DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 6 August 2026. Claims 1-10 and 19 have been amended. Claims 11-18 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1-10, 19, and 20 have been examined on their merits.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6 August 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 7, filed 6 August 2026, with respect to objected claims 2-10 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendment filed on 6 August 2026. The objections of claims 2-10 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 7-8, filed 6 August 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1-10, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments,
Instead, the claims are directed to determining the recommended action using retrieval of a recommended action mapped to a predicted possible fault within a fault matrix. This operation is grounded in a specific data structure that cannot practically be performed in the human mind across the plurality of possible faults and sensors represented in the fault matrix. (see Remarks, pg. 7, paragraph 5 - pg. 8, paragraph 1)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant has presented an argument directed to a limitation which is not recited in the claims (i.e., “… determining the recommended action using retrieval of a recommended action mapped to a predicted possible fault within a fault matrix.”). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In addition, for the sake of argument, if a limitation of “retrieval” were claimed, the examiner recognizes the limitation would be treated under step 2A, prong two and step 2B of the subject matter eligibility requirement. The recitation of “retrieval” would be recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it would represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and would be 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”).
Further, the applicant has not addressed why the claim limitation of “comparing the set of sensor data to a fault matrix” to “perform … a similarity match” is so complex it can’t be perform within the realm of the human mind including the use of a physical aid (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.”). Hence, the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s argument,
Further, the additional elements integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. The specification identifies a specific technological problem with prior anomaly-detection technology: "Typical anomaly detection algorithms stop at detecting a problem and do not provide any insights into what caused the event, why it occurred, or what can resolve the condition," such that diagnosis is "left to a human subject matter expert," which "may lead to delays in fixing an issue, which can cause compounding or cascading problems" and is "subjective and may not provide consistency or accuracy." The claimed fault matrix and similarity match evaluation provide a specific technical solution to this problem by automatically diagnosing a root cause from sensor data and retrieving a corresponding recommended action mapped to the possible fault from the fault matrix. (see Remarks, pg. 8, paragraph 2)
The applicant has set forth an advantage of use (i.e. a benefit of “… , such that diagnosis is ‘left to a human subject matter expert,’ which ‘may lead to delays in fixing an issue, which can cause compounding or cascading problems’ and is ‘subjective and may not provide consistency or accuracy.’”) without providing any arguments/rationales/evidence to why the previously and newly presented additional elements amount to an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to another technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a); i.e. The applicant has failed to provide any arguments/rationales/evidence as to why the claimed limitations provide an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to determining and outputting a recommended action). Hence, the applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, Remarks, pgs. 8-10, filed 6 August 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-10, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 6 August 2026. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as follows:
Claims 1-3, 6, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0286504 A1 (hereinafter Muntes-Mulero) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0096759 A1 (hereinafter Benjamin) in view further U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0122691 A1 (hereinafter Simhon) and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0340711 A1 (hereinafter O’Keeffe).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muntes-Mulero in view of Benjamin in view further Simhon, O’Keeffe, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0199361 A1 (hereinafter Lu).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muntes-Mulero in view of Benjamin in view further Simhon, O’Keeffe, Lu, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0078535 A1 (hereinafter Bromley).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muntes-Mulero in view of Benjamin in view further Simhon, O’Keeffe, and Bromley.
Claims 1 and 19 are objected to and claims 1-10, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth below.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 and 19 recites “determine a recommended action for fixing the possible fault”. The limitation of “… for fixing the possible fault …” is functional claim language directed to the intended use of “… determin(ing) a recommended action”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “… a recommended action …” in lines 9 and 12. The limitation of “a recommended action” in line 12 includes an antecedent issue since it has support from the limitation of “a recommended action” in line 9.
Claim 19 recites “… a recommended action …” in lines 9 and 12. The limitation of “a recommended action” in line 12 includes an antecedent issue since it has support from the limitation of “a recommended action” in line 9.
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 1-10, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 19:
At step 1, the claim recites “(an) industrial power generation system” comprising of concrete device (i.e. a plurality of sensors, at least one subsystem of the industrial power generation system, a database, processing circuitry, and memory), and therefore is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… identification of an alert, identified from the set of sensor data, related to the at least one subsystem of the industrial power generation system”; “perform, …. , a similarity match evaluation between at least one expected value and an actual value from the set of sensor data, the similarity match evaluation comparing the set of sensor data to the fault matrix”; “predict a root cause of the alert based on the a similarity match evaluation, the root cause including a possible fault of the plurality of possible faults”; and “based on the predicted root cause, determine a recommended action for fixing the possible fault”.
The limitation of “… identification of an alert, identified from the set of sensor data, related to the at least one subsystem of the industrial power generation system”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “identification” in the context of the claim encompasses an analysis of data to obtain additional information (i.e. an analysis of data to determine an operation that is not normal). (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 “perform, …. , a similarity match evaluation between at least one expected value and an actual value from the set of sensor data, the similarity match evaluation comparing the set of sensor data to the fault matrix” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0411303 A1: pg. 3, par. [0022] and [0023]) is a process performed 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.
The limitation of “predict a root cause of the alert based on the similarity match evaluation, the root cause including a possible fault of the plurality of possible faults” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0411303 A1: pg. 3, par. [0023] and [0024]) is a process performed 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.
The limitation of “based on the predicted root cause, determine a recommended action for fixing the possible fault”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of the claim encompasses an analysis of data to obtain additional information (i.e. an analysis of data to identify a suggestion for an operation type to perform). (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 claim recites “a plurality of sensors to generate a set of sensor data related to at least one subsystem of the industrial power generation system”; “a database storing a set of expected values and a fault matrix that includes, for each possible fault of a plurality of possible faults, a set of expected sensor behaviors and a recommended action”; “processing circuitry”; “memory, including instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry”; “receive identification of an alert, …, related to the at least one subsystem of the industrial power generation system”; and “output the recommended action”.
The limitations of “a database storing a set of expected values and a fault matrix that includes, for each possible fault of a plurality of possible faults, a set of expected sensor behaviors and a recommended action”; “processing circuitry”; “memory, including instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry”; and “the processing circuitry to perform operations …” 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 “… at least one subsystem of the industrial power generation system” is 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 to generate a set of sensor data related to at least one subsystem of the industrial power generation system” represents a mere means and action for data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality 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 “receive identification of an alert, …, related to the at least one subsystem of the industrial power generation system” represents mere data gathering. The limitation of “receiv(ing)” is recited at a high level of generality 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 “output the recommended action” represents the mere output of data. The “output(ting)” is recited at a high level of generality 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 do not 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 “a database storing a set of expected values and a fault matrix that includes, for each possible fault of a plurality of possible faults, a set of expected sensor behaviors and a recommended action”; “processing circuitry”; “memory, including instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry”; and “the processing circuitry to perform operations …” 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 limitation of “… at least one subsystem of the industrial power generation system” 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 to generate a set of sensor data related to at least one subsystem of the industrial power generation system”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than a mere means and action data gathering. In addition, 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 “receive identification of an alert, …, related to the at least one subsystem of the industrial power generation system”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, 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 “output the recommended action”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-known, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… in response to receiving a user request for information related to the alert, generate a fixed format document using information saved to the database including the recommended action and the predicted root cause”.
The limitations of “… in response to receiving a user request for information related to the alert, generate a fixed format document using information saved to the database including the recommended action and the predicted root cause” represent mere data gathering. The limitations of “receiving” and “generat(ing)” are recited at a high level of generality 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 do not 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.
The limitations of “… in response to receiving a user request for information related to the alert, generate a fixed format document using information saved to the database including the recommended action and the predicted root cause”, as discussed above, amount to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 1:
Claim 1 represents an equivalent non-transitory machine-readable medium claim to claim 19 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 19.
Claim 2:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… the instructions further include operations to compare the actual value to a set of expected values stored in a database including the at least one expected value, the set of expected values having corresponding weights based on historical data related to the alert”.
The limitation of “… the instructions further include operations to compare the actual value to a set of expected values stored in a database including the at least one expected value, the set of expected values having corresponding weights based on historical data related to the alert” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0411303 A1: pg. 3, par. [0022]-[0024]) is a process performed 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.
Claim 3:
The limitation “… the weights are set to zero when no alert is active” in claim 3 further details the limitation of “corresponding weights” in claim 2; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 2.
Claim 4:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “in response to receiving the second set of sensor data, use the similarity match evaluation to predict a second root cause different from the root cause” and “based on the predicted second root cause, determine a second recommended action different from the recommended action”.
The limitation of “in response to receiving the second set of sensor data, use the similarity match evaluation to predict a second root cause different from the root cause” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0411303 A1: pg. 3, par. [0022]-[0024]) is a process performed 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.
The limitation of “based on the predicted second root cause, determine a second recommended action different from the recommended action”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of the claim encompasses an analysis of data to obtain additional information (i.e. an analysis of data to identify a suggestion for an operation type to perform). (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 claim recites “receive a second set of sensor data related to the alert”; and “output the second recommended action”.
The limitation of “receive a second set of sensor data related to the alert” represents mere data gathering. The limitation of “receiv(ing)” is recited at a high level of generality 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 “output the second recommended action” represents the mere output of data. The “output(ting) is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not 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 “receive a second set of sensor data related to the alert” amounts to mere 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 “output the second recommended action”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-known, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5:
The limitation of “modify the similarity match evaluation using the second recommended action and the predicted second root cause”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. modify the similarity match evaluation) using an instruction or rule (i.e. using the second recommended action and the predicted second root cause), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 6:
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… output the predicted root cause”.
The limitation of “… output the predicted root cause” represents the mere output of data. The “output(ting) is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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 “… output the predicted root cause” amounts to the mere output of data.
Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-known, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7:
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… save the recommended action and the predicted root cause to a database”.
The limitation of “a database” 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 of “… save the recommended action and the predicted root cause …” represents mere data gathering. The limitation of “sav(ing)” is recited at a high level of generality 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 do not 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 “a database” 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 “… save the recommended action and the predicted root cause …”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… in response to receiving a user request for information related to the alert, generate a fixed format document using information saved to the database including the recommended action and the predicted root cause”.
The limitations of “… in response to receiving a user request for information related to the alert, generate a fixed format document using information saved to the database including the recommended action and the predicted root cause” represent mere data gathering. The limitations of “receiving” and “generat(ing)” are recited at a high level of generality 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 do not 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.
The limitations of “… in response to receiving a user request for information related to the alert, generate a fixed format document using information saved to the database including the recommended action and the predicted root cause”, as discussed above, amount to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9:
The limitation “… the fixed format document includes information specific to the recipient role, the recipient role including at least one of an engineering role, a maintenance role, a management role, or a sales role” in claim 9 further details the limitation of “a fixed format document” in claim 8; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 8.
In addition, at step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… receive an indication of a recipient role in the industrial power generation system …”.
The limitation of “… receive an indication of a recipient role in the industrial power generation system …” represents mere data gathering. The limitation of “receiv(ing)” is recited at a high level of generality 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 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 “… receive an indication of a recipient role in the industrial power generation system …” amounts to mere 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 element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… the instructions further include operations to predict a probability that the root cause caused the alert”.
The limitation of “… the instructions further include operations to predict a probability that the root cause caused the alert” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0411303 A1: pg. 3, par. [0022]-[0024]) is a process performed 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 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 1-3, 6, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0286504 A1 (hereinafter Muntes-Mulero) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0096759 A1 (hereinafter Benjamin) in view further U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0122691 A1 (hereinafter Simhon) and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0340711 A1 (hereinafter O’Keeffe).
As per claim 1, Muntes-Mulero substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Muntes-Mulero teaches the limitations of at least one machine-readable medium including instructions for monitoring a system, which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform operations (pg. 11, par. [0092], [0093], [0096], and [0097]) to:
identify an alert related to a subsystem of the system (pgs. 2-3, par. [0025] and [0026]; i.e. an anomalous event); and
perform, in response to identifying the alert, a similarity match evaluation between at least one expected value and an actual value from a set of measured data (pg. 1, par. [0016], pgs. 2-3, par. [0025], [0027], and [0028], and pgs. 4-5, par. [0033]; i.e. [0016]: “System graphs may be represented by a variety of data structures such as adjacency lists, adjacency matrices, incidence matrices, etc.”, [0025]: “the generator 105 also enriches the nodes and edges of the system graph 111 with attributes, performance metrics/measurements, event data, logs, etc., corresponding to the components and relationships represented by the nodes and edges. The attribute information may be categorical, numerical, ontological, phylogenetic, etc. The generator 105 also identifies nodes which are experiencing/have experienced an anomalous event. An anomalous event is an event that indicates a network occurrence or condition that deviates from a normal or expected value or outcome. For example, an event may have an attribute value that exceeds or falls below a determined threshold or required value, or an event may indicate that a component shut down or restarted prior to a scheduled time.”; [0027]: “If the system graph 111 indicates multiple anomalies, the extractor 107 can extract a pattern for each anomalous region from the system graph 111 as described above. In some implementations, the extractor 107 identifies interrelated anomalies and includes them in a single pattern.”; [0028]: “At stage D, the similarity calculator 108 compares the pattern 112 and patterns in the pattern library 109 to identify similar patterns 113.”; and [0033]: “The user interface 110 also displays possible root causes or diagnoses based on data associated with each of the similar patterns 113.”; Examiner’s Note: an associated root cause is determined by similarity match evaluation by virtue of its association to a determined anomalous pattern which is identified by using a similarity calculator), the similarity match evaluation comparing the set of measured data to a set of expected values (pgs. 1-2, par. [0019], pg. 6, par. [0042], and pgs. 3-4, par. [0028]-[0030]; i.e. [0019]: “… a previously stored pattern(s) in a pattern library.” and [0042]: “The analyzer may access a rules or policies database which indicates various thresholds and conditions that, if satisfied, indicate that an anomaly is occurring.”).
Not explicitly taught are an industrial power generation system;
receive a set of sensor data;
the similarity match evaluation comparing the set of sensor data to a fault matrix that includes, for each possible fault of a plurality of possible faults, a set of expect sensor behavior and a recommended action;
predict a root cause of the alert based on the similarity match evaluation, the root cause including a possible fault of the plurality of possible faults;
based on the root cause, determine a recommended action for fixing the possible fault; and
output the recommended action.
However Benjamin, in an analogous art of system monitoring (pg. 1, par. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitations of an industrial power generation system (pg. 1, par. [0004], pg. 2, par. [0012] and Fig. 1, element 12; i.e. power generating equipment);
receive a set of sensor data (pg. 2, par. [0021]; i.e. “The sensor data collected over time by sensors 14 from power generation equipment 12 and any event analyses and alarms that are generated over time by CDE software 24 are periodically sent to automated central management system 25 via the Internet or other suitable communications connection 28.”);
a root cause of the alert based on an evaluation (pgs. 3-4, par. [0027]; i.e. “The present invention also uses a set of intranet-based coaching tools 36 that use historical information gathered from operating data collected by sensors, such as sensors 14, from fleet power generation equipment to either trace back from an event occurring in power generation equipment 12 to the most likely root cause of the event and determine a responsive action plan, or to trace forward and predict the probability of the consequences of an event and determine a responsive preventive action plan.”);
based on the root cause, determine a recommended action for fixing a fault (pgs. 3-4, par. [0027], [0028] and [0030]; i.e. “The present invention also uses a set of intranet-based coaching tools 36 that use historical information gathered from operating data collected by sensors, such as sensors 14, from fleet power generation equipment to either trace back from an event occurring in power generation equipment 12 to the most likely root cause of the event and determine a responsive action plan, or to trace forward and predict the probability of the consequences of an event and determine a responsive preventive action plan. … Action plans provided in the coaching tools include recommendations concerning the continued operation of the equipment, the shutdown of the equipment, or the repair and/or replacement of equipment parts.” and [0028]: i.e. “The trip reasons and recommendations would be derived from historical experience in dealing with trip situations and solutions to the problems causing them.”); and
output the recommended action (pg. 4, par. [0028]; i.e. “The computer screens would then display recommendations as to what to consider for each reason displayed. The trip reasons and recommendations would be derived from historical experience in dealing with trip situations and solutions to the problems causing them.”) for the purpose providing recommendations to respond to an occurrence of predefined events (pg. 1, par. [0001]).
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 Muntes-Mulero to include the addition of the limitations of an industrial power generation system; receive a set of sensor data; a root cause of the alert based on an evaluation; based on the root cause, determine a recommended action for fixing a fault; and output the recommended action to advantageously perform an effective action in a timely manner to avoid equipment damage and/or shutdown (Benjamin: pg. 1, par. [0003]).
Muntes-Mulero in view Benjamin does not expressly teach the similarity match evaluation comparing the set of sensor data to a fault matrix that includes, for each possible fault of a plurality of possible faults, a set of expect sensor behavior and a recommended action; and
predict a root cause of the alert based on the similarity match evaluation, the root cause including a possible fault of the plurality of possible faults.
However Simhon, in an analogous art of system monitoring (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of predict a root cause based on a similarity evaluation, the root cause including a possible fault of a plurality of possible faults (pg. 2, par. [0018]; i.e. “The network components' behavior is sent to the processer (120). In response, the processor (120) analyzes the network conditions, such as the server's low remaining memory (108), database's high query time (112), and the application's high average response time (116). In response to determining that an issue exists, the processor (120) predicts the root cause of the issue by comparing the network components' current behaviors with the network components' previous behaviors from previous network issues. In some examples, the previous network issues are from the same network (100) that has had similar issues in the past.”) for the purpose of detecting issues (pg. 1, par. [0001]).
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 Muntes-Mulero in view Benjamin to include the addition of the limitation of predict a root cause based on a similarity evaluation, the root cause including a possible fault of a plurality of possible faults to reduce an undesirable system behavior (Simhon: pg. 1, par. [0001]).
Muntes-Mulero in view Benjamin in further view of Simhon does not expressly teach the similarity match evaluation comparing the set of sensor data to a fault matrix that includes, for each possible fault of a plurality of possible faults, a set of expect sensor behavior and a recommended action.
However O’Keeffe, in an analogous art of monitoring and managing a system (pg. 1, par. [0006]), teaches the missing limitation of a similarity match evaluation comparing sensor data to a fault matrix that includes, for each possible fault of a plurality of possible faults, a set of expect sensor behavior and a recommended action (pg. 10, par. [0078] and pg. 11, par. [0087]; i.e. [0078]: “The corresponding pattern, signature, and/or relationship of sensed water temperature data and/or discrete mathematical relationship that preceded or accompanied the anomaly may be stored, e.g., in memory provided for that purpose, in a look-up table, and the like (STEP 7). Advantageously, the corresponding pattern, signature, and/or relationship of sensed water temperature data and/or discrete mathematical relationship that preceded or accompanied the water event anomaly can be used as a tool to predict occurrence of potential water event anomalies and, moreover, to train the system controller to use artificial intelligence to identify warnings signs (e.g., hot water temperatures across the system) of an approaching or ongoing water event anomaly.” and [0087]: “Assuming that this is a recurring water event for which a representative sensed water temperature rule, data pattern, data signature, data relationship, and/or mathematically calculated value, for a corresponding anomaly is stored in memory, a look-up table, and so forth, the system controller of the system and related method may be adapted to compare and match the data pattern, data signature, and/or data relationship of the current sensed water temperature data with stored rules, data patterns, data signatures, data relationships, and/or mathematically calculated value of sensed water temperature data to identify the corresponding anomaly. The corresponding anomaly for the current sensed temperature data pattern suggests a reduction or no flow condition resulting from a closed thermostatic mixing valve.”) for the purpose of providing alerts, alarms and corrective actions (pg. 1, par. [0002]).
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 Muntes-Mulero in view Benjamin in further view of Simhon to include the addition of the limitation of a similarity match evaluation comparing sensor data to a fault matrix that includes, for each possible fault of a plurality of possible faults, a set of expect sensor behavior and a recommended action to advantagously identify, troubleshoot, and repair a system prior to consumers knowing there is an issue (O’Keeffe: pg. 3, par. [0033).
As per claim 2, Muntes-Mulero teaches compare the actual value to a set of expected values stored in a database (pgs. 1-2, par. [0019] and pg. 6, par. [0042]; [0019]: “… a previously stored pattern(s) in a pattern library.” and [0042]: “The analyzer may access a rules or policies database which indicates various thresholds and conditions that, if satisfied, indicate that an anomaly is occurring.”) including the at least one expected value, the set of expected values having corresponding weights based on historical data related to the alert (pgs. 3-4, par. [0028]-[0030]).
As per claim 3, Muntes-Mulero teaches the weights are set to zero when no alert is active (pg. 4, par. [0030]; i.e. “… the strings may be given a similarity value of 0 if the two strings are not an exact match and a 1 if they are an exact match”).
As per claim 6, Muntes-Mulero teaches operations to output the predicted root cause (pgs. 4-5, par. [0033]; i.e. “The user interface 110 also displays possible root causes or diagnoses based on data associated with each of the similar patterns 113.”).
As per claim 10, Muntes-Mulero in view Benjamin does not expressly teach operations to predict the root cause, the instructions further include operations to predict a probability that the root cause caused the alert.
However Simhon, in an analogous art of system monitoring (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of operations to predict a probability that a root cause caused an issue (pg. 2, par. [0023]-[0025]; i.e. [0025]: “… the closest score is deemed to have the highest probability of having the same root cause as the current issue.”) for the purpose of detecting issues (pg. 1, par. [0001]).
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 Muntes-Mulero in view Benjamin to include the addition of the limitation of predict a probability that a root cause caused an issue to reduce an undesirable system behavior (Simhon: pg. 1, par. [0001]).
As per claim 19, Muntes-Mulero substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Muntes-Mulero teaches the limitations of an system comprising:
a database storing a set of expected values (pgs. 1-2, par. [0019] and pg. 6, par. [0042]; [0019]: “… a previously stored pattern(s) in a pattern library.” and [0042]: “The analyzer may access a rules or policies database which indicates various thresholds and conditions that, if satisfied, indicate that an anomaly is occurring.”);
processing circuitry (pg. 11, par. [0092], [0093], [0096], and [0097]); and
memory, including instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform operations (pg. 11, par. [0092], [0093], [0096], and [0097]) to:
receive identification of an alert, identified from a set of data, related to the at least one subsystem of the system (pgs. 2-3, par. [0025] and [0026]; i.e. an anomalous event); and
perform, in response to identifying the alert, a similarity match evaluation between at least one expected value and an actual value from a set of measured data (pg. 1, par. [0016], pgs. 2-3, par. [0025], [0027], and [0028], and pgs. 4-5, par. [0033]; i.e. [0016]: “System graphs may be represented by a variety of data structures such as adjacency lists, adjacency matrices, incidence matrices, etc.”, [0025]: “the generator 105 also enriches the nodes and edges of the system graph 111 with attributes, performance metrics/measurements, event data, logs, etc., corresponding to the components and relationships represented by the nodes and edges. The attribute information may be categorical, numerical, ontological, phylogenetic, etc. The generator 105 also identifies nodes which are experiencing/have experienced an anomalous event. An anomalous event is an event that indicates a network occurrence or condition that deviates from a normal or expected value or outcome. For example, an event may have an attribute value that exceeds or falls below a determined threshold or required value, or an event may indicate that a component shut down or restarted prior to a scheduled time.”; [0027]: “If the system graph 111 indicates multiple anomalies, the extractor 107 can extract a pattern for each anomalous region from the system graph 111 as described above. In some implementations, the extractor 107 identifies interrelated anomalies and includes them in a single pattern.”; [0028]: “At stage D, the similarity calculator 108 compares the pattern 112 and patterns in the pattern library 109 to identify similar patterns 113.”; and [0033]: “The user interface 110 also displays possible root causes or diagnoses based on data associated with each of the similar patterns 113.”; Examiner’s Note: an associated root cause is determined by similarity match evaluation by virtue of its association to a determined anomalous pattern which is identified by using a similarity calculator), the similarity match evaluation comparing the set of measured data to a set of expected values (pgs. 1-2, par. [0019], pg. 6, par. [0042], and pgs. 3-4, par. [0028]-[0030]; i.e. [0019]: “… a previously stored pattern(s) in a pattern library.” and [0042]: “The analyzer may access a rules or policies database which indicates various thresholds and conditions that, if satisfied, indicate that an anomaly is occurring.”).
Not explicitly a plurality of sensors to generate a set of sensor data related to at least one subsystem of the industrial power generation system;
storing a fault matrix that includes, for each possible fault of a plurality of possible faults, a set of expected sensor behaviors and a recommended action; and
the similarity match evaluation comparing the set of sensor data to the fault matrix;
predict a root cause of the alert based on the similarity match evaluation, the root cause including a possible fault of the plurality of possible faults;
based on the predicted root cause, determine a recommended action for fixing the possible fault; and
output the recommended action.
However Benjamin, in an analogous art of system monitoring (pg. 1, par. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitations of a plurality of sensors to generate a set of sensor data related to at least one subsystem of the industrial power generation system (pg. 1, par. [0004], pg. 2, par. [0012], Fig. 1, element 12, and Fig. 1, element 14; i.e. power generating equipment and sensors, respectively);
a root cause of the alert based on an evaluation (pgs. 3-4, par. [0027]; i.e. “The present invention also uses a set of intranet-based coaching tools 36 that use historical information gathered from operating data collected by sensors, such as sensors 14, from fleet power generation equipment to either trace back from an event occurring in power generation equipment 12 to the most likely root cause of the event and determine a responsive action plan, or to trace forward and predict the probability of the consequences of an event and determine a responsive preventive action plan.”);
based on the root cause, determine a recommended action for fixing a fault (pgs. 3-4, par. [0027], [0028] and [0030]; i.e. “The present invention also uses a set of intranet-based coaching tools 36 that use historical information gathered from operating data collected by sensors, such as sensors 14, from fleet power generation equipment to either trace back from an event occurring in power generation equipment 12 to the most likely root cause of the event and determine a responsive action plan, or to trace forward and predict the probability of the consequences of an event and determine a responsive preventive action plan. … Action plans provided in the coaching tools include recommendations concerning the continued operation of the equipment, the shutdown of the equipment, or the repair and/or replacement of equipment parts.” and [0028]: i.e. “The trip reasons and recommendations would be derived from historical experience in dealing with trip situations and solutions to the problems causing them.”); and
output the recommended action (pg. 4, par. [0028]; i.e. “The computer screens would then display recommendations as to what to consider for each reason displayed. The trip reasons and recommendations would be derived from historical experience in dealing with trip situations and solutions to the problems causing them.”) for the purpose providing recommendations to respond to an occurrence of predefined events (pg. 1, par. [0001]).
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 Muntes-Mulero to include the addition of the limitations of a plurality of sensors to generate a set of sensor data related to at least one subsystem of the industrial power generation system; a root cause of the alert based on an evaluation for fixing a fault; based on the root cause, determine a recommended action; and output the recommended action to advantageously to perform an effective action in a timely manner to avoid equipment damage and/or shutdown (Benjamin: pg. 1, par. [0003]).
Muntes-Mulero in view Benjamin does not expressly teach storing a fault matrix that includes, for each possible fault of a plurality of possible faults, a set of expected sensor behaviors and a recommended action; and
the similarity match evaluation comparing the set of sensor data to the fault matrix; and
predict a root cause of the alert based on the similarity match evaluation, the root cause including a possible fault of the plurality of possible faults.
However Simhon, in an analogous art of system monitoring (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of predict a root cause based on a similarity evaluation, the root cause including a possible fault of a plurality of possible faults (pg. 2, par. [0018]; i.e. “… the processor (120) predicts the root cause of the issue by comparing the network components' current behaviors with the network components' previous behaviors from previous network issues. In some examples, the previous network issues are from the same network (100) that has had similar issues in the past.”) for the purpose of detecting issues (pg. 1, par. [0001]).
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 Muntes-Mulero in view Benjamin to include the addition of the limitation of predict a root cause based on a similarity evaluation, the root cause including a possible fault of a plurality of possible faults to reduce an undesirable system behavior (Simhon: pg. 1, par. [0001]).
Muntes-Mulero in view Benjamin in further view of Simhon does not expressly teach storing a fault matrix that includes, for each possible fault of a plurality of possible faults, a set of expected sensor behaviors and a recommended action; and
the similarity match evaluation comparing the set of sensor data to the fault matrix.
However O’Keeffe, in an analogous art of monitoring and managing a system (pg. 1, par. [0006]), teaches the missing limitations of storing a fault matrix that includes, for each possible fault of a plurality of possible faults, a set of expected sensor behaviors and a recommended action (pg. 10, par. [0078] and pg. 11, par. [0087]; i.e. [0078]: “The corresponding pattern, signature, and/or relationship of sensed water temperature data and/or discrete mathematical relationship that preceded or accompanied the anomaly may be stored, e.g., in memory provided for that purpose, in a look-up table, and the like (STEP 7). Advantageously, the corresponding pattern, signature, and/or relationship of sensed water temperature data and/or discrete mathematical relationship that preceded or accompanied the water event anomaly can be used as a tool to predict occurrence of potential water event anomalies and, moreover, to train the system controller to use artificial intelligence to identify warnings signs (e.g., hot water temperatures across the system) of an approaching or ongoing water event anomaly.” and [0087]: “Assuming that this is a recurring water event for which a representative sensed water temperature rule, data pattern, data signature, data relationship, and/or mathematically calculated value, for a corresponding anomaly is stored in memory, a look-up table, and so forth, the system controller of the system and related method may be adapted to compare and match the data pattern, data signature, and/or data relationship of the current sensed water temperature data with stored rules, data patterns, data signatures, data relationships, and/or mathematically calculated value of sensed water temperature data to identify the corresponding anomaly. The corresponding anomaly for the current sensed temperature data pattern suggests a reduction or no flow condition resulting from a closed thermostatic mixing valve.”); and
a similarity match evaluation comparing sensor data to the fault matrix (pg. 10, par. [0078] and pg. 11, par. [0087]; i.e. [0078]: “The corresponding pattern, signature, and/or relationship of sensed water temperature data and/or discrete mathematical relationship that preceded or accompanied the anomaly may be stored, e.g., in memory provided for that purpose, in a look-up table, and the like (STEP 7). Advantageously, the corresponding pattern, signature, and/or relationship of sensed water temperature data and/or discrete mathematical relationship that preceded or accompanied the water event anomaly can be used as a tool to predict occurrence of potential water event anomalies and, moreover, to train the system controller to use artificial intelligence to identify warnings signs (e.g., hot water temperatures across the system) of an approaching or ongoing water event anomaly.” and [0087]: “Assuming that this is a recurring water event for which a representative sensed water temperature rule, data pattern, data signature, data relationship, and/or mathematically calculated value, for a corresponding anomaly is stored in memory, a look-up table, and so forth, the system controller of the system and related method may be adapted to compare and match the data pattern, data signature, and/or data relationship of the current sensed water temperature data with stored rules, data patterns, data signatures, data relationships, and/or mathematically calculated value of sensed water temperature data to identify the corresponding anomaly. The corresponding anomaly for the current sensed temperature data pattern suggests a reduction or no flow condition resulting from a closed thermostatic mixing valve.”) for the purpose of providing alerts, alarms and corrective actions (pg. 1, par. [0002]).
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 Muntes-Mulero in view Benjamin in further view of Simhon to include the addition of the limitations of storing a fault matrix that includes, for each possible fault of a plurality of possible faults, a set of expected sensor behaviors and a recommended action; and a similarity match evaluation comparing sensor data to the fault matrix to advantageously identify, troubleshoot, and repair a system prior to consumers knowing there is an issue (O’Keeffe: pg. 3, par. [0033).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muntes-Mulero in view of Benjamin in view further Simhon, O’Keeffe, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0199361 A1 (hereinafter Lu).
As per claim 7, Muntes-Mulero in view of Benjamin in view further Simhon and O’Keeffe does not expressly teach operations to save the recommended action and the predicted root cause to a database.
However Lu, in an analogous art of a monitoring system (pg. 2, par. [0025], teaches the missing limitation of save a recommended action and root cause to a database (pg. 1, par. [0011] and pg. 3, par. [0038]; i.e. [0011]: “the inference engine containing circuitry to evaluate the information provided by the data source and to diagnose a root cause from the information, a display coupled to the inference engine, the display to interface the inference engine with a user, and a database coupled to the inference engine, the database to store information provided by the data source and the diagnosis generated by the inference engine.” and [0038]: “… the trigger event may be stored in an abnormal event database 230 and the information, along with possibly remedy, may be stored in a result database 225.”) for the purpose of providing a record of manufacturing equipment performance (pg. 3, par. [0038]).
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 Muntes-Mulero in view of Benjamin in view further Simhon and O’Keeffe to include the addition of the limitation of save a recommended action and root cause to a database to ensure equipment is operating within specification (Lu: pg. 2, par. [0025]).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muntes-Mulero in view of Benjamin in view further Simhon, O’Keeffe, Lu, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0078535 A1 (hereinafter Bromley).
As per claim 8, Muntes-Mulero in view of Benjamin does not expressly teach in response to receiving a user request for information related to the alert, generate a fixed format document using information saved to the database including the recommended action and the predicted root cause.
However Simhon, in an analogous art of system monitoring (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of the predicted root cause (pg. 2, par. [0018]; i.e. “… the processor (120) predicts the root cause of the issue by comparing the network components' current behaviors with the network components' previous behaviors from previous network issues. In some examples, the previous network issues are from the same network (100) that has had similar issues in the past.”) for the purpose of detecting issues (pg. 1, par. [0001]).
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 Muntes-Mulero in view Benjamin to include the addition of the limitation of the predicted root cause to reduce an undesirable system behavior (Simhon: pg. 1, par. [0001]).
Muntes-Mulero in view of Benjamin in further view of Simhon does not expressly teach in response to receiving a user request for information related to the alert, generate a fixed format document using information saved to the database including the recommended action and the predicted root cause.
Muntes-Mulero in view of Benjamin in further view of Simhon, and O’Keeffe does not expressly teach in response to receiving a user request for information related to the alert, generate a fixed format document using information saved to the database including the recommended action and the predicted root cause.
Muntes-Mulero in view of Benjamin in further view of Simhon, O’Keeffe, and Lu does not expressly teach in response to receiving a user request for information related to the alert, generate a fixed format document using information saved to the database including the recommended action and the predicted root cause.
However Bromley, in an analogous art of data communication to users (pg. 2, par. [0018]), teaches the missing limitation of in response to receiving a user request for information related to an alert (pg. 2, par. [0023]), generate a fixed format document using information saved to a database (pg. 4, par. [0033] and [0034] and pg. 5, par. [0042]; i.e. [0033]: “This information can be retrieved from one or more database or other storage/retrieval means that can include a user/role context data component 510 and/or a user/role historical data component 512.” and [0042]: “The format of the element including the data to be supplied therewith can be influenced by settings 720 and context component 730.”) for the purpose of facilitating viewing and interaction with data (pg. 2, par. [0020]).
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 Muntes-Mulero in view of Benjamin in further view of Simhon, O’Keeffe, and Lu to include the addition of the limitation of in response to receiving a user request for information related to an alert, generate a fixed format document using information saved to a database to more efficiently communicate data to users in an industrial control system based on a user’s role (Bromley: pg. 2, par. [0018] and pg. 3, par. [0027]).
As per claim 9, Muntes-Mulero in view of Benjamin in further view of Simhon, O’Keeffe, and Lu does not expressly teach operations to receive an indication of a recipient role in the industrial power generation system, and wherein the fixed format document includes information specific to the recipient role, the recipient role including at least one of an engineering role, a maintenance role, a management role, or a sales role.
However Bromley, in an analogous art of data communication to users (pg. 2, par. [0018]), teaches the missing limitations of operations to receive an indication of a recipient role in an industrial system (pg. 2, par. [0018] and pg. 3, par. [0027]; i.e. [0027]: “Context information is provided by context component 150, which is communicatively coupled to display component 110. … The context component 150 can include a user component 210 and a device component 220. The user component 150 can detect or determine context information regarding a user or users. Such information can include but is not limited to a user's identity, role, location (logical or physical), current activity, similar or previous interactions with automation devices. ”), and wherein the fixed format document includes information specific to the recipient role, the recipient role including at least one of an engineering role, a maintenance role, a management role, or a sales role (pg. 4, par. [0033] and [0034] and pg. 5, par. [0042]; i.e. [0033]: “This information can be retrieved from one or more database or other storage/retrieval means that can include a user/role context data component 510 and/or a user/role historical data component 512.”; [0034]: “For example, an operator of the automation control system may have a direct area of interest than a tester and/or maintenance user because of the disparate role of each user and how/why each user interacts with system 500. The information retrieval component 502 is further configured to update the historical data 506.”; and [0042]: “The format of the element including the data to be supplied therewith can be influenced by settings 720 and context component 730.”) for the purpose of facilitating viewing and interaction with data (pg. 2, par. [0020]).
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 Muntes-Mulero in view of Benjamin in further view of Simhon, O’Keeffe, and Lu to include the addition of the limitations of operations to receive an indication of a recipient role in an industrial system, and wherein the fixed format document includes information specific to the recipient role, the recipient role including at least one of an engineering role, a maintenance role, a management role, or a sales role to more efficiently communicate data to users in an industrial control system based on a user’s role (Bromley: pg. 2, par. [0018] and pg. 3, par. [0027]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muntes-Mulero in view of Benjamin in view further Simhon, O’Keeffe, and Bromley.
As per claim 20, Muntes-Mulero in view of Benjamin does not expressly teach in response to receiving a user request for information related to the alert, generate a fixed format document using information saved to the database including the recommended action and the predicted root cause.
However Simhon, in an analogous art of system monitoring (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of the predicted root cause (pg. 2, par. [0018]; i.e. “… the processor (120) predicts the root cause of the issue by comparing the network components' current behaviors with the network components' previous behaviors from previous network issues. In some examples, the previous network issues are from the same network (100) that has had similar issues in the past.”) for the purpose of detecting issues (pg. 1, par. [0001]).
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 Muntes-Mulero in view Benjamin to include the addition of the limitation of the predicted root cause to reduce an undesirable system behavior (Simhon: pg. 1, par. [0001]).
Muntes-Mulero in view of Benjamin in further view of Simhon does not expressly teach in response to receiving a user request for information related to the alert, generate a fixed format document using information saved to the database including the recommended action and the predicted root cause.
Muntes-Mulero in view of Benjamin in view further Simhon and O’Keeffe does not expressly teach in response to receiving a user request for information related to the alert, generate a fixed format document using information saved to the database including the recommended action and the predicted root cause.
However Bromley, in an analogous art of data communication to users (pg. 2, par. [0018]), teaches the missing limitation of in response to receiving a user request for information related to an alert (pg. 2, par. [0023]), generate a fixed format document using information saved to a database (pg. 4, par. [0033] and [0034] and pg. 5, par. [0042]; i.e. [0033]: “This information can be retrieved from one or more database or other storage/retrieval means that can include a user/role context data component 510 and/or a user/role historical data component 512.” and [0042]: “The format of the element including the data to be supplied therewith can be influenced by settings 720 and context component 730.”) for the purpose of facilitating viewing and interaction with data (pg. 2, par. [0020])..
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 Muntes-Mulero in view of Benjamin in view further Simhon and O’Keeffe to include the addition of the limitation of in response to receiving a user request for information related to an alert, generate a fixed format document using information saved to a database to more efficiently communicate data to users in an industrial control system based on a user’s role (Bromley: pg. 2, par. [0018] and pg. 3, par. [0027]).
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, analytics, and utility systems.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0109021 A1 discloses a method of operating a stationary electrical power plant connected to a power supply network, wherein upon an occurrence of a dynamic network fault in the power supply network, in particular an electric short-circuit, at least one fault value is ascertained in dependence on a state value of at least one operating parameter of the stationary electrical power plant.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0228296 A1 discloses identifying significant events for anomaly detection and analysis.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0216065 A1 discloses systems, methods, and non-transitory computer-readable media configured to perform receiving a notification of a maintenance event associated with a resource.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0096290 A1 discloses a computer program product for recommending remedial actions.
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
Prosecution Insights