DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment/Remarks received on 8 May 2026. Claims 1, 2, 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 Claims 11-18 were previously withdrawn.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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pg. 7, filed 8 May 2026, with respect to objected claims 2, 7, and 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument,
Applicant respectfully traverses the objections to claims 2, 7, and 10 for antecedent basis. The limitations identified by the Office Action do not present antecedent basis issues and are clear. Antecedent basis requirements apply to nouns and noun phrases, specifically to the use of the definite article "the" to refer back to a previously introduced noun. See MPEP 2173.05(e) discussing, "where it would be unclear as to what element the limitation was making reference." The terms "predict" (claims 2 and 10) and "output" (claim 7) are verbs, not nouns or noun phrases, and therefore should not require antecedent basis. Claim 2, for example, is further limiting what "predict the root cause" means in claim 1. To change claim 2 to "wherein to the predict the root cause" would make the claim less clear and not more clear. Applicant respectfully submits that no correction is necessary and requests withdrawal of these objections. (see Remarks, pg. 7, paragraph 3)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2173.05(e) Lack of Antecedent Basis [R-01.2024]:
A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1789 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The lack of clarity could arise where a claim refers to "said lever" or "the lever," where the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a lever and where it would be unclear as to what element the limitation was making reference. Similarly, if two different levers are recited earlier in the claim, the recitation of "said lever" in the same or subsequent claim would be unclear where it is uncertain which of the two levers was intended. A claim which refers to "said aluminum lever," but recites only "a lever" earlier in the claim, is indefinite because it is uncertain as to the lever to which reference is made. Obviously, however, the failure to provide explicit antecedent basis for terms does not always render a claim indefinite. If the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite. Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1145 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) ("controlled stream of fluid" provided reasonable antecedent basis for "the controlled fluid"). Inherent components of elements recited have antecedent basis in the recitation of the elements themselves. For example, the limitation "the outer surface of said sphere" would not require an antecedent recitation that the sphere has an outer surface. See Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354, 1359, 61 USPQ2d 1216, 1218-19 (Fed. Cir 2001) (holding that recitation of "an ellipse" provided antecedent basis for "an ellipse having a major diameter" because "[t]here can be no dispute that mathematically an inherent characteristic of an ellipse is a major diameter").
The Examiner recognizes MPEP 2173.05(e) provides examples directed to nouns and not verbs. In addition, the MPEP does not exclude use of “said” and “the” which refer back to previously introduced verbs. The Examiner maintains the objections of claims 2, 7, and 10 for the purpose of reflecting proper antecedence in the claims. Further, the Examiner has suggested claim language in proper grammatical form to obviate the current objections in the claims for the limitations of “predict” in claims 2 and 10 and “output” in claim 10.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 7-8, filed 8 May 2026, with respect to election/restriction requirement have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the Applicant’s argument,
The Office Action’s new alleged separate utilities for Groups I and II are not separate uses but rather different performance characteristics of the same use. The Office Action admits that both Groups are directed to predicting a root cause of an alert in an industrial power generation system. Two approaches to the same use that differ in performance characteristics, such as speed and simplicity versus accuracy and adaptability, do not constitute separate uses for purposes of restriction. (see Remarks, pg. 7, paragraph 4 – pg. 8, paragraph 1)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0411303 A1 (instant application):
The technique 500 includes an operation 504 to identify an alert related to a subsystem of the industrial power generation system 101. The subsystem may include at least one of an air and flue gas system, a turbine cooling air system, a blade path, a compressor, an exhaust subsystem, or the like. After operation 504, the technique 500 may proceed with either operation 506, operation 508, or both operations 506 and 508, in either order, before proceeding to operation 510. In an example, an alert may represent a difference between an observed value and an expected value. (pg. 5, par. [0041])
PNG
media_image1.png
717
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner emphasis the specification of the instant application (as set forth above) discloses a method of using a similarity match evaluation between at least one expected value and an actual value from a set of sensor data to perform a correlation between the at least one expected value and actual value to predict a root cause of an alert (Group I) and another method of using a trained machine learning model to predict a root cause of an alert (Group II) as usable together (i.e. “the technique 500 may proceed with either operation 506, operation 508 …”). The Examiner maintains using a similarity match evaluation between at least one expected value and an actual value from a set of sensor data to perform a correlation between the at least one expected value and actual value eliminates a computational overhead of training models (i.e. reduced training burden) by offering simplicity and speed in updating a search index (e.g. a manual update by a user) which avoids time consuming fine-tuning of models with changing datasets and enables flexibility in leveraging data from one machine to diagnose faults in a similar machine for cross-machine diagnosis and using a trained learning model, adaptable to changing patterns, enables an analyzation of complex, non-linear, and high-dimensional data which provides superior accuracy and specialized contextually relevant insights to complex non-linear relationships which leads to more reliable and comprehensive diagnosis and alerting in scenarios, as well as, eliminate a need for manual feature engineering by automatic learning features from gathered data. Further, the Applicant has failed to provide any rationales/arguments as to how using a similarity match evaluation or a trained machine learning model for the rationales set forth in the Election/Restriction Requirement mailed on 27 August 2025 and Non-Final Office Action mailed on February 2026 do not meet the criteria to support a restriction between subcombinations as set forth in MPEP 806.05(d).
Hence, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pg. 8, filed 8 May 2026, with respect to rejection claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendment to claim 1 filed on 8 May 2026. The rejections of claims 1-10 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 8-9, filed 8 May 2026, with respect to rejection claims 1-10, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 directed to abstract subject matter have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument,
Regarding the mental process allegation, the claimed elements cannot practically be performed in the mind. The elements of the independent claims, for example, require receiving sensor data, performing a systematic similarity match evaluation across an expected and actual sensor value, and predicting a root cause from that evaluation. A human cannot practically receive and process sensor data. Moreover, the elements of the claims produce an output of a recommended action in the context of a monitored industrial power generation system. Regarding the mathematical concepts allegation, the similarity match evaluation is not claimed in isolation as a mathematical formula. Rather, it is one integrated step in a claim directed to monitoring an industrial power generation system. (see Remarks, pg. 8, paragraph 4)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner recognizes the Applicant has not presented any evidence/rational(s) as why the limitations of “identify an alert related to a subsystem of the industrial power generation system” in claim 1 and “… identification of an alert, identified from the set of sensor data, related to the at least one subsystem of the industrial power generation system” in claim 19 are so complex that a human mind could not reasonably analyze data to obtain additional information (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)); i.e. the Applicant has not presented any evidence/rational(s) to why the claimed data is so complex that a human mind could not analyze data to determine an operation is not normal). In addition, the Examiner recognizes the limitation of “receive sensor data” and “output the recommended action” are pre-solution and post-solution activities, respectively, that were addressed in Step 2A, prong two and Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility requirement. Further, the Examiner recognizes the limitations directed to “the similarity match evaluation” were not analyzed in isolation per the detailed 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis of claim 19 and respective analysis of claim 1 in light of claim 19 per its recitation of an equivalent machine-readable medium claim. Hence, the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
In regards to the Applicant’s argument,
The above recited elements of the claims are similar to those that were at issue in McRO. McRO described a method of automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using rules. The Federal Circuit held the claims at issue in McRO patent-eligible. As described on page 2 of the Memorandum to the Patent Examining Corps dated November 2, 2016 from the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, "The McRO court thus relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea." The present claims describe a similar automation to predict a root cause of an alert in a monitored industrial power generation system that previously could not be automated (by using a similarity match evaluation between at least one expected sensor value and an actual sensor value). Moreover, the present amendments show the similarities of the claims to those at issue in McRO. (see Remarks, pg. 9, paragraph 1)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106.05(f) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claimed “processing circuitry” 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the claims are not directed to an improvement in functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field but an improvement to an abstract idea. In particular, the Examiner maintains the claims are directed to using processing circuitry to automate monitoring of an industrial power generation system. Hence, the additional element of “processing circuitry” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument,
The claimed invention is integrated into a practical application. The claims are directed to monitoring an industrial power generation system, with operations including receiving sensor data, and an output of a recommended action determined based on a predicted root cause. The claims thus impose meaningful limits on any alleged abstract idea, integrating it into a practical industrial application that produces a real-world result beyond the performance of the similarity match evaluation itself. (see Remarks, pg. 9, paragraph 3)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant has merely set forth a recitation of a previously presented claim limitations and a broad and conclusionary statement of “The claims thus impose meaningful limits on any alleged abstract idea, integrating it into a practical industrial application that produces a real-world result beyond the performance of the similarity match evaluation itself.” without providing evidence/rationale(s) as to how previously recited limitations integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Hence, the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101; and the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 9-11, filed 8 May 2026, with respect to rejection claims 1-3, 6-10, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 directed to abstract subject matter have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the Applicant’s argument,
The Office Action rejects the unamended portion of the above elements by relying on Muntés-Mulero at paragraph [0025]. However, that paragraph does not disclose or teach the above recited elements. Paragraph [0025] of Muntés-Mulero describes the detection of anomalous events in a network graph. The Office Action at page 25 discusses Muntés-Mulero's "anomalous event," which may be displayed with "possible root causes or diagnoses based on data associated with each of the similar patterns." However, this is not a similarity match evaluation between an expected and an actual sensor value. The Office Action further notes on pages 25-26 that "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." However, the similarity calculator compares extracted graph patterns to historical graph patterns stored in a pattern library, and not expected sensor data to actual sensor data. (see Remarks, pg. 10, paragraph 1)
Benjamin and Simhon do not appear to be relied on for these elements, nor do they cure the deficiencies of Muntés-Mulero. Benjamin discusses human-operated coaching tools that use historical data to trace back from an event to a root cause. Benjamin does not appear to disclose any similarity match evaluation between expected and actual sensor values performed in response to identifying an alert. Simhon discusses comparing current network component behaviors to previous network component behaviors, which is a temporal behavioral comparison that remains distinct from the claimed similarity match evaluation between an expected sensor value and an actual sensor value. (see Remarks, pg. 10, paragraph 4)
Claims 7-9 and 20 ultimately depend from independent claims 1 and 19 respectively. Applicant respectfully submits that claims 7-9 and 20 are allowable over Muntés-Mulero in view of Benjamin in view of Simhon in view of either of Lu or Bromley, alone or in any combination, for at least the reasons set forth above for the independent claims. Lu and Bromley fail to provide any teachings or disclosure that would cure the deficiencies of Muntés-Mulero, Benjamin, and Simhon, and therefore the combination of Muntés-Mulero, Benjamin, Simhon, and any one or more of Lu or Bromley does not disclose the combination of elements recited in claims 7-9 and 20.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant's arguments are against the references individually, wherein one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Examiner respectfully notes the Applicant has not addressed combination of Muntes-Mulero’s (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0286504 A1: pgs. 2-3, par. [0025], [0027], and [0028]) recitation of a similarity calculator compares a pattern that represents an anomalous event that indicates an occurrence or condition which deviates from a normal or expected value or outcome with patterns of a library that represent previous anomalous patterns to calculate a similarity score between in combination with Benjamin’s (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0096759 A1: pgs. 3-4, par. [0021] and [0022] and [0027]) recitation of sensor data for teaching the claimed limitations of “… a similarity match evaluation between at least one expected value and an actual value from the set of sensor data” in claim 1 and “… a similarity match evaluation between at least one expected value retrieved from the set of expected values …” in claim 19. Hence, the Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Claims 2-10 stand objected to, claims 1-10, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and claims 1-3, 6-10, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “predict a root cause …” in line 8 and claim 2 recites “… predict the root cause …” in line 2. The limitation of “predict” in claim 2 includes an antecedent issue since it has support from the limitation of “predict” in line 6. Suggested claim language:
… wherein 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
Claim 1 recites “output the recommended action” in line 11 and claim 7 recites “output the recommended action” in lines 1-2. The limitation of “output” in claim 7 includes an antecedent issue since it has support from the limitation of “output” in lines 2-3 . Suggested claim language:
… wherein the instructions further include operations to save the recommended action and the predicted root cause to a database
Claim 1 recites “predict a root cause …” in line 6 and claim 10 recites “… predict the root cause …” in lines 1-2. The limitation of “predict” in claim 10 includes an antecedent issue since it has support from the limitation of “predict” in lines 2-3. Suggested claim language:
… wherein the instructions further include operations to predict a probability that the root cause caused the alert
Claim 1 recites “At least one non-transitory machine-readable medium” in line 1and claims 2-10 recite “At least one machine-readable medium” in line 1. The claims recites two different terms for the same limitation. Suggested claim language: “At least one non-transitory machine-readable medium” in claims 2-10 (line 1).
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”; “predict a root cause of the alert based on the a similarity match evaluation”; and “based on the predicted root cause, determine a recommended action”.
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” (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 a similarity match evaluation” (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”, 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”; “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”; “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 generally 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 generally 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 generally 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 generally and recited so generically they represent 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”; “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 generally 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 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 “… predict the root cause, 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 “… predict the root cause, 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 generally 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 generally and recited so generically they represent 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 generally and recited so generically they represent 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 generally 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 generally 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 generally 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 “… predict the root cause, the instructions further include operations to predict a probability that the root cause caused the alert”.
The limitation of “… predict the root cause, 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).
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 (pgs. 2-3, par. [0025], [0027], and [0028] and pgs. 4-5, par. [0033]; i.e. [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).
Not explicitly taught are an industrial power generation system;
receive a set of sensor data;
predict a root cause of the alert based on the similarity match evaluation;
based on the root cause, determine a recommended action; 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 (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; 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 predict a root cause.
However Simhon, in an analogous art of system monitoring (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of predict a 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 predict a root cause to reduce an undesirable system behavior (Simhon: pg. 1, par. [0001]).
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 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 (pgs. 2-3, par. [0025], [0027], and [0028] and pgs. 4-5, par. [0033]; i.e. [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).
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 (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; 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 predict a root cause.
However Simhon, in an analogous art of system monitoring (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of predict a 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 predict a root cause to reduce an undesirable system behavior (Simhon: pg. 1, par. [0001]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muntes-Mulero in view of Benjamin in view further Simhon 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 does not expressly teach output the recommended action, the instructions further include 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. , 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 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, 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 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 view further Simhon 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 view further Simhon 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 view further Simhon 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 and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0078535 A1 (hereinafter Bromley).
As per claim 20, Muntes-Mulero in view of Benjamin in view further 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.
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.
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 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. 2025/0271846 A1 discloses performing autonomous root cause diagnostics for manufacturing systems by analyzing process runs.
U.S. Patent No. 11,901,861 B2 discloses a fault identification may be triggered by a component of a power generation system (PGS), such as a hardware component, a controller of a hardware component, a device of the PGS, a computer connected to the PGS, a computer configured to monitor the PGS, and/or the like.
U.S. Patent No. 12,580,805 B2 discloses identifying, for a newly-occurring network incident of interest, one or more similar historical incidents; obtaining causal dependency data for the one or more similar historical incidents, the causal dependency data identifying one or more historical responsible incidents responsible for causing the similar historical incidents; identifying candidate root cause incidents each occurring within a recent time interval and satisfying similarity criteria with a corresponding one of the one or more historical responsible incidents; and transmitting a prompt to an incident dependency prediction model.
U.S. Patent No. 12,613,766 B2 discloses providing determination of root cause corrective actions for an identified problem in execution of applications or services and determining quality score of the determined root cause corrective action through collaboration with the user.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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