DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 limitations are: “assembly”, “engine” “calculators,” in claims 1-11.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations 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 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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 6, 8 and 15 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.
The claims recite “flexible”, but said term is indefinite as it is a relative term
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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to one of the four statutory class, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “configures one or more prediction one or more prediction models corresponding to the plant assets, different prediction models representing different plant assets and respective predicted failure and degradation, accessing diverse data sources and executing the prediction models, for execution of each prediction model, applying a combination of diverse calculators computing asset failure prediction of the plant asset corresponding to the prediction model, the diverse data sources and diverse calculators enhancing prediction quality,” are abstract ideas, as they recite limitation that can be done by mental process under the BRI, as the broadness of the scope of the claim does not recite any limitation that would require complexity beyond mental processing. Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “a prediction model configuration and testing assembly,” a model execution engine,” “locally on a same machine as the model client of remotely on a network location,” but said limitations, recited at high level of generality, are merely general-purpose processor for implementing the abstract idea. The claims also recite “the prediction model is deployed online, the prediction model is used to monitor plant degradation and detect asset failures, the online model being driven by plant measurements of the given industrial processing plant and by other information sources,” but said limitations, recited at high level of generality, are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity and generic environment where the abstract idea is implemented. The claims do not improve any machines, and do not improve the technology, particularly due to the broadness of the claims, lacking any details in computing asset failure. In short, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to show that it is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “a prediction model configuration and testing assembly,” a model execution engine,” “locally on a same machine as the model client of remotely on a network location,” but said limitations, recited at high level of generality, are merely general-purpose processor for implementing the abstract idea, that is well-understood, routine and conventional. The claims also recite “the prediction model is deployed online, the prediction model is used to monitor plant degradation and detect asset failures, the online model being driven by plant measurements of the given industrial processing plant and by other information sources,” but said limitations, recited at high level of generality, are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity and generic environment where the abstract idea is implemented, that is also well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 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)(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.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Menon et al., US-PGPUB 2025/0199489 (hereinafter Menon)
Regarding Claims 1, 11 and 20. Menon discloses predicting failures and degradation in industrial processing plant assets (Abstract; Paragraphs [0002]-[0003], [0042]), comprising:
a prediction model configuration and testing assembly, for a given industrial
processing plant formed of certain assets, the assembly configures one or more prediction models corresponding to the plant assets, different prediction models representing different plant assets and respective predicted failure and degradation (Paragraphs [0063]-[0065], predictive engine comprising AI model library, with different AI models for different assets; Paragraph [0080]); and a model execution engine accessing diverse data sources (Paragraphs [0089]-[0090]), and executing the prediction models, for execution of each prediction model, applying a combination of diverse calculators computing asset failure prediction of the plant asset corresponding to the prediction model, the diverse data sources and diverse calculators enhancing prediction quality (Paragraphs [0082]; [0091]; [0093], [0105]; [0109]; [0114], [0116], [0125]; Figs. 1-4)
Regarding Claims 2 and 12. Menon discloses the model execution engine deploys the one or more prediction models detecting asset failures and equipment degradation in real time operations of the given industrial processing plant (Paragraph [0044],[0066]-[0067], online, etc; [0086]-[0087], real-time)
Regarding Claim 3 and 13. Menon discloses the model execution engine selects plant measurements or tags as inputs to the one or more prediction models, wherein the tags may be direct plant measurements or custom tags created either by aggregating and combining the measured tags or created by applying transformations or engineering computations to the measurements, and the system maps the tags to prediction model variables allowing the model to be driven by real-time data when deployed online (Paragraph [0013], mapping, [0016], selecting; [0019]-[0021]-[0022]; [0053]-[0055]; [0083]; [0086]-[0087], online and real-time).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14. Menon discloses a database storing the computed
asset failure predictions, the system treating the asset failure predictions as variables, and the database allowing the asset failure predictions to be used as inputs for another
prediction model's calculation or for communication to the system's users and other parts of the system (Paragraphs [0045], [0061], [0089]-[0090], database; Fig. 1A; [0064])
Regarding Claim 5. Menon discloses the system allows the configuration and persistence of calculation parameters in the database Paragraphs [0085]; [0088]-[0090].
Regarding Claim 6 and 15. Menon discloses the system implements a flexible data structure for representing the prediction model's variables and parameters, thus allowing for a wide range of model types to be configured in the system (Paragraphs [0054]; [0067]; [0088]-[0089]).
Regarding Claim 8. Menon discloses the model execution engine has a flexible interface enabling multiple data sources and multiple calculation methods to be combined together to compute the asset failure predictions (Figs. 1-4; Paragraph [0114])
Regarding Claims 9 and 18. Menon discloses the prediction model configuration and testing assembly trains each prediction model independently using any appropriate dataset and then deploys to the model execution engine, which may run locally on a same machine as the model client or remotely on a network location (Paragraph [0019], [0024]; [0064]-[0067]; [0081]; [0105]-[0108])
Regarding Claims 10 and 19. Menon disclose the prediction model is deployed online, the prediction model is used to monitor plant degradation and detect asset failures, the online model being driven by plant measurements of the given industrial processing plant and by other information sources (Paragraphs [0066]-[0067]; [0086])
Regarding Claim 17. Menon discloses combining multiple data sources and multiple calculation methods to compute the asset failure predictions (Paragraphs [0014]-[0024])
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.
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.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menon et al., US-PGPUB 2025/0199489 in view of Dillon et al., US-PGPUB 2009/0077055 (hereinafter Dillon)
Regarding Claims 7 and 16. Menon does not disclose the system defines an extensible data format that allows it to exchange variable and parameter values and other information with the model execution engine.
Dillon disclose plant asset data management (Abstract; Paragraphs [0002], [0006]-[0015]), which includes using XML (Paragraph [0051], [0058]), allowing the server to process any type of data.
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Dillon in Menon and have the system defines an extensible data format that allows it to exchange variable and parameter values and other information with the model execution engine, and thereby efficiently manage asset data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eryurek et al., US-PGPUB 2004/0186927
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights