol that is disparate or different in comparison to said first communications protocol of said first plurality of sensors” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept cannot provide statutory eligibility. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-9, the limitations are further directed to an abstract idea, as described in claim 1. The limitation of “monitors operating conditions of a wide variety of equipment through data collection from at least said first plurality of sensors, optionally being connected to said second gateway to collect data from said second plurality of sensors” in claim 2 and “monitor the operating characteristics of the equipment and/or the external environment around the equipment” in claim 4 are insignificant extra-solution activities to merely gather routine data (i.e., “the generated signal and the captured sound”) used for performing abstract idea. The “cloud based computing system” in claim 6 is a high level of generality to perform a generic computer function of a generic computer component. The limitation of “allows operators to anticipate and predict future failures or breakdowns, and trigger inspection and repair before such failures or breakdowns occur” in the context of claim 9 may encompass manually inferring a predicting process in mind and/or through the mathematical calculation. For the reasons described above with respect to Claim 1 and 2-9, the judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 10, it is a system type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. The additional limitation of “said processing module of said predictive monitoring system being configured to receive and use said first communications protocol used by said first gateway, wherein said second gateway transforms said BACNet data stream of said second communications protocol to a modified data stream which is also received and used by said processing module of said predictive monitoring system” is insignificant extra-solution activity to perform generic computer functions, such as receiving and using the communications protocol, of a generic computer component.
Regarding Claims 11-15, the limitations are further directed to an abstract idea, as described in claim 10. For the reasons described above with respect to Claims 2-8, the judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 16, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as of claims 1 and 10 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claims 1 and 10 above. The additional element of “at least one processing sub-module” is a high level of generality to perform a generic computer function of a generic computer component. The limitation of “receiving said compiled data stream for performing at least one function of said data processing, analytics and communication of data trends and alert conditions performed by said processing module” in claim 16 is insignificant extra-solution activities to perform a generic computer function, such as receiving data, of a generic computer component.
Regarding Claims 17-20, the limitations are further directed to an abstract idea, as described in claim 1-16. For the reasons described above with respect to Claims 17-20, the judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kolhapure et al. (US 20230080899 A1) teaches IoT management platforms and systems, where a universal gateway device includes a first network interface circuit and a second network interface circuit, the first network interface circuit is utilized to communicate over a first network associated with an Internet of Things (IoT) management system utilizing a first communications protocol, the second network interface circuit is utilized to communicate over a second network associated with an IoT device utilizing a second communications protocol that is different from the first communications protocol, the first network interface circuit generates a virtual device representation of the IoT device on the first network, the virtual device representation is utilized to communicate data from the IoT device over the first network utilizing the first communications protocol.
Cella et al. (US 20210356945 A1) teaches various configurations of Internet of Things (IoT) systems in conveniently deployed kits that monitor or manage industrial settings using various configurations of sensors, edge computing devices, networking systems, and artificial intelligence.
SCHELSTRAETE (US 20210185154 A1) a wireless packet that includes a preamble that is compliant with a first wireless communication protocol and is forward compatible with a second wireless communication protocol that is different than the first wireless communication protocol.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BYUNG RO LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3707. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571) 270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-2555.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BYUNG RO LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858