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 .
1. Claims 25-46 are presented for examination and claims 1-24 and 47-78 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Election/Restrictions
2. Claims 1-24 and 26-78 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/21/2026.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 27 and 38 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 27 and 38 line 2 “one or more” is repeated one of them need to be cancelled. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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 25-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 25 and 36, recite instantiating and executing one or more micro-encapsulated execution environments (MEEEs) in a compute fabric communicatively connected to a plurality of devices implementing an industrial or automation process at one or more physical sites of operation of the process control or automation system, the one or more MEEEs executing to: receive operational data generated via the plurality of devices regarding the implementing of the industrial or automation process; and perform one or more diagnostics or analytics routines regarding the implementing of the industrial or automation process based upon the received operational data.
The limitation of perform one or more diagnostics or analytics routines regarding the implementing of the industrial or automation process based upon the received operational data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, compute fabric. That is, other than reciting “ compute fabric,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically
being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims
recites additional element “instantiating and executing one or more micro-encapsulated execution environments (MEEEs) in a compute fabric communicatively connected to a plurality of devices implementing an industrial or automation process at one or more physical sites of operation of the process control or automation system” this limitation is a generic description of instantiating and executing a micro-server (micro-encapsulated), without any inventive step. As such, the broadly recited executing the one or more industrial process does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) states. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
The addition element “receive operational data generated via the plurality of devices regarding the implementing of the industrial or automation process” Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and nothing in the claim indicates that the retrieval of information is anything other than conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d) that states "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data is conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC V. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., V. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. V. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Thus, viewing the generic computer elements in combination with the data collection does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element, listed above, of using the “micro-encapsulated execution environments (MEEEs) in a compute fabric to perform” receiving data” and “analyzing device defect” The additional element(s) merely recites the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Such limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As the dependent claims 26-35 and 37-46 further limit the abstract idea of an analysis that can be performed mentally or certain methods of human activity that were already rejected in claims 25 and 36, but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 26 and 37, recite “the physical location of the device…”, which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
Claims 27 and 38, recite “communication with PTP…” which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
Claims 28 and 39, recite “diagnostics or analytics routines comprises diagnosing a failure of a hardware…” is group of "mental processes", abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
Claims 29 and 40, recite diagnostics or analytics routines comprises analyzing network traffic
Claims 30 and 41, recite “diagnostics or analytics routines comprises comparing…” is group of "mental processes", abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
Claims 31 and 42, recite comparing comprises comparing the operational data…” is group of "mental processes", abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
Claims 32 and 43, recite “recommending an application or service…” is group of "mental processes", abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
Claims 33 and 44, recite “received operational data comprises operating parameters…” which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
Claims 34 and 45, recite “received operational data comprises events or alerts generated…” which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
Claims 35 and 46, recite “communicatively connected to the plurality of devices…” which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
5. 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.
5.1 Claim(s) 25-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law et al. (US 20110072506 A1) in view of Houmani et al. (Enhancing microservices architectures using data-driven service discovery and QoS guarantees).
Regarding claims 25 and 36, Law discloses a process control or automation system and the method ([0053], the process control system's control environment) comprising:
a compute fabric (computer 120-122) communicatively connected to a plurality of devices implementing an industrial or automation process at one or more physical sites of operation of the process control or automation system (Fig. 1a, [0017]-[0019], [0051]-[0053], [0055], Each component of the UTMS is integrated into the process control system's control environment, to enhance network security and facilitate network management and maintenance. The process control system 100 include one or more sub-systems 105a, 105b one or more process control networks 150a, 150b and one or more process controllers 110 communicatively connected to one or more host workstations or computers 120-122 (which may be any type of personal computers, workstations, etc.)),
receive operational data generated via the plurality of devices regarding the implementing of the industrial or automation process ([0003]-[0005], [0024]-0026], The process controllers, which are typically located within the process plant environment, receive signals indicative of process measurements or process variables made by or associated with the field devices and/or other information pertaining to the field devices, and execute controller applications., and
perform one or more diagnostics or analytics routines regarding the implementing of the industrial or automation process based upon the received operational data ([0005], [0019], , device diagnosis, device troubleshooting, receiving device process measurement values, and determining device health status information; the information allows an operator to change settings of the process control routine, modify the operation of the control modules within the process controllers or the smart field devices, view the current state of the process or status of particular devices within the process plant, view alarms generated by field devices and process controllers, simulate the operation of the process for the purpose of training personnel or testing the process control software, diagnose problems or hardware failures within the process plant, etc.).
Law does not disclose instantiating and executing one or more micro-encapsulated execution (MEEEs).
However, Houmani discloses instantiating and executing one or more micro-encapsulated execution (MEEEs) environments (MEEEs) (page 290, section I, first paragraph Micro-Services Architectures (MSA) has gained great popularity in the recent years, exploring benefits of modular, self-contained components for highly dynamic applications. Each microservice operates as an independent function, offering access to its internal logic and data through network interfaces and defined APIs. MSA are widely used in the industry for applications where scalability, resiliency, and availability are required, as is the case for Netflix1 and Uber2 (among others), Recently, Internet of Things (IoT) and network virtualization applications started adopting this paradigm).
Houmani and Law are analogous art. They relate to a communication between device.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify microservice operates, taught by Houmani, incorporated with a process control system, taught by Law, in order to allow for the use of data products to discover services and a guarantee of quality to ensure the timely completion of analyzes.
Regarding claims 26 and 37, Law discloses the one or more MEEEs execute at one or more physical locations remote from the one or more physical sites (Fig. 1, [0051]-[0053], The process control system 100 include one or more sub-systems 105a, 105b one or more process control networks 150a, 150b and one or more process controllers 110 communicatively connected to one or more host workstations or computers 120-122 (which may be any type of personal computers, workstations, etc.)).
Regarding claims 27 and 38, Houmani discloses the one or more MEEEs receive the operational data via one or more one or more dedicated point-to-point or peer-to-peer connections to the one or more physical sites (page 290, column 2, par. 4, Fig. 2, builds on a data-driven model for microservices and a peer-to-peer architecture to ensure performance, resiliency and scalability of application and management ser vices).
Regarding claims 28 and 39, Law discloses performing the one or more diagnostics or analytics routines comprises diagnosing a failure of a hardware element in the process control or automation system ([0019], The host systems, controllers, communicate with field devices for many reasons including device configuration, device diagnosis, device troubleshooting, receiving device process measurement values, and determining device health status information. HART devices are normally only allowed to communicate on a HART communication network after first being interrogated by the host).
Regarding claims 29 and 40, Law discloses performing the one or more diagnostics or analytics routines comprises analyzing network traffic or metadata regarding the network traffic exchanged among the plurality of devices in the process control or automation system ([0021], [0024], [0093], [0095], identify network devices and create firewall rules to control the traffic flowing to them by automatically locating devices and generating rules by passively analyzing traffic on the network).
Regarding claims 30 and 41, Law discloses performing the one or more diagnostics or analytics routines comprises comparing the implementation of the industrial or automation process by the process control or automation system to another implementation of another corresponding industrial or automation process by another process control or automation system ([0052], a HIDS that monitors the process control system's state and detects if any internal or external communication violates the process control system's security policy. For example, a UTMS including HIDS components, rulesets, or configuration might use the current state of a process control system (i.e., device, module, or component information stored in RAM, in the file system, log files or elsewhere) and compare the current state against an expected state as described in one or more rulesets 147, 148, 151, 153 to ensure that the system is operating normally or as expected).
Regarding claims 31 and 42, combination of Houmani and Law disclose:
Houmani discloses instantiating and executing a further one or more MEEEs to receive further operational data generated via a further plurality of devices of another process control or automation system (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, page 290, section I, first paragraph Micro-Services Architectures (MSA) has gained great popularity in the recent years, exploring benefits of modular, self-contained components for highly dynamic applications. Each microservice operates as an independent function, offering access to its internal logic and data through network interfaces and defined APIs. MSA are widely used in the industry for applications where scalability, resiliency, and availability are required, as is the case for Netflix1 and Uber2 (among others), Recently, Internet of Things (IoT) and network virtualization applications started adopting this paradigm).
Law discloses the comparing comprises comparing the operational data of the process control or automation system to the further operational data of the another process control or automation system ([0051], [0076], the UTMS-configured process objects may access one or more rulesets 147, 148, 151, 153, and compare detected current network conditions to one or more rules within the rulesets 147, 148, 151, 153, to provide alarms based on detected network conditions (e.g., an unexpected increase in network traffic or type of traffic at the UTMS-configured object), to detect a software update of another element in communication with the UTMS-configured object that would require an update of the rulesets 147, 148, 151, 153, to fully secure the system 100, to detect a known fault-inducing attack on the network and expiration of a ruleset 147, 148, 151, 153, etc.).
Regarding claims 32 and 43, Law discloses the one or more executing MEEEs, recommending an application or service for incorporation into the process control or automation system based upon results of the one or more diagnostics or analytics routines (Claim 38, an update detection routine to detect an update of another device within the process control system and displaying an alarm in the operator interface, the alarm indicating the update and recommending a user request an update of the ruleset).
Regarding claims 33 and 44, Law discloses the received operational data comprises operating parameters or measured process variables of the process control or automation system (Abstract, [0003], [0083], component network device parameters and variables to be displayed to an operator at a workstation within a graphical process control system environment. Field devices, which may be, for example valves, valve positioners, switches and transmitters (e.g., temperature, pressure and flow rate sensors), perform functions within the process or plant such as opening or closing valves, switching devices on and off and measuring process parameters. The controller receives signals indicative of process or plant measurements made by the field devices and/or other information pertaining to the field device).
Regarding claims 34 and 45, Law discloses the received operational data comprises events or alerts generated via the plurality of devices of the process control or automation system ([0005], [0024], [0069], the information allows an operator to change settings of the process control routine, modify the operation of the control modules within the process controllers or the smart field devices, view the current state of the process or status of particular devices within the process plant, view alarms generated by field devices).
Regarding claims 35 and 46, Law discloses the compute fabric is communicatively connected to the plurality of devices at the one or more physical sites via one or more gateway devices corresponding to the one or more physical sites (Fig. 1a, [0017]-[0019], [0051]-[0053], Each component of the UTMS is integrated into the process control system's control environment, to enhance network security and facilitate network management and maintenance. The process control system 100 include one or more sub-systems 105a, 105b one or more process control networks 150a, 150b and one or more process controllers 110 communicatively connected to one or more host workstations or computers 120-122 (which may be any type of personal computers, workstations, etc.)).
Citation Pertinent prior art
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ramesh (US20090228418A1) discloses an intelligent distributed computing fabric system may comprise a cognitive element, a computing element, a security element, and a network element. The cognitive element may receive inputs from the computing element, the security element, and the network element, and may further receive external information from a sensor interface.
Gold et al. (US 20190121673 A1) discloses AI solutions may be used in healthcare to take clinical notes, patient files, research data, and other inputs to generate potential treatment options for doctors to explore. Likewise, AI solutions may be used by retailers to personalize consumer recommendations based on a person's digital footprint of behaviors, profile data, or other data.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for allthat it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed wereinstead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1 009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed Kidest Worku whose telephone number is 571-272-3737. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ali Mohammad can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application information Retrieval IPAIRI system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PMR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAG system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217- 9197.
/KIDEST WORKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights