Detailed Action
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This action is responsive to the RCE filed 2/26/2026. As per the claims filed 02/04/2026:
Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, 19 were amended.
No claims were added/cancelled.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 11 are independent claims.
This action is made Non-Final.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/04/2026 has been entered.
Note on Prior Art
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jan Pingel et al (US PG Pub No 2010/0082125; Published: 4/1/2010)(hereinafter: Pingel) in view of Andrea Di Pietro et al, (US PG Pub No. US2021/0281492; Filed: 03/09/2020)(hereinafter: Di Pietro).
Note: Pingel was cited in the IDS filed 8/18/2023.
Claim 1:
As per independent claim 1, Pingel discloses a computer-implemented method for handling a current event in industrial process automation [[0026] Captured data and events can include user data, device data, environment data, data from sensors, sensor data, application data, implicit and explicit data, etc], comprising:
monitoring a process for events and recording manual user action data [[0030] the expert operator 104 interacts with a human-machine interface (HMI) 110 that displays parameter data, such as key performance indicators (KPI), and alerts and receives control inputs from the operator 104. The parameter data received from the industrial process 102 are received by a data capture component 112. The HMI inputs and outputs ("HMI data") are received by an HMI capture component 114];
upon occurrence of an event, acquiring the recorded manual user action data regarding manual user actions before, during, and after the occurrence of an event [[0032] The parameter data received from the industrial process 102, which can be the same or similar equipment of the first scenario 106, are received by a real-time data monitoring component 122, which can further perform capture of the HMI data. The HMI inputs and outputs ("HMI data") are received by an HMI real-time monitoring component 124, which can further perform HMI data capture. A problem recognition component 126 recognizes an abnormal condition or non-optimal performance such as by analyzing the parameter data or the HMI data. [0035] An operator is monitored to determine what investigative visualizations were selected in order to evaluate KPIs, with this information is captured (block 216). In block 218, corrective actions taken by the operator are corrected, which can entail monitoring HMI control inputs, video capture of user actions, capture of spoken or typed inputs by the operator. A resulting degree of success is determined so that the visualized KPIs and corrective actions can be given a weight as to their informative value for a subsequent occurrence];
learning a procedure for handling an event based on the acquired data [[0031] Such learning can be triggered prospectively by automatically recognizing the abnormal/non-optimal condition by monitoring one or more key performance indicators (KPIs). [0024] Such solution learning can be invoked to recognize onset of another similar occurrence and responding by suggesting visualizations utilized by the experienced operator to diagnose the problem. Analytics can further determine which visualizations provided useful information relative to the problem. In addition, the corrective action can be suggested or automatically implemented.] wherein the learning involves creating a solution strategy comprising one or more steps and collecting user evaluation data for the provided solution strategy [[0046] , a defined solution can comprise a combination or parameters that are indicative of the problem, one or more visualizations that can guide an operator to diagnosing the condition, and one or more weighted recommendations for corrected actions based on learning from experienced operators. Operator actions that do not restore normal or optimum performance can further be noted for guiding operators who would otherwise resort to the same ill-advised approach, in particular if these attempts at corrective action exacerbated the condition or delayed correct diagnosis [0044] The defined solution can further comprise a corrective action that can be suggested to the operator via the HMI or provided to an automated decision implementation component (block 514). Then processing returns to block 502 for further monitoring] and
presenting, to a user, the solution strategy [[0029] a plurality of first scenarios 106 can be analyzed and weighted in order to give a plurality of investigative visualization recommendations or correct action suggestions/implementations]
applying the learned procedure to a currently occurring event [[0044] a further determination is made in block 512 as to whether a defined solution has previously been learned by monitoring an experienced operator in a similar situation. If so, suggested KPI visualizations associated with the defined solution are provided to the HMI (block 512). The defined solution can further comprise a corrective action that can be suggested to the operator via the HMI or provided to an automated decision implementation component (block 514). Then processing returns to block 502 for further monitoring.].
Pingel discloses presenting the solution strategy to the user and applying the learned procedure to a currently occurring event but failed to specifically disclose an option for the user to accept one or more steps of the solution strategy and collecting, from the user, evaluation data for the entire solution strategy and/or for one or more steps of the solution strategy.
Di Pietro, in the same field of solution strategy generation discloses these limitations in that [[0118] More specifically, when suggested actions display engine 416 receives a suggested actions list message (or a no actions list message) from issue features reporter 414, suggested actions display engine 416 may perform any or all of the following: [0120] Provide the suggested action(s) or other information from issue features reporter 414 to the UI for review by the user. For each suggested action, suggested actions display engine 416 may provide the representative issue and set of suggested action(s). The aim of the representative issue is to allow for the potential rejection of an action by the user. Indeed, the user may decide that the set of suggested action(s) correspond to issues that are not similar to the issue that was raised… [0122] Asks the user to provide some feedback about the effectiveness of the selected action(s). ..[0124] Send a suggested actions feedback message to action knowledge base 424 with the user-provided information such as the specific action selected by the user to be taken and its confidence score (e.g., as expressed as a user-specified score)].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the presentation of the solution strategy of Pingel to display an option for the user to accept one or more steps of the solution strategy and to collect, from the user, evaluation data for the entire solution strategy and/or for one or more steps of the solution strategy as disclosed by Di Pietro. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the service to automatically translate the action(s) into configuration data for the problem to be solved and initiate performance of the action(s)(0056).
Claim 2:
As per claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Pingel and Di Pietro disclose wherein the evaluation data is based on pre-defined process Key Performance Indicator (KPI) criteria. Pingel, [[0011] A solution is defined for future use comprised of a key performance indicator (KPI) indicative of the characterized problem, a visualization for the KPI, and a control correction that addresses the KPI.]
Claim 3:
As per claim 3, which depends on claim 2, Pingel and Di Pietro disclose wherein the pre-defined process KPI criteria is one of: time to solve the problem, cost effectiveness, and/or amount of process value (PV) changed. Pingel, [[0034] Upon recognizing the problem associated with one or more defined solution 130, the problem recognition component 126 can convey suggested KPI visualizations or control corrections 132 to the novice operator 118 via the HMI 120. Such visualizations can be weighted suggestions from a plurality of first learning scenarios 106, ranked by their efficacy and correlation to the second scenario 108.]. Efficacy suggest time to solve problems.
Claim 4:
As per claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Pingel and Di Pietro disclose wherein the acquiring data comprises further acquiring data of a system behavior in reaction to the user actions. Pingel, [[0030] A solution recognition component 116 learns from how the operator 104 interacts with the HMI 110 to address an abnormal condition or non-optimal performance]. Acquiring data comprises system behavior in reaction to user interactions.
Claim 5:
As per claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Pingel and Di Pietro disclose wherein the evaluation data is based on user-defined criteria, the user-defined criteria comprising at least one of whether the wanted results are achieved or not, whether parameter values converge or not, a time required to obtain the desired process values, and an energy consumption. Pingel, [[0045] Alternatively or in addition, monitoring can proceed by monitoring real-time data 518 to see if an operator has sufficient expertise to diagnose the problem and implement a corrective action that can be learned by the system. If historical, then in block 520, pattern matching is performed in order to locate a similar occurrence. After block 520 or 518, then visualization used by the operator are tracked, such as KPIs selected and displayed (block 522). In block 524, corrective actions taken by the operator are captured. In block 526, a determination is made as to whether the corrective action is or was successful. The degree of success can increase a corresponding weighting for this investigative approach and corrective action. Thus, for multiple possible solutions, a best solution can be proposed or a weighting of possible solutions can be proposed.].
Claim 6:
As per claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Pingel and Di Pietro disclose wherein the evaluation data includes separate ratings for steps of the solution strategy. Pingel, [[0045] the degree of success can increase a corresponding weighting for this investigative approach and corrective action. Thus, for multiple possible solutions, a best solution can be proposed or a weighting of possible solutions can be proposed.]
Claim 7:
As per claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Pingel and Di Pietro disclose wherein a frequency of previously chosen solution strategies is evaluated and considered for proposing the solution strategy for the current event. Pingel, [[0044] Based upon this comparison, a further determination is made in block 512 as to whether a defined solution has previously been learned by monitoring an experienced operator in a similar situation. If so, suggested KPI visualizations associated with the defined solution are provided to the HMI (block 512). The defined solution can further comprise a corrective action that can be suggested to the operator via the HMI or provided to an automated decision implementation component (block 514). Then processing returns to block 502 for further monitoring].
Claim 8:
As per claim 8, which depends on claim 1, Pingel and Di Pietro disclose wherein the solution strategy comprises at least one of: changing a set point, controlling an actuator, defining wait time intervals and checking a final process result. Pingel, [[0034] Upon recognizing the problem associated with one or more defined solution 130, the problem recognition component 126 can convey suggested KPI visualizations or control corrections 132 to the novice operator 118 via the HMI 120. See [0047-49], [0048] a unit 634 can relate to a unit of machinery within the process cell 632, an equipment module 636 can include a logical representation of portions of the process cell 632, and the control module 638 can include basic elements, such as motors, valves, and the like].
Claim 9:
As per claim 9, which depends on claim 3, Pingel and Di Pietro disclose wherein the process value is at least one of the following: a fill level, a pressure, a temperature, a current, a voltage, a fluid mixing state, an actuator state, a system state. Pingel, [[0037] An ambient sensing component 328 can advantageously expand upon data regarding characteristics of the industrial process, such as by sensing humidity, vibration levels, temperature, barometric pressure, etc.].
Claim 10:
As per claim 10, which depends on claim 9, Pingel and Di Pietro disclose wherein additionally alternative solution strategies are proposed. Pingel, [[0045] The degree of success can increase a corresponding weighting for this investigative approach and corrective action. Thus, for multiple possible solutions, a best solution can be proposed or a weighting of possible solutions can be proposed.].
Claim 11:
As per claim independent claim 11, it recites a controller configured to perform the method of claim 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claim 12:
As per claim 12, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Claim 13:
As per claim 13, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Claim 14:
As per claim 14, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Claim 15:
As per claim 15, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 above.
Claim 16:
As per claim 16, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Claim 17:
As per claim 17, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Claim 18:
As per claim 18, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8 above.
Claim 19:
As per claim 19, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9 above.
Claim 20:
As per claim 20, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 10 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. The Applicant arguments are directed towards the newly added limitations in the independent claims which changed the scope of the claims and required new grounds of rejection, therefore the Applicant arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOWARD CORTES whose telephone number is (571)270-1383. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott T Baderman can be reached on (571)272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR 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 PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOWARD CORTES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118