DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 8-12 and 14-18 are pending.
Claims 1-7 and 13 are cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/03/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claim 15 have overcome the objection previously set forth. The objection of the claim 15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth. The 112(b) rejections of the claims have been maintained. (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below)
Applicant’s amendments to the claim 13 have overcome the 101 rejection previously set forth. The 101 rejection of the claim 13 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejections of the claims, leading to Examiner’s interpretation of the limitations as discussed below in the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections of the claims have been withdrawn in light of the Examiner’s interpretation of the limitations.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the 101 rejections of the claims directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, have been fully considered. Applicant argues that the “amended independent claim 8 includes subject matter that amounts to significantly more than a mere abstract idea.” (see Amendment, Page 11, lines 6-8)
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the amended independent claim 8 does not include subject matter that amounts to significantly more than a mere abstract idea. The 101 rejection is determined to be proper and is, therefore, maintained. (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 below)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 8-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “c) comparing the simulated error-free operation for each of the plurality of individually occurring causes of an anomaly with the simulated error-free operation when one of the occurring causes of an anomaly is present, each qualitative symptom being generated by the processor from the comparison and representing a direction-only deviation of at least one process variable of the simulated error-free operation from the error-free operation”. It is unclear what Applicant means by the limitation. More specifics are as follows:
Regarding “c) comparing the simulated error-free operation for each of the plurality of individually occurring causes of an anomaly with the simulated error-free operation when one of the occurring causes of an anomaly is present”: (emphasis added)
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the elements “the simulated error-free operation for each of the plurality of individually occurring causes of an anomaly” and “the simulated error-free operation when one of the occurring causes of an anomaly is present” in the claim.
Also regarding “the simulated error-free operation for each of the plurality of individually occurring causes of an anomaly”, it is unclear how “the simulated error-free operation” can be “for … individually occurring causes of an anomaly”. In other words, it is unclear how simulation is performed for the occurring of anomaly, and at the same time, simulate the error-free (no anomaly occurring) operation. Similarly, regarding “the simulated error-free operation when one of the occurring causes of an anomaly is present”, it is unclear how “the simulated error-free operation” can happen “when one or the occurring causes of an anomaly is present”. In other words, it is unclear how simulation is performed for when the anomaly is present, and at the same time, simulate the error-free (no anomaly present) operation.
Further, it seems that the feature “the simulated error-free operation for each of the plurality of individually occurring causes of an anomaly” is a same feature as “the simulated error-free operation when one of the occurring causes of an anomaly is present”. It is unclear how comparing two of the same simulations would result in a deviation between the two.
Regarding “each qualitative symptom being generated by the processor from the comparison and representing a direction-only deviation of at least one process variable of the simulated error-free operation from the error-free operation”:
It is unclear what Applicant means by the element “a direction-only deviation”. For purposes of examination, the element “a direction-only deviation” will be interpreted as described in at least paragraph [0003] and [0033] of the published specification.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the element “the simulated error-free operation”. There are three possibilities: “simulating an error-free operation” in line 4; “the simulated error-free operation for each of the plurality of individually occurring causes of an anomaly” in lines 8-9; and “the simulated error-free operation when one of the occurring causes of an anomaly is present” in lines 9-11.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the element “the error-free operation”.
Appropriate clarification through claim amendment is respectfully requested.
For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as:
c) comparing the simulated error-free operation and the simulated plurality of individual causes of the anomaly to generate qualitative symptoms, each qualitative symptom representing a direction-only deviation of at least one process variable value of the simulated plurality of individual causes of the anomaly from the simulated error-free operation.
In order to maintain antecedence relationship with the remaining limitations and for clarity, the remaining limitations of “e) determining a qualitative symptom of the anomaly if an anomaly occurs during real operation of the technical plant based on measurement data acquired from the technical plant; f) comparing the symptom determined during real operation of the technical plant with each symptom previously derived during simulations of operating states when one of the occurring causes of an anomaly is present; and g) identifying those derived symptoms having a determined degree of similarity to the symptom determined during real operation of the technical plant, and at least one of storing causes of the anomaly associated with the identified symptoms in a data memory of the technical plant and displaying the causes of the anomaly associated with the identified symptoms to provide an automated technical diagnosis of the technical plant irrespective of inaccuracies in parameters of the simulation tool.” will be interpreted as:
e) determining a measured qualitative symptom of the anomaly if the anomaly occurs during a real operation of the technical plant based on measured values of the at least one process variable acquired from the technical plant;
f) comparing the measured qualitative symptom with each of the generated qualitative symptoms; and
g) identifying a qualitative symptom of the generated qualitative symptoms with a degree of similarity to the measured qualitative symptom, and at least one of storing causes of the anomaly associated with the identified qualitative symptom in a data memory of the technical plant and displaying the causes of the anomaly associated with the identified qualitative symptom.
Independent claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reason as that of independent claim 8 as discussed above.
Claims 9-12 are dependent claims of claim 8. The claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and therefore, claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 16-18 are dependent claims of claim 15. The claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and therefore, claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 8-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 8:
(Step 2A, Prong One)
The claim recites, “a) simulating an error-free operation of the technical plant via a computer-implemented simulation tool; b) simulating a plurality of individual causes of an anomaly occurring during operation of the technical plant; c) comparing the simulated error-free operation for each of the plurality of individually occurring causes of an anomaly with the simulated error-free operation when one of the occurring causes of an anomaly is present, each qualitative symptom being generated by the processor from the comparison and representing a direction-only deviation of at least one process variable of the simulated error-free operation from the error-free operation; … e) determining a qualitative symptom of the anomaly if an anomaly occurs during real operation of the technical plant based on measurement data acquired from the technical plant; f) comparing the symptom determined during real operation of the technical plant with each symptom previously derived during simulations of operating states when one of the occurring causes of an anomaly is present; and g) identifying those derived symptoms having a determined degree of similarity to the symptom determined during real operation of the technical plant”.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the Specification, such as paragraphs [0067], [0072] and [0074]-[0082], for instance, the c) comparing, e) determining, f) comparing and g) identifying functions are mental processes that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement based on simulated operational data and real operational data. That is, other than reciting an “generated by the processor” (a generic electronic device or generic computer component), a person may perform, through observation, evaluation and judgement, the features enunciated above.
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the published Specification, such as paragraphs [0064]-[0066] and [0075]-[0082], for instance, the limitation of the a) simulating and b) simulating, as claimed, are processes that entails purely mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Step 2A, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of, “a technical plant having a plurality of sensors and a control system comprising at least one processor and memory” and “d) operating the technical plant; and g) … at least one of storing causes of the anomaly associated with the identified symptoms in a data memory of the technical plant and displaying the causes of the anomaly associated with the identified symptoms to provide an automated technical diagnosis of the technical plant irrespective of inaccuracies in parameters of the simulation tool”.
The additional limitations “a technical plant having a plurality of sensors and a control system comprising at least one processor and memory” and “operating the technical plant” as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used to determine, compare and identify as recited in the claim, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using generic electronic or computer components. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.05(f)
The additional limitation of “at least one of storing causes of the anomaly associated with the identified symptoms in a data memory of the technical plant and displaying the causes of the anomaly associated with the identified symptoms to provide an automated technical diagnosis of the technical plant irrespective of inaccuracies in parameters of the simulation tool” is an insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing meaningful limits. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering or data output. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). The claim does not recite an improvement in a technology as set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(a). Accordingly, the additional limitations recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In view of the foregoing, the additional limitations are not sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application.
(Step 2B)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional limitations “a technical plant having a plurality of sensors and a control system comprising at least one processor and memory” and “d) operating the technical plant”, as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used to determine, compare and identify as recited in the claim, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more.
The additional limitation “g) … storing … or … displaying …”, as recited represents a function that is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, for instance, as demonstrated in Ramu et al. (US 2024/0102242 A1) paragraph [0040] (“In an embodiment, a computing unit (103) such as a personal computer, a laptop, a server, or any other computing device may be used to perform the off-line analysis and the on-line analysis. In an embodiment, the computing unit (103) can be a cloud environment and the computing unit (103) is connected to the paper plant via a network. The computing unit (103) comprises one or more hardware processors and a memory. The off-line analysis is performed by the computing unit (103) to label the parameters related to the paper machine (101) to comprise normal patterns and abnormal patterns. The on-line analysis is performed to predict the break in the paper web using the labelled parameters. Further, the predicted break in the paper web is provided to a notification unit (104) to alert an operator in the paper plant. Also, a root cause for the break, an estimated time to break and one or more actions to be performed to avoid a break in the paper web and notify the one or more actions on the notification unit (104). In an embodiment, the notification unit (104) may include, but are not limited to a display unit, a hooter, a light notification and a combination thereof.”), Kale (US 2022/0026879 A1) paragraph [0033] (“During a period of normal operation, the SNN is trained to recognize normal data patterns. Subsequently, the SNN detects anomaly that deviates from the normal patterns. Based on the detection, a predictive maintenance is scheduled. The SNN can be trained to predict common troubles by inducing/reproducing the troubles in the system. In some cases, the SNN can be used in conjunction with a black box data recorder that stores a recent set of data such that when an operational or other problem occurs, the black box data can be retrieved to train the SNN to recognize the indications to the trouble ahead of time. Subsequently, the SNN can suggest pre-emptive maintenance operations to avoid the foregoing troubles.”), and Hollender et al. (US 2020/0012270 A1) paragraph [0049] (“The anomaly detection 120 then outputs 1400 the anomaly alert AA via the interface 110 to enable deactivating of the advanced process controller APC in case of an anomaly detection for the industrial process system. This includes in one embodiment to prompt an operator 10 of the industrial process system with the anomaly alert AA so that the operator takes corrective action 11 in deactivating the APC. In another embodiment, it includes to send the anomaly alert AA directly to the industrial process system in a machine readable format which can be executed by a computer-implemented control unit of the industrial process system 300 to automatically deactivate the APC in response to the anomaly alert AA.”).
The feature “to provide an automated technical diagnosis of the technical plant irrespective of inaccuracies in parameters of the simulation tool” is merely a conclusive statement of an intended result or outcome and do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the additional claimed features do not amount to significantly more and the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recitation “wherein during said identifying those symptoms which are identical to the symptom determined during actual operation of the technical plant are identifiable and at least of stored in the memory and displayed” simply add more detail to or are cumulative to the abstract idea and the insignificant extra-solution activity of claim 8. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recitation “wherein during said simulating a plurality of individual causes of an anomaly and said comparing the simulated error-free operation, an intensity of the cause of the anomaly is varied within a specific range for each possible cause of an anomaly, and wherein upon variation a plurality of symptoms are derivable, which, if applicable, are utilized to identify the cause of the anomaly during said identifying” simply add more detail to or are cumulative to the abstract idea of claim 8. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recitation “wherein during said simulating a plurality of individual causes of an anomaly and said comparing the simulated error-free operation, an intensity of the cause of the anomaly is varied within a specific range for each possible cause of an anomaly, and wherein upon variation a plurality of symptoms are derivable, which, if applicable, are utilized to identify the cause of the anomaly during said identifying” simply add more detail to or are cumulative to the abstract idea of claim 8. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recitation “wherein the technical plant comprises a production or process plant” simply add more detail to or are cumulative to the preamble of claim 8. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recitation “A computer program including program code instructions which, when executed by a computer, implement the method as claimed in claim 8” may be tools that are used to determine, compare and identify as recited in claim 8, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea is not sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 14 and 15 are not patent eligible for similar reasons as discussed above for claim 8.
Claim 16 recitation “wherein the server comprises an operator station server” may be tools that are used to determine, compare and identify as recited in claim 8, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea is not sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more. The claim recitation “the technical plant comprises a production or process plant” simply add more detail to or are cumulative to the preamble of claim 15. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 recitation “A control system for a technical plant, comprising: at least the server as claimed in claim 15; and a client” may be tools that are used to determine, compare and identify as recited in claim 8, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea is not sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 recitation “wherein the server comprises an operator station server and the client comprises an operator station client” may be tools that are used to determine, compare and identify as recited in claim 8, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea is not sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
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 MICHAEL W CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-5069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/MICHAEL W CHOI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights