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 .
Introduction
The following is a non-final Office Action in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 3/21/2024. Currently claims 1-20 are pending and claims 1 and 11 are independent.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IN202311005478, filed on 1/27/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/10/2025 and 5/5/2025 appears to be in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 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), specifically an abstract idea, without significantly more. With respect to claims 1-20, following the guidance contained within MPEP 2106, the inquiry for patent eligibility follows two steps: Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention? Step 2A (Prong 1): Is the claim “directed to” an abstract idea? Step 2A (Prong 2): Is the claim integrated into a practical application? Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea?
In accordance with these steps, the Examiner finds the following:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims (claims 2-10) are directed to a statutory category, namely a system/machine. Claim 11 and its dependent claims (claims 12-20) are directed to a statutory category, namely a method.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Claims 1 and 11, which are substantially similar claims to one another, are directed to the abstract idea of “Mental processes”, or more particularly, “Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (See MPEP 2106).” In this application that refers to using a computer system to evaluate and analyze how remote industrial processes are operating and provide assistance/guidance when needed. To clarify this further, the Applicant’s disclosed invention is a conceptual system meant to perform the same function that an operations director might perform within a large industrial setting such as an oil and gas refinery. The abstract elements of claims 1 and 11, recite in part “Receive indicators…Receive data object…Generate facility state indicator…Generate score…Generate assistance object…”. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, add to the abstract idea the following limitations which recite in part “Indicators are associated…Indicators comprise…Receive historical indicators…Generate data object…Store data…Input indicators…Receive indicators…Associate indicators…Generate historical score…Generate historical indicators…Receive weight indicators…Generate historical score…Historical indicators include…Data objects comprise…Input indicators…Receive change indicators…Generate branches…”. All of these additional limitations, however, only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 11.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Independent claims 1 and 11, which are substantially similar claims to one another, do not contain additional elements, either considered individually or in combination, that effectively integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. These claims do include the limitation that recites in part “Processors…Non-transitory memory with code…ML models…” which limits the claims to a networked/computer based environment, but this is insufficient with respect to integration into a practical application because it is merely applying the abstract idea to a general computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further Step 2A (Prong 2) analysis.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1 and 11, which are substantially similar claims to one another, include additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, which are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of these claims recite in part ““Processors…Non-transitory memory with code…ML models …”. These items are not significantly more because these are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea (evaluate and analyze how remote industrial processes are operating and provide assistance/guidance when needed) on a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). This is exemplified in the Applicant’s specification in [0134] – “In some embodiments, each of the one or more integrated training and operator assistance computing devices (such as, but not limited to, the integrated training and operator assistance computing device 103A, the integrated training and operator assistance computing device 103N) may be in the form of a computing device (such as, but not limited to, one or more computers, computing entities, desktop computers, smart phones, tablets, phablets, notebooks, laptops, and/or the like).”
Additionally, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further 2B analysis.
Accordingly, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nixon et al. (US 20220129782 A1) in view of Michalscheck et al. (US 20160282858 A1)
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Nixon discloses an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory comprising a computer program code (Nixon Fig. 1 – Nixon ¶1 - The present application relates generally to industrial process control systems of industrial process plants), the at least one non-transitory memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: receive a plurality of runtime facility process variable indicators and a plurality of runtime derived process metric indicators that are associated with a facility indicator (Nixon ¶4 - A data historian application is typically stored in and executed by a data historian device that collects and stores some or all of the data provided across the data highway while a configuration database application may run in a still further computer attached to the data highway to store the current process control routine configuration and data associated therewith); and generate a remote operator assistance data object associated with the facility indicator based at least in part on the runtime facility state indicator (Nixon ¶54 - The assistance engines 35 may include operator assist engines 35a, 35b and control assist engines 35c, 35d. Generally speaking, an operator assist engine 35a, 35b may monitor operator actions at DCS operator user interfaces 32 as the operator is entering a sequence of queries and commands, and may predictively warn the operator (e.g., visually and/or in an auditory manner via the DCS operator user interfaces 32) when a set of actions that the operator is planning to undertake would result in the process drifting out of the boundaries of acceptable operations and/or would cause an alarm, fault, or other undesirable condition to occur), and one or more machine learning models ( Nixon ¶67 - Examples of possible applications may include... a descriptive analytics application, a predictive analytics application, a machine-learning application, or a decision support application).
Nixon lacks receive a facility state tree data object that is associated with the facility indicator and comprises a plurality of facility state tree nodes, wherein each of the plurality of facility state tree nodes corresponds to one of a plurality of facility state indicators; generate a runtime facility state indicator based at least in part on the plurality of runtime facility process variable indicators, the plurality of runtime derived process metric indicators, and the facility state tree data object; generate a runtime facility score indicator associated with the runtime facility state indicator based at least in part on the plurality of runtime facility process variable indicators and the plurality of runtime derived process metric indicators.
Michalscheck, from the same field of endeavor, teaches receive a facility state tree data object that is associated with the facility indicator and comprises a plurality of facility state tree nodes, wherein each of the plurality of facility state tree nodes corresponds to one of a plurality of facility state indicators (Michalscheck Fig. 5); generate a runtime facility state indicator based at least in part on the plurality of runtime facility process variable indicators, the plurality of runtime derived process metric indicators, and the facility state tree data object (Michalscheck 64 - As briefly discussed above, in addition to determining a performance for the technician 70, the computer instructions may also track the performance of a machine using a score based on certain factors, described in detail below. In some embodiments, items in one level of the industrial enterprise hierarchy 50 may be based on the scores of the items in a sublevel of the hierarchy 50. For example, a score may be generated for factory locations 58 based on the scores of the items (e.g., industrial application 24) and/or technicians 70 included in sublevels under the respective factory location 58 according to the hierarchy 50); generate a runtime facility score indicator associated with the runtime facility state indicator based at least in part on the plurality of runtime facility process variable indicators and the plurality of runtime derived process metric indicators (Michalscheck ¶25 -Likewise, the software may track the performance of a machine in a factory using certain factors, such as production, network quality, and the like, to generate a score for the machine. In addition, the software may generate a visualization that depicts the performance or score of each of the components of the industrial enterprise. The scores may enable a user to assess the quality of the components of the industrial enterprise and to make informed decisions, such as how to operate various machines of the industrial automation system based on various components in the enterprise indicating which components are performing adequately and which are not).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the industrial control methodology/system of Nixon by including the industrial assessing techniques of Michalscheck because Michalscheck discloses “Generally, the present disclosure discusses numerous concepts regarding how devices in an industrial automation system may exchange information with each other and use this shared information to assist users in the industrial automation environment to manage the operations and maintenance of the devices (Michalscheck ¶20)”. Additionally, Nixon further details that “The present application relates generally to industrial process control systems of industrial process plants (Nixon ¶38)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional industrial assessing techniques that Michalscheck discloses because they would assist in the control and analysis within the system of Nixon.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Nixon in view of Michalscheck discloses an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory comprising a computer program code (Nixon Fig. 1 – Nixon ¶1 - The present application relates generally to industrial process control systems of industrial process plants).
Michalscheck further teaches the plurality of runtime facility process variable indicators and the plurality of runtime derived process metric indicators are associated with at least one of the plurality of facility unit indicators (Michalscheck ¶64 - As briefly discussed above, in addition to determining a performance for the technician 70, the computer instructions may also track the performance of a machine using a score based on certain factors, described in detail below. In some embodiments, items in one level of the industrial enterprise hierarchy 50 may be based on the scores of the items in a sublevel of the hierarchy 50. For example, a score may be generated for factory locations 58 based on the scores of the items (e.g., industrial application 24) and/or technicians 70 included in sublevels under the respective factory location 58 according to the hierarchy 50).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the industrial control methodology/system of Nixon by including the industrial assessing techniques of Michalscheck because Michalscheck discloses “Generally, the present disclosure discusses numerous concepts regarding how devices in an industrial automation system may exchange information with each other and use this shared information to assist users in the industrial automation environment to manage the operations and maintenance of the devices (Michalscheck ¶20)”. Additionally, Nixon further details that “The present application relates generally to industrial process control systems of industrial process plants (Nixon ¶38)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional industrial assessing techniques that Michalscheck discloses because they would assist in the control and analysis within the system of Nixon.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Nixon in view of Michalscheck discloses an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory comprising a computer program code (Nixon Fig. 1 – Nixon ¶1 - The present application relates generally to industrial process control systems of industrial process plants).
Michalscheck further teaches the plurality of facility state indicators comprises a facility normal state indicator, a facility low throughput state indicator, and a facility upset state indicator (Michalscheck ¶98 - The processor 36 may also control the operation of at least one industrial automation component 34 based on the score (block 130). For example, if the industrial automation equipment 16 receives a score below a threshold, then the processor 36 may execute a preventative action, such as powering down industrial automation equipment 16, causing the industrial automation equipment 16 to save energy by running certain industrial automation equipment 16 at non-peak hours, and the like. In contrast, if the industrial automation equipment 16 receives a score above a threshold, then the processor 36 may continue operating the machinery of the industrial automation equipment 16 normal).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the industrial control methodology/system of Nixon by including the industrial assessing techniques of Michalscheck because Michalscheck discloses “Generally, the present disclosure discusses numerous concepts regarding how devices in an industrial automation system may exchange information with each other and use this shared information to assist users in the industrial automation environment to manage the operations and maintenance of the devices (Michalscheck ¶20)”. Additionally, Nixon further details that “The present application relates generally to industrial process control systems of industrial process plants (Nixon ¶38)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional industrial assessing techniques that Michalscheck discloses because they would assist in the control and analysis within the system of Nixon.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Nixon in view of Michalscheck discloses receive a plurality of historical facility process variable indicators and a plurality of historical derived process metric indicators that are associated with the facility indicator; generate the facility state tree data object based at least in part on the plurality of historical facility process variable indicators and the plurality of historical derived process metric indicators; and store the facility state tree data object in a remote operator assistance data repository (Nixon ¶4 - A data historian application is typically stored in and executed by a data historian device that collects and stores some or all of the data provided across the data highway while a configuration database application may run in a still further computer attached to the data highway to store the current process control routine configuration and data associated therewith).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Nixon in view of Michalscheck discloses input the plurality of historical facility process variable indicators and the plurality of historical derived process metric indicators to a facility steady state determination machine learning model (Nixon ¶67 - Examples of possible applications may include... a descriptive analytics application, a predictive analytics application, a machine-learning application, or a decision support application); receive, from the facility steady state determination machine learning model, a plurality of steady state facility process variable indicators and a plurality of steady state derived process metric indicators; and associate each of the plurality of steady state derived process metric indicators with one of the plurality of facility state indicators (Nixon ¶54 - Generally speaking, an operator assist engine 35a, 35b may monitor operator actions at DCS operator user interfaces 32 as the operator is entering a sequence of queries and commands, and may predictively warn the operator (e.g., visually and/or in an auditory manner via the DCS operator user interfaces 32) when a set of actions that the operator is planning to undertake would result in the process drifting out of the boundaries of acceptable operations and/or would cause an alarm, fault, or other undesirable condition to occur. In some embodiments, the operator assist engines 35c, 35d may also provide additional information to aid the operator in determining and/or performing alternate or mitigating actions).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Nixon in view of Michalscheck discloses an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory comprising a computer program code (Nixon Fig. 1 – Nixon ¶1 - The present application relates generally to industrial process control systems of industrial process plants).
Michalscheck further teaches generate a historical facility score indicator associated with each of the plurality of facility state indicators based at least in part on the plurality of historical facility process variable indicators and the plurality of historical derived process metric indicators (Michalscheck ¶120 - The scores may be saved and different views may be available to users of the tracking software. For example, a user may be able to view the technician's scores over the past week, month, year, etc. The scores may be updated continuously as the technician 70 performs each procedure on the industrial automation equipment 16 and/or in the process area 182).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the industrial control methodology/system of Nixon by including the industrial assessing techniques of Michalscheck because Michalscheck discloses “Generally, the present disclosure discusses numerous concepts regarding how devices in an industrial automation system may exchange information with each other and use this shared information to assist users in the industrial automation environment to manage the operations and maintenance of the devices (Michalscheck ¶20)”. Additionally, Nixon further details that “The present application relates generally to industrial process control systems of industrial process plants (Nixon ¶38)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional industrial assessing techniques that Michalscheck discloses because they would assist in the control and analysis within the system of Nixon.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Nixon in view of Michalscheck discloses an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory comprising a computer program code (Nixon Fig. 1 – Nixon ¶1 - The present application relates generally to industrial process control systems of industrial process plants).
Michalscheck further teaches generate a plurality of historical facility state index indicators based at least in part on the plurality of historical facility process variable indicators and the plurality of historical derived process metric indicators; receive a plurality of historical state index weight indicators associated with the plurality of historical facility state index indicators (Michalscheck ¶70 - The score for any item of the industrial enterprise hierarchy 50 may be determined based on a scoring function that includes summing various weighted variables (e.g., scoring factors)); and generate the historical facility score indicator based at least in part on the plurality of historical facility state index indicators and the plurality of historical state index weight indicators (Michalscheck ¶120 - The scores may be saved and different views may be available to users of the tracking software. For example, a user may be able to view the technician's scores over the past week, month, year, etc. The scores may be updated continuously as the technician 70 performs each procedure on the industrial automation equipment 16 and/or in the process area 182).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the industrial control methodology/system of Nixon by including the industrial assessing techniques of Michalscheck because Michalscheck discloses “Generally, the present disclosure discusses numerous concepts regarding how devices in an industrial automation system may exchange information with each other and use this shared information to assist users in the industrial automation environment to manage the operations and maintenance of the devices (Michalscheck ¶20)”. Additionally, Nixon further details that “The present application relates generally to industrial process control systems of industrial process plants (Nixon ¶38)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional industrial assessing techniques that Michalscheck discloses because they would assist in the control and analysis within the system of Nixon.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Nixon in view of Michalscheck discloses the plurality of historical facility state index indicators comprises a historical alarm system performance index indicator, a historical overall operation performance index indicator, a historical field performance index indicator, a historical relative control performance index indicator, and a historical safety performance index indicator (Nixon ¶4 - A data historian application is typically stored in and executed by a data historian device that collects and stores some or all of the data provided across the data highway while a configuration database application may run in a still further computer attached to the data highway to store the current process control routine configuration and data associated therewith).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Nixon in view of Michalscheck discloses an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory comprising a computer program code (Nixon Fig. 1 – Nixon ¶1 - The present application relates generally to industrial process control systems of industrial process plants).
Michalscheck further teaches facility state tree data object comprises a plurality of facility state tree branches connecting the plurality of facility state tree nodes (Michalscheck Fig. 5).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the industrial control methodology/system of Nixon by including the industrial assessing techniques of Michalscheck because Michalscheck discloses “Generally, the present disclosure discusses numerous concepts regarding how devices in an industrial automation system may exchange information with each other and use this shared information to assist users in the industrial automation environment to manage the operations and maintenance of the devices (Michalscheck ¶20)”. Additionally, Nixon further details that “The present application relates generally to industrial process control systems of industrial process plants (Nixon ¶38)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional industrial assessing techniques that Michalscheck discloses because they would assist in the control and analysis within the system of Nixon.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Nixon in view of Michalscheck discloses input, to a facility state change prediction machine learning model (Nixon ¶67 - Examples of possible applications may include... a descriptive analytics application, a predictive analytics application, a machine-learning application, or a decision support application), the plurality of historical facility process variable indicators and the plurality of historical derived process metric indicators; receive, from the facility state change prediction machine learning model, a plurality of predicted facility state change likelihood indicators associated with the plurality of facility state indicators; and generate the plurality of facility state tree branches based at least in part on the plurality of predicted facility state change likelihood indicators (Nixon ¶54 - Generally speaking, an operator assist engine 35a, 35b may monitor operator actions at DCS operator user interfaces 32 as the operator is entering a sequence of queries and commands, and may predictively warn the operator (e.g., visually and/or in an auditory manner via the DCS operator user interfaces 32) when a set of actions that the operator is planning to undertake would result in the process drifting out of the boundaries of acceptable operations and/or would cause an alarm, fault, or other undesirable condition to occur. In some embodiments, the operator assist engines 35c, 35d may also provide additional information to aid the operator in determining and/or performing alternate or mitigating actions).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Shah et al. (US 12271181 B2)
Cella et al. (US 20230281527 A1)
Hartman et al. (EP 4273644 A1)
and
F. M. Enescu, et al. “Remote access system in the production process in crisis situations and more," 2022 14th International Conference on Electronics, Computers and Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), Ploiesti, Romania, 2022, pp. 1-6 [online], [retrieved on 2026-03-26]. Retrieved from the Internet <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9847426?source=IQplus>
These pieces of prior art are cited because they all disclose variations on process analysis and control within industrial systems
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Koester whose telephone number is (313)446-4837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:00AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL R KOESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624