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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on August 1, 2023; March 7, 2025; June 3, 2025; December 19, 2025; April 1, 2026; and June 10, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Artificial intelligence (AI) component in Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 11. This limitation is analyzed according to the three prong test for invoking 35 U.S.C 112(f) below:
The claim uses the generic placeholder “component” as a substitute for “means;”
The term “component” is modified by functional language, e.g., an artificial intelligence (AI) component configured to…
The term “component” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Artificial intelligence generally covers the ability of a computer to perform tasks associated with intelligent beings; however, it does not convey a specific structure or algorithm that could perform the functions recited in the claims.
Configuration component in Claims 1, 3, 8, 11, and 12. This limitation is analyzed according to the three prong test for invoking 35 U.S.C 112(f) below:
The claim uses the generic placeholder “component” as a substitute for “means;”
The term “component” is modified by functional language, e.g., a configuration component configured to…
The term “component” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 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.
Regarding Claim 1, claim limitations “artificial intelligence (AI) component” and “configuration component” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification describes functions performed by the components, the specification does not provide an algorithm or specific hardware for performing the claimed functions of model generation and presentation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claims 2-12, the claims require the limitations of Claim 1, on which these claims depend, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) for the same reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes and/or mathematical concepts without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of independent Claim 1 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claims 1-12 are directed to a machine.
Step 2A Prong I, judicial Exception:
The Examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute mental processes and/or mathematical concepts, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
1. A system comprising a memory that stores computer executable components and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise:
an artificial intelligence (AI) component configured to:
generate, based on data received from a device operating with a first configuration, a model that replicates operation of the device with the first configuration; and
a configuration component configured to:
incorporate the first model into a graphical representation of an industrial process which includes the device.
The limitation generate based on data received from a device operating with a first configuration, a model that replicates operation of the device with the first configuration is an abstract ideas because it is directed to mathematical concepts and or mental processes. The generated model, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a math model. As indicated by Claim 10 of the instant application, the model is, for example, a regression cost function model, which is a mathematical concept. Furthermore, according to paragraph [0054] of the instant specification, “Models can be constructed by a user.” A user may use pen and paper to perform the necessary calculations.
Step 2A Prong II, Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 1 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present general fields of use, mere instructions to apply an exception, and/or insignificant extra-solution activity:
incorporate the first model into a graphical representation of an industrial process which includes the device (insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS:
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
“System,” “memory,” “computer executable components,” “processor,” “artificial intelligence component,” and “configuration component” are high level recitations of generic computer components, computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer as in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B, Significantly More:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of Claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements “system,” “memory,” “computer executable components,” “processor,” “artificial intelligence component,” and “configuration component” reciting generic computer components as mere instructions to apply on a computer per MPEP § 2106.05(f) are carried over and do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner also notes that the specification does not define the structures of the additional elements in any way that could be used to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations identified as mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, or general field of use above are carried over and also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP § 2106.05(f), MPEP § 2106.05(g), and MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The insignificant extra solution activity of incorporate the first model into a graphical representation of an industrial process which includes the device is considered to be further well understood, routine and conventional, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network; iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory […] iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics.”
Considering the claim limitations in combination and the claims as a whole does not change this conclusion, and Claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites The system of claim 1, wherein the AI component is further configured to: detect a change in data being received from the device; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental observation of detecting a change.
determine the device is operating with a second configuration; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental observation of determining that a device is in a second configuration.
and based on the second configuration, generate a second model that replicates operation of the device with the second configuration; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts and/or mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 2 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites The system of claim 2, wherein the configuration component is further configured to incorporate the second model into the graphical representation of the industrial process; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory […] iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics.”
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 3 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites The system of claim 1, wherein the device is a remotely located field-level device (FLD) communicatively coupled to the system; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 4 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites The system of claim 4, wherein the FLD is a sensor, an actuator, a valve, an industrial controller, a motor drive, a sensor, a telemetry device, a meter, a device configured to monitor operation of a component/equipment included in the process, or a device configured to control operation of a component/equipment included in the process; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 5 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites The system of claim 1, wherein the AI component is further configured to: compare the data received from the device operating with the first configuration with historical data previously received from the device to determine whether a previously utilized model replicates the operation of the device with the first configuration; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of comparing data and determining the accuracy of a model. A user may use pen and paper to perform the comparison.
and generate the model utilizing the previously utilized model; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts and/or mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 6 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites The system of claim 1, wherein the AI component is further configured to: instruct the device to generate second data; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.”
and based on the second data received from the device, generate a second model representing operation of the device; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts and/or mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 7 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites The system of claim 1, wherein the configuration component is further configured to: parse an objective regarding operation of the industrial process; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of analyzing an objective. A user may use pen and paper to perform the analysis.
identify a second model, wherein the second model represents a second configuration of the device, and the second configuration satisfies the objective; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental observation an evaluation of identifying a second model that satisfies an objective. A user may use pen and paper to perform the necessary calculations.
instruct the device to implement the second configuration; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.”
and update the graphical representation of the industrial process by replacing the first model with the second model; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory […] iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics.”
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts and/or mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 8 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites The system of claim 8, further comprising a visualization component configured to: present the graphical representation of the industrial process; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory […] iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics.”
on a human-machine interface (HMI); this limitation recites the further additional element “human-machine interface (HMI),” which is a high level recitation of generic computer components, computer elements used as a tool, and represents mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
and receive the objective via the HMI; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.”
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 9 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites The system of claim 1, wherein the first model is a parametric model, a parametric hybrid model, a linear model, a non-linear model, a kinetic model, a first principles reasoning model, a solver, a historical data model, a cost function analysis model, a regression cost function model, a binary classification cost function model, a multi-class classification cost function model, a mixed-integer non-liner program model, a deep learning-based model, a backpropagation model, a static backpropagation model, a recurrent backpropagation model, a gradient computation model, a chain rule model, an error determination model, or a mathematical model configured to represent operation of a component in the process; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
wherein the component is a device, a group of devices, or a component block; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts and/or mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 10 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites The system of claim 1, wherein the AI component is further configured to: determine an output of the first model; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). This limitation is interpreted as performing a mathematical calculation using a mathematical model.
wherein the device is a first device; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
and identify a second model; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental observation identifying a second model.
wherein the second model represents operation of a second device available to operate in conjunction with the first device; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
an input of the second model is configured to receive a parameter generated by the first model output; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
and the configuration component is further configured to incorporate the second model into the graphical representation; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory […] iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics.”
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts and/or mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 11 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites The system of claim 1, wherein the configuration component is further configured to: instruct the device to transmit a current operating configuration of the device; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.”
receive the current operating configuration from the device; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.”
compare the current operating configuration of the device with the first model; and confirm the first model matches the current operating configuration of the device; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of comparing data and confirming the accuracy of a model. A user may use pen and paper to perform the comparison.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts and/or mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 12 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
The following is an analysis of independent Claim 13 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claims 13-17 are directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong I, judicial Exception:
The Examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute mental processes and/or mathematical concepts, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 13 recites the limitations:
13. A computer-implemented method for visualizing an industrial process, comprising:
constructing a graphical representation of the industrial process, wherein the graphical representation comprises a first model representing a device operating with a first configuration in the industrial process, wherein the first model is generated based on data received from the device; and
presenting the graphical representation of the process on a human-machine interface.
The limitations constructing a graphical representation […] wherein the graphical representation comprises a first model is an abstract ideas because it is directed to mathematical concepts and or mental processes. The generated model, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a math model. As indicated by Claim 10 of the instant application, the model is, for example, a regression cost function model, which is a mathematical concept. Furthermore, according to paragraph [0054] of the instant specification, “Models can be constructed by a user.” A user may use pen and paper to draw or write the function used as the model.
Step 2A Prong II, Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 13 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present general fields of use, mere instructions to apply an exception, and/or insignificant extra-solution activity:
A computer-implemented method for visualizing an industrial process (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
wherein the first model is generated based on data received from the device (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
presenting the graphical representation of the process on a human-machine interface (insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS:
Claim 13 recites the following additional elements:
“Computer-implemented” and “human-machine interface” are high level recitations of generic computer components, computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer as in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B, Significantly More:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of Claim 13 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements “computer-implemented” and “human-machine interface” reciting generic computer components as mere instructions to apply on a computer per MPEP § 2106.05(f) are carried over and do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner also notes that the specification does not define the structures of the additional elements in any way that could be used to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations identified as mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, or general field of use above are carried over and also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP § 2106.05(f), MPEP § 2106.05(g), and MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The insignificant extra solution activity of presenting the graphical representation of the process on a human-machine interface is considered to be further well understood, routine and conventional, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network; iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory […] iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics.”
Considering the claim limitations in combination and the claims as a whole does not change this conclusion, and Claim 13 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites The computer-implemented method of claim 13, further comprising: determining the device is operating with a second configuration; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental observation of determining that a device is in a second configuration.
generating a second model, wherein the second model represents the device operating with the second configuration; his limitation is considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
and replacing, on the graphical representation, the first model with the second model; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory […] iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics.”
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts and/or mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 2 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 5, and the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim recites The computer-implemented method of claim 13, further comprising: configuring a second model; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). This limitation is interpreted as modifying a mathematical model.
wherein the second model represents a second configuration of the device, the second configuration satisfies an objective of the industrial process; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
instructing the device to implement the second configuration; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.”
and updating the graphical representation of the industrial process by replacing the first model with the second model; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory […] iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics.”
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts and/or mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 2 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 10, and the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons.
The following is an analysis of independent Claim 18 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
No: Claim 18 is not directed to a patent eligible statutory category.
Claim 18 is directed to “A computer program product.” Under step 1 of the 35 U.S.C 101 analysis determining statutory category, the claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, see MPEP § 2106.03. The claim is directed to a product lacking a physical or tangible structure in the form of an organizational structure, such as a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”). “A computer program product” could be construed as being transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide or other transmission media (e.g., light pulses passing through a fiber-optic cable), or electrical signals transmitted through a wire. Therefore, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101. Applicant may amend the claim to “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium” to ensure that the claim is eligible under step 1.
Claim 18 otherwise recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 1, and the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons. The additional elements “computer program product,” “computer readable storage medium,” “program instructions,” and “process” represent mere instructions to apply the exceptions on a computer as in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Regarding Claim 19, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 4, and the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim recites The computer program product of claim 18, wherein the model is a computer-generated mathematical model; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts and/or mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 2 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strohmenger et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0274558 A1), hereinafter Strohmenger.
Regarding Claim 13, Strohmenger teaches A computer-implemented method for visualizing an industrial process (“Presented herein are various systems, methods, and techniques of the disclosed subject matter that relate to the use of data analysis ( e.g., big data analysis) in a cloud platform to facilitate performing analytics on an industrial automation system( s) to improve performance of the industrial automation system(s).”) (e.g., paragraph [0006]).
comprising: constructing a graphical representation of the industrial process (“The analytics component 302 can comprise a visualization component 322 that can generate and present (e.g., communicate, display) information relating to the operation of the industrial automation system 304 for viewing by a user, for example, via the communication device 320.”) (e.g., paragraph [0090]).
wherein the graphical representation comprises a first model representing a device operating with a first configuration in the industrial process (“When there are multiple industrial plant facilities, the modeler component 222 can generate a model 224 that can represent (e.g., model) the multiple industrial automation systems (e.g., 204) of the multiple industrial plant facilities and/or respective models (e.g., sub-models) of the respective industrial automation systems (e.g., 204) of the respective industrial plant facilities.”) (e.g., paragraph [0085]).
wherein the first model is generated based on data received from the device (“The modeler component 222 can analyze the set of data and can generate the model 224 of the industrial automation system 204 based at least in part on the results of the analysis of the set of data.”) (e.g., paragraph [0083]).
and presenting the graphical representation of the process on a human-machine interface (“The analytics component 302 can comprise a visualization component 322 that can generate and present (e.g., communicate, display) information relating to the operation of the industrial automation system 304 for viewing by a user, for example, via the communication device 320.”) (e.g., paragraph [0090]).
Regarding Claim 14, Strohmenger teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 13. Strohmenger further teaches the method further comprising: determining the device is operating with a second configuration (“The analytics component 202 or modeler component 222 can analyze the information relating to the changes to the industrial automation system 204.”) (e.g., paragraph [0086]).
generating a second model, wherein the second model represents the device operating with the second configuration (“Based at least in part on the results of the data analysis, the modeler component 222 can update the model 224 to generate a modified model (e.g., new model 224) that can reflect and incorporate the changes made to the industrial automation system 204”) (e.g., paragraph [0086]).
and replacing, on the graphical representation, the first model with the second model (“The analytics component 302 can comprise a visualization component 322 that can generate and present (e.g., communicate, display) information relating to the operation of the industrial automation system 304 for viewing by a user, for example, via the communication device 320.”) (e.g., paragraph [0090]).
Regarding Claim 15, Strohmenger teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 13. Strohmenger further teaches wherein the device is one of a sensor, an actuator, a valve, an industrial controller, a motor drive, a sensor, a telemetry device, a meter, a device configured to monitor operation of a component/equipment included in the process, or a device configured to control operation of a component/equipment included in the process (“Industrial devices (e.g., 908.sub.1, 908.sub.N, 910.sub.1, 910.sub.N, etc.) can include such industrial devices as industrial controllers (e.g., programmable logic controllers or other types of programmable automation controllers); field devices such as sensors and meters; motor drives; HMIs; industrial robots, barcode markers, and readers; vision system devices (e.g., vision cameras); smart welders; or other types of industrial devices.”) (e.g., paragraph [0107]).
Regarding Claim 17, Strohmenger teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 13. Strohmenger further teaches wherein the first model is one of a parametric model, a parametric hybrid model, a linear model, a non-linear model, a kinetic model, a first principles reasoning model, a solver, a historical data model, a cost function analysis model, a regression cost function model, a binary classification cost function model, a multi-class classification cost function model, a mixed-integer non-liner program model, a deep learning-based model, a backpropagation model, a static backpropagation model, a recurrent backpropagation model, a gradient computation model, a chain rule model, an error determination model, or a mathematical model configured to represent operation of a component in the process (The Examiner notes the use of or, and the prior art teaches a historical data model, “The analytics management component 1016 can leverage ( e.g., use) a large amount of historical data relating to the asset or asset type that has been gathered ( e.g., collected and/or aggregated) from many different industrial automation systems to facilitate learning or determining common operating characteristics of many diverse configurations of industrial assets or asset types at a relatively high degree of granularity and under many different operating contexts.”) (e.g., paragraph [0151]).
wherein the component is a device, a group of devices, or a component block (“the industrial automation system(s) 804 can comprise industrial devices 810, industrial processes 812, other industrial assets 814, and a network component 816”) (e.g., paragraph [0102]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10, 12, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strohmenger in view of Thomsen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0265329 A1), hereinafter Thomsen.
Regarding Claim 1, Strohmenger teaches A system comprising a memory that stores computer executable components and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory (“Presented herein are various systems, methods, and techniques of the disclosed subject matter that relate to the use of data analysis ( e.g., big data analysis) in a cloud platform to facilitate performing analytics on an industrial automation system( s) to improve performance of the industrial automation system(s).”) (e.g., paragraph [0006]).
configured to: generate, based on data received from a device operating with a first configuration, a model that replicates operation of the device with the first configuration (“The modeler component 222 can analyze the set of data and can generate the model 224 of the industrial automation system 204 based at least in part on the results of the analysis of the set of data [...] When there are multiple industrial plant facilities, the modeler component 222 can generate a model 224 that can represent (e.g., model) the multiple industrial automation systems (e.g., 204) of the multiple industrial plant facilities and/or respective models (e.g., sub-models) of the respective industrial automation systems (e.g., 204) of the respective industrial plant facilities.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0083] and [0085]).
and a configuration component configured to: incorporate the first model into a graphical representation of an industrial process which includes the device (“The analytics component 302 can comprise a visualization component 322 that can generate and present (e.g., communicate, display) information relating to the operation of the industrial automation system 304 for viewing by a user, for example, via the communication device 320.”) (e.g., paragraph [0090]).
However, Strohmenger does not appear to specifically teach wherein the computer executable components comprise: an artificial intelligence (AI) component.
On the other hand, Thomsen, which relates similarly to Strohmenger as a system for industrial digital twins, does teach wherein the computer executable components comprise: an artificial intelligence (AI) component (“Application server system 502 can include [...] an AI engine component 514.”) (e.g., paragraph [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Strohmenger with Thomsen. The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Strohmenger teaches a method for modeling industrial systems, comprising generating a model to replicate said systems, and incorporate the model into a graphical representation. However, Strohmenger does not specifically teach a system comprising an artificial intelligence component and comparing the model with the current device operation. On the other hand, Thomsen, which relates similarly to Strohmenger as a system for industrial digital twins, does teach an AI component. Furthermore, Thomsen discloses that “AI engine component 514 can be configured to apply AI analysis to a digital twin” (e.g., paragraph [0088]); this AI analysis can be applied to the models generated by the modeler component of Strohmenger. In addition, Strohmenger already discloses functions that could be construed to be AI. For example, Strohmenger recites “The analytics management component 1016 can leverage (e.g., use) a large amount of historical data […] to facilitate learning or determining common operating characteristics of many diverse configurations of industrial assets” (e.g., Strohmenger, paragraph [0151]). The analytics component of Strohmenger is essentially an AI component, even if AI is not explicitly mentioned. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the AI component and associated model comparison functions of Thompson with the analytics of Strohmenger; in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination as predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Strohmenger and Thompson to provide additional AI functionality to the analytics of Strohmenger.
Regarding Claim 2, Strohmenger in view of Thomsen teaches The system of Claim 1. Strohmenger further teaches wherein the AI component is further configured to: detect a change in data being received from the device (“In response to any changes to the industrial automation system 204 (e.g., modification of settings of an industrial device, replacement of an industrial asset, software update to an industrial device, modification of an industrial process), the analytics component 202 or modeler component 222 can detect and/or receive information relating to the changes to the industrial automation system 204.”) (e.g., paragraph [0086]).
determine the device is operating with a second configuration (“The analytics component 202 or modeler component 222 can analyze the information relating to the changes to the industrial automation system 204.”) (e.g., paragraph [0086]).
and based on the second configuration, generate a second model that replicates operation of the device with the second configuration (“Based at least in part on the results of the data analysis, the modeler component 222 can update the model 224 to generate a modified model (e.g., new model 224) that can reflect and incorporate the changes made to the industrial automation system 204.” The new model is interpreted as a second model.) (e.g., paragraph [0086]).
Regarding Claim 3, Strohmenger in view of Thomsen teaches The system of Claim 1. Strohmenger further teaches wherein the configuration component is further configured to incorporate the second model into the graphical representation of the industrial process (“The analytics component 302 can comprise a visualization component 322 that can generate and present (e.g., communicate, display) information relating to the operation of the industrial automation system 304 for viewing by a user, for example, via the communication device 320.”) (e.g., paragraph [0090]).
Regarding Claim 4, Strohmenger in view of Thomsen teaches The system of Claim 1. Strohmenger further teaches wherein the device is a remotely located field-level device (FLD) communicatively coupled to the system (“the industrial automation system(s) 804 can comprise industrial devices 810, industrial processes 812, other industrial assets 814, and a network component 816.” Industrial devices are interpreted as communicatively coupled FLDs.) (e.g., paragraph [0102]).
Regarding Claim 5, Strohmenger in view of Thomsen teaches The system of Claim 4. The remaining limitations of Claim 5 are substantially similar to Claim 15, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 6, Strohmenger in view of Thomsen teaches The system of Claim 1. Thomsen further teaches wherein the AI component is further configured to: compare the data received from the device operating with the first configuration with historical data previously received from the device to determine whether a previously utilized model replicates the operation of the device with the first configuration (“AI engine component 514 can apply verification algorithms to the digital twin 2306, simulated results 4204, and actual process data 4202 to verify whether specific modeled attributes and qualities of the digital twin 2306 accurately align with corresponding attributes and qualities the physical system.”) (e.g., paragraph [0247]).
and generate the model utilizing the previously utilized model (“For these deviant aspects of the digital twin 2306, some embodiments of AI engine component 514 can also perform modifications 4206 on the digital twin 2306 to bring these flagged aspects of the model into alignment with the physical industrial asset.”) (e.g., paragraph [0248]).
Regarding Claim 7, Strohmenger in view of Thomsen teaches The system of Claim 1. Strohmenger further teaches wherein the AI component is further configured to: instruct the device to generate second data (“The analytics component 1000 also can include a collection component 1010 that can receive, collect, or obtain data (e.g., desired device data, process data, asset data, system data, and/or customer data) from industrial automation systems, communication devices, models, virtualized industrial automation systems, extrinsic sources, etc.”) (e.g., paragraph [0118]).
and based on the second data received from the device, generate a second model representing operation of the device (“The modeler component 222 can analyze the set of data and can generate the model 224 of the industrial automation system 204 based at least in part on the results of the analysis of the set of data.”) (e.g., paragraph [0083]).
Regarding Claim 10, Strohmenger in view of Thomsen teaches The system of claim 1. The remaining limitations of Claim 10 recite substantially similar limitations to Claim 17, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 12, Strohmenger in view of Thomsen teaches The system of claim 1. Strohmenger further teaches wherein the configuration component is further configured to: instruct the device to transmit a current operating configuration of the device; receive the current operating configuration from the device; (“The analytics component 1000 also can include a collection component 1010 that can receive, collect, or obtain data (e.g., desired device data, process data, asset data, system data, and/or customer data) from industrial automation systems, communication devices, models, virtualized industrial automation systems, extrinsic sources, etc.”) (e.g., paragraph [0018]).
Thomsen further teaches compare the current operating configuration of the device with the first model (“AI engine component 514 can apply verification algorithms to the digital twin 2306, simulated results 4204, and actual process data 4202 to verify whether specific modeled attributes and qualities of the digital twin 2306 accurately align with corresponding attributes and qualities the physical system.”) (e.g., paragraph [0247]).
and confirm the first model matches the current operating configuration of the device (“For these deviant aspects of the digital twin 2306, some embodiments of AI engine component 514 can also perform modifications 4206 on the digital twin 2306 to bring these flagged aspects of the model into alignment with the physical industrial asset.”) (e.g., paragraph [0248]).
Regarding Claim 18, Strohmenger teaches A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a process (“Presented herein are various systems, methods, and techniques of the disclosed subject matter that relate to the use of data analysis ( e.g., big data analysis) in a cloud platform to facilitate performing analytics on an industrial automation system( s) to improve performance of the industrial automation system(s).”) (e.g., paragraph [0006]).
The remaining limitations of Claim 18 recite substantially similar limitations to Claim 1, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 over Strohmenger in view of Thomsen for the same reasons. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Strohmenger and Thomsen for the same reasons as in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 4, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 20, Strohmenger in view of Thomsen teaches The computer program product of claim 18. Thomsen further teaches wherein the model is a computer-generated mathematical model (“If AI engine component 514 is able to learn a mathematical model of the key variable as a function of the other relevant variables (e.g., based on both the data topology of the digital twin 2306 and available historized process data 4002), this model can also be included in one or more of the AI fields 4104 (e.g., as a mathematical function defining the relationship between flow output of a pump, power consumed by the pump, and water pressure).”) (e.g., paragraph [0240]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strohmenger in view of Smith et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0239164 A1), hereinafter Smith.
Regarding Claim 16, Strohmenger teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 13. However, Strohmenger does not specifically appear to teach the method further comprising: configuring a second model, wherein the second model represents a second configuration of the device, the second configuration satisfies an objective of the industrial process; instructing the device to implement the second configuration; and updating the graphical representation of the industrial process by replacing the first model with the second model.
On the other hand, Smith, which relates similarly to Strohmenger as a method for graphically modeling an industrial plant, does teach configuring a second model (“Parametric objective functions may be built to reflect the economic objectives of the operation of the energy system 10.” Smith discloses multiple parametric objective functions, which are interpreted as a plurality of models comprising a second model.) (e.g., paragraph [0039]).
wherein the second model represents a second configuration of the device (“A parametric constraint set may be built to reflect constraints of the operation of the energy system 10 ( e.g. constraints on cooling capacity, constraints on allowable emissions, and so forth).”) (e.g., paragraph [0039]).
the second configuration satisfies an objective of the industrial process (“Based on all of these models and objectives, the optimization problem for the energy system 10 may then be solved to determine the optimal profile for the operating conditions of the energy system 10, subject to the parametric constraint set.”) (e.g., paragraph [0039]).
instructing the device to implement the second configuration (“Assuming the user 106 is authorized to interact with the chilled water component block 90, the user 106 may modify an optimization constraint of the chilled water component block 90 via the optimization view 132 of the graphical user interface 80 [...] For example, using the example described above with respect to FIG. 10, if a user modifies an optimization constraint of one of the parametric hybrid models 58, and the modification is found to be feasible by the control system 96 (i.e., via the graphical modeling tool 82), then the resulting optimization solution may be automatically implemented by the control/optimization system 96.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0075] and [0088]).
and updating the graphical representation of the industrial process by replacing the first model with the second model (“in step 158, the command input is processed by the graphical modeling tool 82 according to the access level of the user 106 submitting the command input.” Processing the command input by the graphical modeling tool is interpreted as updating the graphical representation of a process.) (e.g., paragraph [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Strohmenger with Smith. The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Strohmenger teaches a method for modeling industrial systems, comprising generating a model to replicate said systems, and incorporate the model into a graphical representation. However, Strohmenger does not specifically teach determining an objective of an industrial process, using a second model to implement a second configuration satisfying said objective, and determining a first and second model representing a first and second device operating in conjunction. On the other hand, Smith, which relates similarly to Strohmenger as a method for graphically modeling an industrial plant, does teach a method for receiving an objective, implementing a configuration to satisfy said objective, and determining devices which operate in conjunction. Furthermore, Strohmenger discloses “The analytics management component 1016 also can determine the operational behavior of the asset or asset type over time and under various types of operating conditions for each of different sets of operating constraints or parameters” (e.g., Strohmenger, paragraph [0151]), and Figure 13 of Strohmenger discloses industrial devices operating in conjunction (e.g., Strohmenger, figure 13). Smith merely provides a method for building models of industrial devices that satisfy said constraints including modeling industrial devices operating in conjunction with one another; “Parametric objective functions may be built to reflect the economic objectives of the operation of the energy system 10. A parametric constraint set may be built to reflect constraints of the operation of the energy system 10” (e.g., paragraph [0039]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the objective parsing and modeling of Smith with the modeling of Strohmenger; in combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Strohmenger with Smith in order to use parameterized models to satisfy objectives and constraints, and model industrial devices operating in conjunction.
Claim(s) 8, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strohmenger in view of Thomsen, further in view of Smith.
Regarding Claim 8, Strohmenger in view of Thomsen teaches The system of claim 1. However, neither Strohmenger nor Thomsen appear to specifically teach wherein the configuration component is further configured to: parse an objective regarding operation of the industrial process; identify a second model, wherein the second model represents a second configuration of the device, and the second configuration satisfies the objective; instruct the device to implement the second configuration; and update the graphical representation of the industrial process by replacing the first model with the second model.
On the other hand, Smith, which relates similarly to Strohmenger as a method for graphically modeling an industrial plant, does teach wherein the configuration component is further configured to: parse an objective regarding operation of the industrial process (“Parametric objective functions may be built to reflect the economic objectives of the operation of the energy system 10. A parametric constraint set may be built to reflect constraints of the operation of the energy system 10 ( e.g. constraints on cooling capacity, constraints on allowable emissions, and so forth).”) (e.g., paragraph [0039]).
identify a second model, wherein the second model represents a second configuration of the device, and the second configuration satisfies the objective (“Based on all of these models and objectives, the optimization problem for the energy system 10 may then be solved to determine the optimal profile for the operating conditions of the energy system 10, subject to the parametric constraint set.” The plural models and objectives are interpreted as comprising a second model representing a second configuration.) (e.g., paragraph [0039]).
instruct the device to implement the second configuration (“Assuming the user 106 is authorized to interact with the chilled water component block 90, the user 106 may modify an optimization constraint of the chilled water component block 90 via the optimization view 132 of the graphical user interface 80 [...] For example, using the example described above with respect to FIG. 10, if a user modifies an optimization constraint of one of the parametric hybrid models 58, and the modification is found to be feasible by the control system 96 (i.e., via the graphical modeling tool 82), then the resulting optimization solution may be automatically implemented by the control/optimization system 96.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0075] and [0088]).
and update the graphical representation of the industrial process by replacing the first model with the second model (“in step 158, the command input is processed by the graphical modeling tool 82 according to the access level of the user 106 submitting the command input.” Processing the command input by the graphical modeling tool is interpreted as updating the graphical representation of a process.) (e.g., paragraph [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Strohmenger in view of Thomsen with Smith for the same reasons as in Claim 16, above.
Regarding Claim 9, Strohmenger in view of Thomsen and Smith teaches The system of claim 8. Strohmenger further teaches further comprising a visualization component configured to: present the graphical representation of the industrial process on a human-machine interface (HMI) (“The analytics component 302 can comprise a visualization component 322 that can generate and present (e.g., communicate, display) information relating to the operation of the industrial automation system 304 for viewing by a user, for example, via the communication device 320.”) (e.g., paragraph [0090]).
Smith further teaches and receive the objective via the HMI (“Assuming the user 106 is authorized to interact with the chilled water component block 90, the user 106 may modify an optimization constraint of the chilled water component block 90 via the optimization view 132 of the graphical user interface 80.”) (e.g., paragraph [0075]).
Regarding Claim 11, Strohmenger in view of Thomsen teaches The system of claim 1. However, neither Strohmenger nor Thomsen teaches wherein the AI component is further configured to: determine an output of the first model, wherein the device is a first device; and identify a second model, wherein the second model represents operation of a second device available to operate in conjunction with the first device, an input of the second model is configured to receive a parameter generated by the first model output; and the configuration component is further configured to incorporate the second model into the graphical representation.
On the other hand, Smith, which relates similarly to Strohmenger as a method for graphically modeling an industrial plant, does teach wherein the AI component is further configured to: determine an output of the first model, wherein the device is a first device (“Each of the component blocks 86, 88, 90 is modeled as a parametric hybrid model 58 as described above, and is graphically represented as a node 92 that may be connected to the other nodes 92 (i.e., the other component blocks 86, 88, 90) via connections 94, which is also modeled as a parametric hybrid model.” The nodes are interpreted as models, wherein the plurality of nodes comprise a first model.) (e.g., paragraph [0055]).
and identify a second model, wherein the second model represents operation of a second device available to operate in conjunction with the first device (“Each of the component blocks 86, 88, 90 is modeled as a parametric hybrid model 58 as described above, and is graphically represented as a node 92 that may be connected to the other nodes 92 (i.e., the other component blocks 86, 88, 90) via connections 94, which is also modeled as a parametric hybrid model.” The nodes are interpreted as models, wherein the plurality of nodes comprise a second model.) (e.g., paragraph [0055]).
an input of the second model is configured to receive a parameter generated by the first model output (“This distinguishes the graphical representation of the optimization problem ( exemplified in network 84) from the graphical representations commonly used to simulate a process, as the connections between nodes in a simulation scenario reflect the physical impact of one node's output as input to another node.”) (e.g., paragraph [0056]).
and the configuration component is further configured to incorporate the second model into the graphical representation (Figure 6 discloses a graphical representation with multiple nodes, wherein each node may be a model of a device, comprising a first and second model.) (e.g., figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Strohmenger in view of Thomsen with Smith for the same reasons as in Claim 16, above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE HWA-KAI TSENG whose telephone number is (571)272-3731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9A-5P PST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571) 272-3676. 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.
/K.H.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights