Detailed Action:
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-21 are pending.
Claim 21 is new.
Response to Remarks:
Regarding 102/103:
The Applicant’s has heavily amended the independent claims. The Applicant asserts that the claim amendments are not taught by the primary or secondary. In light of the amendments and remarks, the Applicant has overcome 102. However, in further search and examination, the Examiner has introduced and/or maintained the 103 rejection. See below for further detail and clarification.
Regarding 101:
Improvement to the Functioning of the Computer System:
The most significant argument the Applicant makes is the assertion that the claim amendments improve the functioning of the computer system. Applicants assert that the new amendments will improve the functioning of the computer system, because the system autonomously finds a solution. While this may be true, it’s not enough to overcome 101. This would an improvement to the abstract idea itself and not to the computer function. Moreover, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I C i., performing a resampled statistical analysis to merely generate another resampled distribution is not enough for eligibility. ( see, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I C, “performing a resampled statistical analysis to generate a resampled distribution, SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1598-1600 (Fed. Cir. 2018), modifying SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 126 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed. Cir. 2018).)
Autonomous Computing System:
Regarding the autonomous computing system, MPEP on 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) explicitly finds that a mental process may still be found with the aid of a computer. In other words, that merely having the computing system aid in the performance of a mental process does not render the invention patent eligible.
Moreover, under the precedential case law, Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699., the autonomous nature of the present claims would still fail to render the claims patent eligible. In Mortgage Grader, The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of “anonymous loan shopping”, which was a concept that could be “performed by humans without a computer.” 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Here, the claims have an autonomous nature with an abstract concept, akin to Mortgage Grader, and therefore, we must look beyond to see if there is significantly more to the claims. There is not, the claims do not cover a special computing device and the computer functions in a well understood, routine, and conventional manner.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1,3-11, 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is -directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1, 3-11, 13-21 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Part I. 2A-prong one (Identify the Abstract Ideas)
The Alice framework, step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
Independent claims 1, 11, and 17 are directed to identifying anomalies and generating configuration files/workflows to eliminate the anomalies.
Under step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claimed invention in claim 1, 11, and 17 are directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
The above limitation falls within a computer aided mental process
Part II. 2A-prong two (additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application)
Under step 2A-Prong two (part 1 of Mayo test), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea. Such as, “… processing system…hardware device…historical file…industrial system…workflow file…summary generation file…workflow update engine…non transitory computer readable medium…configuration data…data structure”
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) and as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., "receiving, processing, storing, transmitting/notifying/displaying/presenting data" (MPEP 2106.05(d))
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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea with no significantly more elements.
As a result, Examiner asserts that claims 3-10, 13-16, 18-21 are similarly directed to the abstract idea. Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
Part III. Determine whether any Element, or Combination, Amounts to“Significantly More” than the Abstract Idea itself
The Alice framework, we turn to step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) to determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more" than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1, 11, and 17 do not include any limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, alone. Claim 1, 11, and 17 do include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include“… processing system…hardware device…historical file…industrial system…workflow file…summary generation file…workflow update engine…non transitory computer readable medium…configuration data” these amounts to generic computing elements performing generic computing functions.
In addition, Fig. 1 of the Applicant’s specifications detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method (i.e., commercially available processors). Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
The dependent claims of 3-10, 13-16, and 18-21 further limit the abstract idea without adding significantly more. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Further, Examiner notes that the additional limitations, when considered as an ordered combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements individually.
Therefore, the dependent claims are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to independent claim 1, 11, and 17.
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 1,3-11, 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eryurke et al. (US Pub. No. 2005/0197806) (hereinafter, Eryurke) in view of Nixon et. Al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0115648) (hereinafter, Nixon).
As per claim 1,
Eryurke teaches,
A method comprising:
(Abstract)
Eryurke does not explicitly teach, however, Nixon does teach,
receiving a configuration data update file having new configuration data corresponding to each of a plurality of assets operating in an industrial environment; wherein the configuration data update file is automatically received based on a set automated process;
(paragraph 127, noting on 127, “… In an embodiment, the process control system big data appliance 102 may also determine updated parameter values 212 and/or new parameters 215 for the affected models 168 based on the discovered data relationship 210, and may automatically update the affected models 168 accordingly. In an embodiment, the process control system big data appliance 102 may automatically create a new model 202 based on the discovered data relationship 210. The process control system big data appliance 102 may store the updated and/or new models 202, parameters 215, parameter values 215, etc. as corresponding definitions 162, in an embodiment…”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Nixon within the invention of Eryuke with the motivation of optimizing the process control system or plant. (see, Nixon Abstract)
Eryuke teaches,
generating a configuration change summary indicating change in existing configuration of at least one asset from among the plurality of assets, based on analysis of the new configuration data;
(Fig. 39 and paragraph 59, showing a summary of rules (i.e. configuration change))
Eryuke does not teach, however, Nixon does teach,
wherein the change in the existing configuration is captured in a data structure comprising one or more dictionaries that track modified properties and non-modified properties of the new configuration data;
(paragraph 15)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Nixon within the invention of Eryuke with the motivation of optimizing the process control system or plant. (see, Nixon Abstract)
Eryuke teaches,
processing an operational workflow file corresponding to the at least one asset, to determine any anomaly in historic operational data of the at least one asset due to the change in existing configuration of the at least one asset, wherein the operational workflow file comprises historic operational data of the at least one asset…
(Fig. 13 and corresponding paragraphs, including 116,117, 118; noting on paragraph 117, “…In any event, a trend window, such as that of FIG. 13, enables a user to view the historical behavior for any SPM parameter. Depending upon the process, it is possible to characterize abnormal conditions, based upon the trend of different process variables…”)
Eryuke does not explicitly teach, however, Nixon does teach,
..that is periodically monitored and compared to both events and process data from a safety system..
(paragraphs 29 and 159)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Nixon within the invention of Eryuke with the motivation of optimizing the process control system or plant. (see, Nixon Abstract)
Eryuke teaches,
updating the historic operational data of the at least one asset in accordance to the new configuration data to correct the anomaly
(paragraphs 167-171 and paragraphs 172-175 for clarity and examples)
updating the existing configuration with the new configuration data in a configuration data file of the at least one asset, such that the new configuration data is uniformly applied across the historic operational data and the configuration data file for operation of the at least one asset.
(Fig. 39 and paragraph 59, showing a summary of rules (i.e. configuration change))
As per claim 3,
Eryurke teaches,
the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the updating existing configuration with the new configuration data in the configuration data file of the at least one asset
(Fig. 39 and paragraph 59, showing a summary of rules (i.e. configuration change))
As per claim 4,
Eryurke teaches,
the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the anomaly indicates one or more instances in the historic operational data where the at least one asset was correctly executed in accordance to the existing configuration, but the asset is determined to have been incorrectly operated in view of the new configuration data
(paragraph 111 in its entirety and surrounding paragraphs)
As per claim 5,
Eryurke teaches,
the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the generating a configuration change summary comprises comparing the new configuration data of the at least one asset with the existing configuration of the at least one asset to determine the change in existing configuration of the at least one asset
(paragraphs 117-119)
As per claim 6,
Eryurke teaches,
the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method comprises validating the configuration data update file to determine compatibility of the configuration data file
(paragraphs 178, 181-183)
As per claim 7,
Eryurke teaches,
the method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the validating comprises a preliminary check to verify that the configuration data update file is in a predefined format
(paragraphs 176-178)
As per claim 8,
Eryurke teaches,
The method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the validating comprises:
determining if the configuration data update file includes minimum predefined parameters of configuration data of each of the plurality of assets; and
(claims 16 and 17)
upon determining that the configuration data update file does not include the minimum predefined parameters, the method comprises generating a diagnostic report indicating missing predefined parameters of configuration data
(claim 29)
As per claim 9,
Eryuke does not explicitly teach; however, Nixon does teach,
the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the generating a configuration change summary comprises:
determining an upload setting of the configuration data update file, the upload setting being one of a manual upload setting and an auto-upload setting;
(Abstract)
for the upload setting being the manual upload setting, generating the configuration change summary on receiving a first prompt from a user; and
for the upload setting being the auto-upload setting, automatically generating the configuration change summary
(paragraph 15, noting “…Based on the analyses, the process control system big data system may be able to automatically provide in-depth knowledge discovery, and may suggest changes to or additional entities for the process control system. Additionally, or alternatively, the process control system big data system may perform actions (e.g., prescriptive, predictive, or both) based on the knowledge discovery. The process control system big data system may also enable and assist users in performing manual knowledge discovery, and in planning, configuring, operating, maintaining, and optimizing the process plant and resources associated therewith…”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Nixon within the invention of Eryuke with the motivation of optimizing the process control system or plant. (see, Nixon Abstract)
As per claim 10,
Eureka teaches,
the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method comprises generating a report based on the new configuration data of the at least one asset
(paragraphs 117-119)
As per claim 11,
Eryurke does not explicitly teach, however, Nixon does teach,
A system comprising:
a summary generation engine to receive a configuration data update file having new configuration data corresponding to each of a plurality of assets operating in an
environment, wherein the configuration data update file is automatically received based on a set automated process; and
(paragraph 127, see claim 1 notations)
Eryurke does not explicitly teach; however, Nixon does teach,
determine an upload setting of the configuration data update file, the upload setting being one of a manual upload setting and an auto-upload setting;
(Abstract)
for the upload setting being the manual upload setting,
generate a configuration change summary on receiving a first prompt from a user, wherein the configuration change summary indicates change in existing configuration of at least one asset from among the plurality of assets, based on analysis of the new configuration data;
and
for the upload setting being the auto-upload setting,
automatically generate the configuration change summary, wherein, in generating the configuration change summary, the summary generation engine captures the change in existing configuration in a data structure comprising one or more dictionaries that track modified properties and non-modified properties of the new configuration data; and
(paragraph 15, noting “…Based on the analyses, the process control system big data system may be able to automatically provide in-depth knowledge discovery, and may suggest changes to or additional entities for the process control system. Additionally, or alternatively, the process control system big data system may perform actions (e.g., prescriptive, predictive, or both) based on the knowledge discovery. The process control system big data system may also enable and assist users in performing manual knowledge discovery, and in planning, configuring, operating, maintaining, and optimizing the process plant and resources associated therewith…”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Nixon within the invention of Eryuke with the motivation of optimizing the process control system or plant. (see, Nixon Abstract)
Eryurke teaches,
a workflow update engine to
update the existing configuration of the at least one asset with the new configuration data in a configuration data file of the at least one asset, wherein the configuration data comprises existing configuration data of the at least one asset, and to analyze an operational workflow file corresponding to the at least one asset, to determine any anomaly in historic operational data
(Paragraph 111 in its entirety; see Also, paragraphs 167-171 and paragraphs 172-175 for clarity and examples).
As per claim 13,
Eryurke does not teach; however, Nixon does teach,
the system as claimed in claim 11, wherein for the upload setting being the manual upload setting, the workflow update engine is to perform the analysis of the operational workflow file corresponding to the at least one asset upon receiving a second prompt from the user
(Paragraph 15, see claim 11 notations for clarity)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Nixon within the invention of Eryuke with the motivation of optimizing the process control system or plant. (see, Nixon Abstract)
As per claim 14,
Eryurke does not explicitly teach; however, Nixon does teach,
the system as claimed in claim 11, wherein for the upload setting being the manual upload setting, the workflow update engine is to update the historic operational data of the at least one asset in accordance to the new configuration data to correct the anomaly in response to receiving a third prompt from the user
(Paragraph 15, see claim 11 notations for clarity)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Nixon within the invention of Eryuke with the motivation of optimizing the process control system or plant. (see, Nixon Abstract)
As per claim 15,
Eryurke teaches,
the system as claimed in claim 11, wherein the system comprises a display engine to display the configuration change summary of the at least one asset on a display unit coupled to the display engine
(Fig. 39 and paragraph 59, showing a summary of rules (i.e. configuration change))
As per claim 16,
Eryurke teaches,
the system as claimed in claim 11, wherein the system comprises a download engine to download the configuration data update file in a prespecified format
(Fig. 39)
As per claim 17,
Eureka teaches,
determining a change in existing operational control data of at least one process from among a plurality of processes operating in an industrial environment, based on analysis of a new operational control data of the at least one process;
(paragraph 168)
processing an operational workflow file associated with the at least one process, to determine any anomaly in historic operational data of the at least one process due to the change in existing operational control data of the at least one process, wherein the operational workflow file comprises historic operational data of the at least one process when executed according to the existing operational control data…
(Fig. 13 and corresponding paragraphs, including 116,117, 118; noting on paragraph 117, “…In any event, a trend window, such as that of FIG. 13, enables a user to view the historical behavior for any SPM parameter. Depending upon the process, it is possible to characterize abnormal conditions, based upon the trend of different process variables…”)
Eryuke does not explicitly teach, however, Nixon does teach,
..that is periodically monitored and compared to both events and process data from a safety system..
(paragraphs 29 and 159)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Nixon within the invention of Eryuke with the motivation of optimizing the process control system or plant. (see, Nixon Abstract)
updating the historic operational data of the at least one process in accordance with the new operational control data to correct the anomaly; and
(paragraphs 167-171 and paragraphs 172-175 for clarity and examples).
updating the existing operational control data with the new operational control data in an operational control data file of the at least one process
(Paragraph 111 in its entirety).
As per claim 18,
Eureka teaches,
the non-transitory computer readable medium as claimed in claim 17, wherein the analysis comprises comparing the new operational control data of the at least one process with the existing operational control data of the at least one process to determine the change in existing operational control data of at least one process
(paragraphs 117-119).
As per claim 19,
Eureka teaches,
the non-transitory computer readable medium as claimed in claim 17, wherein the anomaly indicates one or more instances in the historic operation where an asset was correctly executed in accordance to the existing operational control data, but the asset is determined to have been incorrectly operated in view of the new operational control data
(paragraph 111 in its entirety and surrounding paragraphs)
As per claim 20,
Eryurke does not explicitly teach; however, Nixon does teach,
the non-transitory computer readable medium as claimed in claim 17, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving a user input to initiate the processing of the operational workflow file associated to the at least one process
(paragraph 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Nixon within the invention of Eryuke with the motivation of optimizing the process control system or plant. (see, Nixon Abstract)
As per claim 21,
Eryurke
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the existing configuration of the at least one asset is defined by a cause and effect matrix in which one or more causes each trigger a corresponding effect for controlling the at least one asset, and wherein the change in existing configuration modifies at least one of the causes or the effects of the cause and effect matrix
(paragraph 131).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZAHRA ELKASSABGI whose telephone number is (571)270-7943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 11:30 to 8:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rob Wu can be reached at 571.272.6045. 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.
ZAHRA . ELKASSABGI
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights