DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is a FINAL office action in response to the Applicant’s response filed 8 August 2025.
Claims 1-12 have been amended.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 August 2025 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claims, the Applicant argues on page 12 of their response, “Here, the amended claims are directed to a specific, technological solution to a concrete problem: how to reduce recovery time in managing distributed industrial operations across departments by automatically generating, distributing, and synchronizing department-specific operation flows in response to machine-generated trigger events. The claims do not merely ‘automate a manual process’ or ‘organize human activity,’ nor are they directed to a ‘result-oriented abstraction.’ Instead, the claims recite a structured interaction among specific components—a processor, non-volatile memory, databases storing structured identifiers and department-specific knowledge, and execution logic configured to carry out a defined sequence of actions including structured data generation, past flow retrieval, dynamic remapping of department assignments, department-specific information filtering, and system-wide progress synchronization.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. In this case, the Applicant has failed to specifically identify elements of the claims for which they consider to render the claim not directed to an abstract, and instead they have merely made the conclusory statement that, “the amended claims are directed to a specific, technological solution.” With regards to this conclusory statement, the Applicant has stated, “the claims recite a structured interaction among specific components—a processor, non-volatile memory, databases storing structured identifiers and department-specific knowledge, and execution logic configured to carry out a defined sequence of actions including structured data generation, past flow retrieval, dynamic remapping of department assignments, department-specific information filtering, and system-wide progress synchronization.” Notably, the Applicant has referenced the generic computer elements recited in the claim (i.e. processor and memory), along with the high level abstract steps stated in the claim (i.e. data generation, past flow retrieval, dynamic remapping of department assignments, department-specific information filtering, and system-wide progress synchronization). The Applicant has failed to show how these generic computer elements do not merely recite “apply it,” nor have they shown that their implementation is sufficient to invoke the improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. It is noted that MPEP 2106.05(f) states, “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).” As shown here, merely invoking the use of computers as a tool to carry out the abstract idea or their ordinary tasks, is insufficient to integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea. It is additionally noted that with respect to the Applicant’s argued problem, “how to reduce recovery time in managing distributed industrial operations across departments,” it is noted that the Applicant has failed to show this problem in their arguments or specification, nor has the Applicant showed how the claims would provide a solution to such a problem. Notably, paragraph 4 of the Applicant’s original specification states, “In the production book server described in Patent Document 1, the information is presented according to the information search request from the viewer, and therefore, information useful for carrying out the operation may not be presented at optimal timing. In addition, when a plurality of persons in charge of operation carry out operations in relation to a common operation target, such as handling an abnormality of a device, the persons in charge of operation need to perform the operations in cooperation with each other. However, the cooperation of operations among the persons in charge of operation is not taken into account in the production book server described in Patent Document 1, and it is difficult to present appropriate information.” Paragraph 5 continues, “In view of the problem of the conventional technique, an object of the present invention is to appropriately manage operations carried out by a plurality of persons in charge of operation in relation to a common operation target and to provide push information necessary for executing the operations.” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the Applicant’s specification sets forth the problem how to manage operations carried out by people when addressing a target issue. In this case, managing operations carried out by people when addressing a target issue, and accounting for cooperation amongst parties, is not a computer functionality, a technology, or technical field; but instead, is purely the management of business relations and human behavior and relationships. It is noted that MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” (Emphasis added). As such, the Applicant’s argued “technological solution to a concrete problem,” is no more than an improvement to an abstract idea itself, which is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on pages 12 and 13 of their response, “Like the claims found patent-eligible in McRO, Enfish, and Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc., 965 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the present claims recite a particular architecture and accompanying algorithms that improve the performance and adaptability of computing systems in industrial control environments. In McRO, for example, the use of specific rules to automate facial animation was found eligible because it improved the way computers performed the animation task. Similarly, here, the invention improves the way computers monitor, update, and coordinate distributed tasks in a multi-department industrial setting. It does not claim a generalized principle or abstract organizational practice but instead presents a technological implementation rooted in sensor-generated structured data, historical knowledge reuse, and real-time operational control.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. With respect to the Applicant’s argument that the claimed invention, “improves the way computers monitor, update, and coordinate distributed tasks in a multi-department industrial setting,” the Examiner is not persuaded. In this case, the Applicant has referenced that the claims improve the way computers operate, however they have failed to provide any evidence of such an improvement in their specification or in their contained arguments. As noted in MPEP 2106.05(a), “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “ (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the Applicant’s specification must set forth and describe, in detail, the technical improvements to a computer, which the Applicant has failed to do. Additionally, as noted above, monitoring, updating, and coordinating distributed tasks is the reciting of an abstract idea; and as such, any improvement in these would be an improvement in the abstract idea itself, and not an improvement in computer functionality or another technology. As such, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on pages 13 and 14 of their response:
“Here, the claimed invention introduces multiple non-conventional and non- generic elements, including the generation of structured IDs that hierarchically encode sensor data provenance (e.g., plant/device/component/sensor), the retrieval and dynamic adaptation of past operation flows with department mapping, and the automatic filtering and delivery of operation information according to the recipient’s department. These elements are neither generic nor routine, and they operate together in an unconventional way to achieve the technical improvement of reduced recovery time and synchronized task execution across departments.
The specification reinforces this view. See, e.g., paragraphs [0019]—-[0021], which describe how the structured information centralized management system creates, stores, and interrelates structured identifiers. Paragraphs [0028]-[0036] describe how sensor data is received, analyzed, and used to trigger responsive flows. Paragraph [0064] details how historical flows are retrieved and adapted when departmental structures change. These implementation details confirm that the invention is more than an abstract idea and instead provides a specific, inventive technical solution.
This is not a case where a conventional computer is merely being used to perform a well-known business practice more quickly. Rather, the claimed invention improves industrial task coordination in a way that is inseparable from the claimed architecture. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims eligible where they “specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence’).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. With respect to the Applicant’s argument that, “the generation of structured IDs that hierarchically encode sensor data provenance (e.g., plant/device/component/sensor), the retrieval and dynamic adaptation of past operation flows with department mapping, and the automatic filtering and delivery of operation information according to the recipient’s department,” are “neither generic nor routine, and they operate together in an unconventional way to achieve the technical improvement of reduced recovery time and synchronized task execution across departments,” the Examiner is not persuaded. First, the Examiner notes that that at no point in the claims does the Applicant claim hierarchically encoding sensor data provenance, including plant/device/component/sensor data. Nor do the claims recite any dynamic adaptation of past operation flows. Nor do the claims recite any “filtering” steps being performed. As such, the Applicant has argued elements or functions which are beyond the scope of the claims. The Applicant is encouraged to specifically point out the language of the claims which they view as reciting additional elements in a manner, in order to show that the claimed invention recites significantly more than the abstract idea. Second, with respect to the argued elements (whether they are in the claims are not), it is noted that generating structured IDs having a hierarchical structure ID from sensed data, constructing an operation flow by retrieving a past operation flow that corresponds to similar events and mapping past departments to current departments, and selecting operation information whose department information matches a first department of the current issue and providing the operation information to a person of said department, are elements that recite the abstract idea, as discussed above and in the rejection below. As such, they would not be additional elements that can add significantly more to themselves. Notably, MPEP 2106.05(I) states, “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 21-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, "we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?") (emphasis added)); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"). Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).” (Emphasis added). MPEP 2106.05(I) continues, “Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Because this approach considers all claim elements, the Supreme Court has noted that "it is consistent with the general rule that patent claims ‘must be considered as a whole.’" Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218 n.3, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188, 209 USPQ 1, 8-9 (1981)). Consideration of the elements in combination is particularly important, because even if an additional element does not amount to significantly more on its own, it can still amount to significantly more when considered in combination with the other elements of the claim. See, e.g., Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, 827 F.3d 1042, 1051, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (process reciting combination of individually well-known freezing and thawing steps was "far from routine and conventional" and thus eligible); BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of components that are individually well-known and conventional).” (Emphasis added). As shown here, the abstract idea cannot recite significantly more than itself, and instead, the claimed additional elements must be evaluated individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, in order to evaluate whether the additional elements add significantly more to the abstract idea. In this case, the Applicant’s argued elements are directed solely to the abstract idea, and not additional elements, and thus they fail to add significantly more to the abstract idea. Third, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that the specification reinforces this view, the Examiner is not persuaded. Notably, the Applicant’s arguments merely refers to large portions of the specification, and included summary statements that repeat the argued elements. This argument fails to show how any of the recited claim elements are additional elements beyond the abstract idea, and that the additional elements add significantly more to the abstract idea, in accordance with a reasoning found in MPEP 2106.05. Fourth, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that this claimed invention improves industrial task coordination in a way that is inseparable from the claimed architecture, the Examiner is not persuaded. As noted and discussed above, task coordination is not computer functionality or a technology, but instead is specifically an abstract idea. As such, the Applicant’s argument that the claims improve an abstract idea, fail to show that the claims recite additional elements that improve a functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
Applicant's arguments filed 8 August 2025 with respect to the prior art being directed towards different principles have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claims, the Applicant argues on pages 15 and 16 of their response, “Stenning concerns a single-machine maintenance-alert system that forwards raw sensor anomalies or key performance indicators to maintenance staff. Vahid relates to a tag-scanning workflow in which a technician scans a QR code or NFC tag on a device to retrieve a static manual or checklist. Neither reference addresses the central challenge solved here: coordinating multiple departments in real time by generating, adapting and synchronizing a department-specific operation flow that is automatically constructed from historical knowledge and dynamically mapped to the organization’s current structure. Because the cited art starts from a fundamentally different premise—a single user or a passive broadcast—its teachings cannot be combined to meet the limitations that rely on multi-department coordination, department-tagged knowledge bases, and progress synchronization.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the cited prior art of record and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention. First, the Examiner notes that the Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. In this case, the Applicant has merely made a general statement that Vahid and Stenning are directed towards different solutions to different problems than the claimed invention, however, the Applicant has failed to identify any specific claim elements that they view as not being taught by the cited prior art. Notably, the Applicant has stated, “coordinating multiple departments in real time by generating, adapting and synchronizing a department-specific operation flow that is automatically constructed from historical knowledge and dynamically mapped to the organization’s current structure,” are not taught by the claimed elements, however, these are not claimed elements, and thus the Applicant has failed to show that the cited prior art does not teach the claimed invention. As the Applicant has failed to address the specific claimed invention, the Examiner is not persuaded of error. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
Applicant's arguments filed 8 August 2025 with respect to the cited art disclosing a structured ID have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the amended claims, the Applicant argues on page 16 of their response, “Amended claim 1 now requires that a processor convert each incoming sensor datum into structured data bearing a hierarchical structured identifier that encodes plant, device, component and sensor lineage. Stenning captures sensor anomalies but stores them in conventional rows or tables without any hierarchical structured-ID scheme. Vahid merely uses a tag to identify a physical asset; it never teaches or suggests assigning unique structured identifiers to individual data points, let alone to every sensor datum flowing into the system. The structured-ID requirement is therefore absent from, and not suggested by, the proposed combination.” With respect to the Applicant’s argument that the cited art does not disclose a hierarchical structured-ID scheme, the Examiner is not persuaded. In this case, it is noted that Vahid states in paragraph 34, “To do so, the user would simply bring the knowledge device within the NFC's radius of communication (e.g., 5 centimeters). Once the maintained device is identified by the knowledge device 101, a request may be sent to the server/cloud 105 to provide for download the operation and maintenance manual for the identified maintained device and/or custom text, video, and/or animation guide on how to repair the device, as it will be described in more details herein when referring to FIG. 3.” (Emphasis added). Vahid continues in paragraph 45, “Once the device is identified, in an embodiment, the process may continue with a query sent to the web application for appropriate device data (e.g., operation and maintenance manual), and the process may end with the device data being received by the knowledge device for the user to use, as described earlier when referring to FIGS. 1-2.” (Emphasis added). Vahid continues in paragraph 52, “Next, in FIG. 4b, a technician grabs the knowledge device 401 and walks (FIG. 4c) to the location of the maintained device that caused the alarm to go off. If, for example, there are no other means to identify the faulty device 420 (FIG. 4d), such as NFC tag, the technician takes a picture of the device 420 with the camera of the knowledge device 401, and then the knowledge device 401 processes the picture and identifies the device 420 as described earlier when referring to FIGS. 1-2.” (Emphasis added). Vahid additionally discloses in paragraph 56, “As shown in this example, the maintained device processor 522 resides inside the maintained device 520. A knowledge processor 550 may also reside inside of the maintained device 520, and the knowledge processor 550 may be set to communicate with the maintained device processor 522, such as to receive the alarms or the error messages from the maintained device processor 522. Upon receipt of alarms or error messages, the knowledge processor 550 may be configured to call the cloud or networked server(s) 505 to download the data pertaining to the respective alarm or error message (e.g., specific section of operation and maintenance manual, guide of how to fix the specific issue that generated the alarm or error message, etc) to the knowledge device 501.” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, Vahid has discloses identifying a specific device that is triggering an error, and providing this information to a server, which then retrieves the specific guide (i.e. operation flow) for remedying the problem. Notably, the device is specifically identified, such that the specific guide can be retrieved, and thus, the data provided is a in a unique hierarchical structure ID. It is noted that the Applicant’s claims do not set forth or define such a structure ID, and thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation must be applied to the claims, which would encompass a data piece that specifically identifies the device having the issue, such that the device can be identified and the correct instructional repair guide can be retrieved and provided. As such, the Examiner maintains that the cited prior art discloses the amended claim elements. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
Applicant's arguments filed 8 August 2025 with respect to the prior art failing to disclose using past operation flows have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claims, the Applicant argues on pages 16 and 17 of their response, “Claim 1 next recites constructing an operation flow by retrieving a past operation flow corresponding to a similar event and then remapping legacy departments to current departments when organizational changes exist. Stenning contains no disclosure of retrieving or re-using a past flow. It simply delivers an alert and leaves human operators to decide the next steps. Vahid presents a static procedure tied to a tag and likewise has no concept of historical-flow reuse. Neither reference hints at an algorithm for redistributing historical tasks across a newly configured organization. The Examiner’s rationale that “it would have been obvious” to re-use historical procedures represents impermissible hindsight because the art does not recognize the organizational-mapping problem or propose any solution.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the cited prior art of record and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention. In this case, Vahid states in paragraph 40, “Again, such device data may include operation and maintenance manual, custom text, video and/or animation guide on how to repair the device, historical device data, necessary safety protocol, and so on. The historical device data may include data that has been recorded by the system since the device has been connected to the system (e.g., how many times the maintained device has been repaired in the last 60 days, the name(s) of the technician(s) who worked on this device and the respective dates, the temperature and humidity the last time the device was down, previous causes the device was down for and respective dates, etc.” (Emphasis added). In addition, Stenning states in paragraph 71, “Machine predictive maintenance is a process which combines diagnostic and performance data, operator intuition, maintenance histories, operator logs and design data to schedule maintenance of equipment. Measured physical parameters can be compared against known engineering limits for the purpose of detecting, analyzing and correcting a problem before a slowdown or failure occurs. Sufficient advanced information including early detection of suboptimal machine performance can assist in scheduling routine maintenance and reduce unexpected downtime and operating costs. Operator behavior while on shift can also have an effect on productivity, which can be detected using the present system and method.” Stenning continues in paragraph 82, “FIG. 3 is a flowchart depicting a method of data flow in the system 200. A machine tap 202 collects raw performance data from a machine, such as a manufacturing or industrial machine. At the machine tap 202, a transformation step obtains data from the machine and transforms it into a stream of raw performance messages and data which can be later added to and analyzed. The raw performance data (shown as a solid arrow) collected from the machine tap 202 can include, for example, up-time, down time, counts, rates, and error codes, timestamping, measurements of specific signals such as power consumption, acoustic information, temperature, motion, light, sensor data, or a combination thereof. The raw performance data obtained at the machine tap 202 can also be presented to an operator on a machine user interface 204 for immediate observation by the operator. Additional context data (dotted line) can be obtained from the operator of the machine at the machine user interface 204, which can be used to set up and report SKU, task or operational information, and call for assistance. The context data can also include, for example, identification of the part being manufactured, step of manufacturing, identification of the operator at the machine, batch information, information about the task or operation being done by the machine (SKU task), information on the primary materials being processed by the machine, work order identification, or machine task in progress, raw performance data, or tags which describe the machine state at a particular time. The machine tap 202 can also concurrently collect machine performance data as the operator enters a tag by time and state at a machine user interface 204. Context data can also be obtained from a context tap 206, such as a computer, an enterprise resource system, server, database, or combination thereof, which contains further context data about the machine, operator, schedule, time and date, provenance of primary materials, or other context data regarding the machine or operation thereof.” (Emphasis added). Stenning continues in paragraph 83, “Context data from the context tap 206 or as input from the machine user interface 204, referred to as the context stream, is further integrated and/or aggregated with the raw performance data to provide a tagged performance data stream or combined machine data stream. This combined data stream can also be referred to as a SKUed stream, as the raw performance data has been associated with a manufacturing part, process or SKU using the context data. The combined raw performance stream and context stream are transmitted periodically to an alert engine 208, optional through or on a server, which can be a local server, cloud-based server, or a server at any other location. Data can be transmitted periodically as a batch appropriate for the machine, such as, for example, every fraction of a second, every second, or once every few seconds or minutes, which can be set automatically or manually based on the machine or process. Alternatively, data can be transmitted as a stream with new data being transmitted immediately, or a combination of batch and stream depending on the acquired data.” (Emphasis added). Stenning continues in paragraph 85, “If the data stream comprising the raw performance data and context data satisfies a particular trigger definition, the alert engine 208 sends out an alert on an alert data stream (dashed line) which is sent to a remote device 212 to receive the alert. An alert generated by the alert engine 208 can comprise the content and/or conditions associated with the alert, and can also include a recipient and a medium of communication, priority of the alert, all of which can vary. The priority of the alert can be based on, for example, expected or potential financial loss, improvement initiatives of the company, proximity of responders, load on the potential responders, etc. Alerts can be sent to particular recipients, such as machine operators or maintenance workers, and prioritized to direct operator workflow to address each alert in priority order to maximize system efficiency. Should a further trigger condition for alerting a manager be satisfied, such as, for example, a machine idle state for longer than a given period of time, more than a certain number of machines are idle at a particular time, if an alert has not been responded to in an acceptable amount of time, or if an alert has been raised and closed by an operator in a short period of time, a manager alert can be sent to the manager to escalate attention to the condition affecting performance. In this way, trigger definitions can also include frequency and duration of alerts as generated by the alert engine 208, and indicators of process health and/or organization health can be monitored and brought to the attention of operators and managers for process improvement. The alert data stream itself can also be an input to the alert engine 208, meaning that alerts can be a further trigger to other alert conditions. In particular, observation of the alert stream, such as how often certain alerts have occurred in a period of time, can also trigger further alerts by the alert engine 208.” (Emphasis added). Stenning continues in paragraph 90, “Based on collected performance and context data, the analytics engine 210 can provide a prescriptive analysis to predict, anticipate, and provide guidance to reduce the occurrence and magnitude of a downtime event. Predictive data enables more rapid intervention to reduce magnitude of a downtime event. Based on previously collected data, the analytics engine can predict future events by quantification or estimating the magnitude of an anomaly, and predict the impact and reaction of operators to affect overall process performance. In this way, the analytics engine 210 can provide additional information to the alerts engine 208 to prioritize alerts that may result in greater loss in a manufacturing system. For example, in a situation with multiple events are happening simultaneously, such as if three machines are down in a group which are all the responsibility of a single operator, the attention of the operator can be prioritized in the order that affords the most productivity gain or least productivity loss and a prescriptive action or prescription can be identified that improves process performance to limit loss or contribute to productivity gain. Some examples of prescriptive actions that can recommended include but are not limited to scheduling of operator activities, specialized or directed operator training, scheduling of machine calibration or adjustment, schedule of materials supply filling, scheduling of meetings, and scheduling of operator planned downtime (i.e. breaks). An alert can be provided to the operator, manager, or supervisor indicating a prescription to improve process performance. The alert can include, for example, a text or image-based notice, a colour change on the user interface display, an alert light, alert sound, or combination thereof, to draw the operator's attention to the prioritized task, and other alarms or alerts can be suppressed until the higher priority tasks have been attended to. By providing an alert indicating a prescription to improve process performance based on data obtained by the machine and process, a tempo or cadence can also be provided for operator best practices.” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the combination of Vahid and Stenning have disclosed receiving alerts concerning alarms and triggers for machines and devices in an environment, wherein the alarms/triggers are provided to a server, which retrieves historical information, including historic maintenance records and guides used to address issues, and wherein this information is provided to a user to conduct a repair. Regarding the Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an algorithm for redistributing historical tasks across a newly configured organization) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Notably, the Applicant’s claims do not refer to any historical tasks, an algorithm for redistributing said tasks, or a newly configured organization. Instead, the Applicant’s claims have been amended to state, “(a) receive real-time sensor data from the operation target and convert each datum to structured data having a unique hierarchical structure-ID; (b) detect that the structured data satisfies a trigger-event condition; (c) construct an operation flow by retrieving a past operation flow that corresponds to a similar past event and where organized changes exist, mapping legacy departments to current departments; (d) for a first department identified as next in the operation flow, select from the operation-information database only operation information whose department tag matches the first department and transmit the selected operation information to a terminal device of a first person in charge.” As shown and emphasized here, the Applicant’s claims are directed to detecting that a structured data satisfied a trigger event, constructing an operation flow by retrieving a past operation flow the corresponds to a similar past event, and selecting operation information that matches the corresponding department and providing the information to a party. Notably, “operation flow” is not defined in the claims, however paragraph 20 of the Applicant’s original specification states that it is steps to recover operation of a device, “Once the start notification unit 112 notifies the persons in charge of operation of the trigger event, the operation flow construction unit 113 constructs an operation flow for indicating the operations that need to be carried out by the persons in charge of operation in relation to the occurred trigger event. The operation flow represents a flow of operations of the persons in charge of operation necessary for recovering the operation target device 2 from the abnormal state, and the content of the constructed operation flow varies according to the type of trigger event.” (Emphasis added). As the Applicant’s specification refers to this operation flow as steps to recover the operation of a device (i.e. fixing/repair a device having an abnormal condition), and not as now argued, tasks in a newly formed organization, the Examiner is not persuaded that the argued element reflects the claimed invention; and that the cited prior art, as quoted and emphasized above, teaches the claimed invention. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
Applicant's arguments filed 8 August 2025 with respect to the prior art failing to disclose selecting information only for a department have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claims, the Applicant argues on page 17 of their response, “Claim 1 also requires that, for each department in sequence, the system select from an operation-information database only those pieces of information whose department tag matches the current department and transmit only that information to the corresponding terminal. Stenning sends the same health-status dashboard or alert to every viewer without filtration, while Vahid serves the same manual to whoever scans the tag. Tailoring knowledge to each department and hiding irrelevant departments’ knowledge is nowhere disclosed or suggested.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the cited prior art of record and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention. In this case, Stenning states in paragraph 90, “Based on collected performance and context data, the analytics engine 210 can provide a prescriptive analysis to predict, anticipate, and provide guidance to reduce the occurrence and magnitude of a downtime event. Predictive data enables more rapid intervention to reduce magnitude of a downtime event. Based on previously collected data, the analytics engine can predict future events by quantification or estimating the magnitude of an anomaly, and predict the impact and reaction of operators to affect overall process performance. In this way, the analytics engine 210 can provide additional information to the alerts engine 208 to prioritize alerts that may result in greater loss in a manufacturing system. For example, in a situation with multiple events are happening simultaneously, such as if three machines are down in a group which are all the responsibility of a single operator, the attention of the operator can be prioritized in the order that affords the most productivity gain or least productivity loss and a prescriptive action or prescription can be identified that improves process performance to limit loss or contribute to productivity gain. Some examples of prescriptive actions that can recommended include but are not limited to scheduling of operator activities, specialized or directed operator training, scheduling of machine calibration or adjustment, schedule of materials supply filling, scheduling of meetings, and scheduling of operator planned downtime (i.e. breaks). An alert can be provided to the operator, manager, or supervisor indicating a prescription to improve process performance. The alert can include, for example, a text or image-based notice, a colour change on the user interface display, an alert light, alert sound, or combination thereof, to draw the operator's attention to the prioritized task, and other alarms or alerts can be suppressed until the higher priority tasks have been attended to. By providing an alert indicating a prescription to improve process performance based on data obtained by the machine and process, a tempo or cadence can also be provided for operator best practices.” (Emphasis added). Additionally, Stenning states in paragraph 97, “FIG. 4C is a group overview that shows a heatmap of the productivity of a selection of machines on a manufacturing floor, with well-operating machines shown in green on a screen (medium-gray in FIG. 4C), machines that are underperforming but that don't require immediate attention shown in yellow on a screen (light-gray in FIG. 4C)) and machines requiring immediate attention in red on a screen (black in FIG. 4C)). The machines can be in the same or different locations, and the machines' process performance can be viewed by the supervisor in particular sets, for example, OEE for a particular process, geographical location, machine type, machine process, etc. The machine groups can be arbitrary, and can further comprise groups of groups. The heatmap is preferably a real-time display of machine performance displayed on a remote device or machine user interface to provide supervisor with immediate feedback on industrial process performance for every machine on a manufacturing floor or in a manufacturing organization. In one example, an alert can be presented to a supervisor if a single machine is placed into an inefficient state by changing the colour of the machine indicator. The supervisor can then respond to the alert notification to direct appropriate action to address the inefficiency, such as, for example, visiting the machine, directing maintenance personnel to the machine, advising the machine operator to make an adjustment to the machine, or reallocating human operator resources. Overall process productivity measures, e.g. OEE, can be calculated and instantaneously adjusted based on machine performance at each location on the manufacturing line. Real time and prescriptive alerts can also be pushed to operators on their mobile or remote device or computer so that they can respond as required, for example to decrease downtime.” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the Stenning has disclosed providing relevant guide and alert information to supervisors of groups of machines, wherein the machines that they are in charge of they are alerted to. As such, shown and emphasized here and above, Stenning has disclosed providing guides and instructions to workers and the supervisors to remedy the abnormal behavior found in machines. That is, Stenning does tailor knowledge to each department and hiding irrelevant departments’ knowledge, as the information provided is the remedy to the specific identified devices and machines. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims, specifically the updating or progress and notifying terminals, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 1, the Applicant has amended the claim to state, “(c) construct an operation flow by retrieving a past operation flow that corresponds to a similar past event and where organized changes exist, mapping legacy departments to current departments; (d) for a first department identified as next in the operation flow, select from the operation-information database only operation information whose department tag matches the first department and transmit the selected operation information to a terminal device of a first person in charge; (e) update a progress record upon completion acknowledgement by the first person, then repeat step (d) for a second department.” The Applicant has failed to provide support in their original written description that would convey to one skilled in the art that they were in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. In this case, the Applicant has failed to disclose mapping legacy departments to currents departments when organized changes exist. Specifically, at no point in the Applicant’s specification has the Applicant referenced any mapping, legacy departments, or organized changes. Notably, the only reference to changes occurring is in paragraph 72 of the Applicant’s specification, which states, “The operation flow construction unit 113 may change part of the past operation flow extracted in step S50 on the basis of the trigger event to construct the operation flow in step S60. As a result, even if the operation flow corresponding to the trigger event of this time is not stored in the operation flow DB 123, the operation flow in relation to the trigger event of this time can be constructed.” Additionally, at no point in the Applicant’s specification, has the Applicant disclosed selecting from the operation-information database only operation information whose department tag matches the first department. Notably, no department tag is