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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on September 13, 2023, wherein claims 1-10 are currently pending.
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 limitations are: design module for, experiment execution module for, custom output processing module, data analysis module for, management module for, simulation module for, in claims 1, 4-5, 7-9.
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 § 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, claims 1-8 are directed to a device (i.e. product or article of manufacture), claim 9 is directed to a system (i.e. machine), and claim 10 is directed to a method (i.e., process). Accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
(Under Step 2) The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Under Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04)) The core claimed concept as a whole is directed to performing simulation and experimental scenarios using abstract information from a factory/industrial setting. The independent claims (1, 9, 10) recite collecting/obtaining information/data (where the information itself is abstract in nature – e.g. design data, factors (regarding a factory and its functioning), levels, target, and the like), data analysis/manipulation (comparing information, evaluations, moving information around, solving, graphing, etc.,) to determine more data/information, possibly obtaining more abstract information/data, and providing this determined data/information for further analysis and decision-making.
The limitations of the independent claims (1, 9, 10), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (determining scenarios for best business decisions – e.g. profits, cost savings, scheduling, and business decision optimizing); and commercial interactions (i.e. business relations and business/factory behavior)) and mental processes (observation, evaluation, and decision-making to best business decision for a factory and processes in a factory setting). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04). If claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitation as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), the claim limitations fall within the Mental process grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04).
Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping and mental processes grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Under Step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of old/well-known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms (for example, “device, modules,” (in independent claim 1); “system, devices, modules, databases (DB), servers,” (in independent claim 9); “execution, execution engines (software and/or computer)” (in independent claim 10)), in the context of the independent claims (1, 9, 10), the claims encompass the above stated abstract idea/judicial-exception.
As shown above, the independent claims (1, 9, 10) recite generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (for example, “device, modules,” (in independent claim 1); “system, devices, modules, databases (DB), servers,” (in independent claim 9); “execution, execution engines (software and/or computer)” (in independent claim 10)) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general purpose computer/computing functions. (MPEP 2106.04). The generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (for example, “device, modules,” (in independent claim 1); “system, devices, modules, databases (DB), servers,” (in independent claim 9); “execution, execution engines (software and/or computer)” (in independent claim 10)). The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes (discussed above) involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements (for example, “device, modules,” (in independent claim 1); “system, devices, modules, databases (DB), servers,” (in independent claim 9); “execution, execution engines (software and/or computer)” (in independent claim 10)) do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
(Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The independent claims (1, 9, 10) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The independent claims recite using known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (for example, “device, modules,” (in independent claim 1); “system, devices, modules, databases (DB), servers,” (in independent claim 9); “execution, execution engines (software and/or computer)” (in independent claim 10)). For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, paragraphs 0041-0043 and 0090-0092 [where Applicant recites general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc., in Applicant’s specification]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claims into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements (for example, “device, modules,” (in independent claim 1); “system, devices, modules, databases (DB), servers,” (in independent claim 9); “execution, execution engines (software and/or computer)” (in independent claim 10)) or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344 (2014) discussing U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the independent claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the independent claims (1, 9, 10) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
The dependent claims (2-8) further define the independent claims and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself. The above rejection discussed for the independent claims fully applies to the dependent claims.
The dependent claims (2-8) further state using obtained data/information (where the information itself is abstract in nature – e.g. design data, factors (regarding a factory and its functioning), levels, target, and the like), data analysis/manipulation (comparing information, evaluations, moving information around, solving, graphing, etc.,) to determine more data/information, possibly obtaining more abstract information/data, and providing this determined data/information for further analysis and decision-making. These dependent claims also cover under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (determining scenarios for best business decisions – e.g. profits, cost savings, scheduling, and business decision optimizing); and commercial interactions (i.e. business relations and business/factory behavior)) and mental processes (observation, evaluation, and decision-making to best business decision for a factory and processes in a factory setting). Accordingly, since Applicant's dependent claims fall under organizing human activities grouping and mental processes grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims and specification recite additional elements as generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (for example, “devices, modules, user interface, ” (in claim 1’s dependent claims 2-8)) performing generic computer/computing/technology functions. (MPEP 2106.04). The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions as the independent claims above to implement the abstract idea. The generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (for example, “devices, modules, user interface, ” (in claim 1’s dependent claims 2-8)). Hence, the additional elements (for example, “devices, modules, user interface, ” (in claim 1’s dependent claims 2-8)) do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
Also, the dependent claims either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself and the dependent claims (similar to the independent claims) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements (for example, “devices, modules, user interface, ” (in claim 1’s dependent claims 2-8)) or combination of elements in the dependent claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344 (2014) discussing U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, dependent claims also do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the dependent claims (2-8) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson et al., (US 2017/0323231).
As per claim 1, Johnson discloses a device for performing simulation for work schedule of a factory (¶¶ 0021-0023 [industrial system…adjusting various aspects of the industrial system… operational assignments, placement of new or repaired apparatus as a function of cost and technical capabilities of the components of the system, the configuration of those components, the real time physical control settings of engine fuel and air, the specific operations or control of the business system or network, such as scheduling spare parts stocking level and location placement, scheduling the type of parts to be stocked such as new parts or rebuilt parts or certified used parts that may not have had a repair, deriving the schedule for maintenance operations applied to the engines and their work scope determination, the costs and risks of service, and myriad other factors… calculation of scenarios of industrial systems exposed to certain exogenous factors with respect to their simulated state estimation, repair work scopes according to the terms of a maintenance and repair guide or a contract for services or regulation, repair resource estimation, contractual revenue and cost estimation and the optimization of assignment and operations policy to satisfy the probabilistic goals; with 0035-0039 [orchestration…in…event and agent based simulation…data driven methods into the simulation…operation simulation], 0023-0025 [is computed in a control system (execution)…achieve…results…schedules…various operating schedules and policies]]), comprising:
an experiment design module for generating experiment design data by selecting one or more factors from a plurality of factors included in reference information as target factors (see citations above and see with ¶¶ 0010 [simulation based orchestration ; with 0014 [decision support interface for co-optimization of design and operations]]; 0035-0040 [orchestration…in…event and agent based simulation…orchestration logic…work scope scheduling, inventory planning, route assignment, asset assignment to a higher level system (e.g., a certain aircraft engine to a certain aircraft) design modification, dynamical control, financing, service contract underwriting, or service contract operations management…scenario planning and purposed orchestration…simulation model…simulation engine…designed…interacting with…simulation]), and
setting levels of the selected target factors, the reference information being an input value to a model that serves as a target of a what-if simulation experiment (see citations above and see with, for example, ¶¶ 0021-0023 [targeted state…adjusting aspects…levels (and other limitations)…factors…planned usages…factors…operating limits…so as to achieve targeted…results; 0041 [what-if tool]], 0057 [with 0065-0070 [factors…thresholds… models are orchestrated through simulation…experiment with what-if scenarios]]); and
an experiment execution module for outputting an experiment execution result by executing the what-if simulation experiment for the model in parallel by using an executor comprising a plurality of execution engines based on the experiment design data (see citations above and in addition to above citations see, for example, ¶¶ 0039-0041 [operations simulation…simulation engine…parallelized…high-performance computing environment, serving multiple…applications…the simulation assumptions data base or in-memory arrays, post-processing the output…interacting with the post-processed databases or computer(s)…reporting the results from the simulation…these models can be used to understand the actual performance of the equipment in its operating environment, ultimately providing better forecasts for performance degradation, maintenance work-scopes, scheduling…models…integrated…used to provide…perspective to identify system-level efficiencies and strategic planning…logical extension…is to model the actual customer and provider operations used to generate desired business outcomes and, ideally, optimize the processes to improve either or both customer and provider financial objectives; with 0044 [simulation engine…parallelized…serving multiple apps…inputs…simulation…analyze the impact of different potential future scenarios, or can be used to conduct sensitivity analysis on parameters of interest…identify win-win recommendations…app…interacting with the core simulation, post-processing the output and reporting the results in a relevant format for the user to make a decision]], 0047-0051).
As per claim 10, claim 10 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 1 above; and therefore claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 1.
As per claim 2, Johnson discloses the device of claim 1, wherein setting the levels of the target factors comprises: selecting types of the levels; and receiving an input for level values for the types of the levels selected (see citations of claim 1 above and for example, among many, see ¶¶ 0021-0023 [parts stocking level…types of parts…operating limits], 0065 [(discusses risk – type of level) factor…threshold…value…limit], 0083-0088 [various types…with 0089 [threshold logic…state condition…state threshold values]], 0101, 0114, 0122-0123 [threshold of reliability risk from point 164 (e.g., no risk or below threshold risk) to point 167 (e.g., near-certain impairment) is a parameter employed in the simulator/optimizer. In the illustrative example of FIGS. 1A-1G, the simulator/optimizer may determine a set point (e.g., particular outage level 162) as the impairment risk limit and thus may request unit repair at approximately time 150 when the remaining useful life value 148 occurring along useful life segment 146 is attained. This set point (e.g., particular outage level 162) may have been another point 166 along the reliability probability 160 if the economics or other metrics of value warranted operations with that risk level for the greater overall asset-level performance], 0129 [discusses business type – impact to risk to return ratio at the enterprise level with a diversity of service contract terms]).
As per claim 3, Johnson discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the types of the levels comprise at least one of: a List type that allows values specified directly by a manager to be defined as the level values, a Range type that allows a minimum value (min), a maximum value (max), and an increment to be set, and a Distribution Sampling type that randomly extracts level values from a specified range (see citations above for claim 2 and see, for example, Figs. 1C, 1E, 1F, 3, 14; ¶¶ 0030-0031 [minimize…cost…minimize fuel consumption; with 0046-0047], 0096 [maximize…minimize…different conditions], 0098-0101 [minimizing…maximized…increasing NPV…shifting the…range…graph…user interface…analyzing…factors…minimize amounts…control levels; with e.g. 0133 [distribution…sampled…statistical sampling], 0108 [optimally set…maximize…benefit], 0114 [distribution…condition…length tail of the T Now distribution may affect when a customer should schedule an inspection of the asset (e.g., to decrease the level of uncertainty regarding the asset's current state to improve forecasts to be within an acceptable threshold or margin of error for a particular time period)…simulations…how to optimize operation of the asset, but also inspections (e.g., horoscope inspections) of the asset; with 0121-0122, with 0133 [distribution…sampled…statistical sampling]]], also see 0178-0179 [sampling…distribution…factors…simulation is unique depending on the random sampling performed…random sampling is limited to wind, takeoff derate and climb derate (e.g. of minimum value (min), a maximum value (max), and an increment to be set)], 0206-0208 [with 0215-0217], 0294 [ ROC curve which is building as compute cycles occur for the system simulation and optimization…threshold system performance is adjustable…KPIs have an upper value 1320 and lower value…density function…distribution…confidence interval…for times t…adjustable parameters]).
As per claim 4, Johnson discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the experiment execution result of the experiment execution module comprises performance indicators (KPIs) (see citations above for claims 1 and 3 and see ¶¶ 0040 [key performance indicator (KPI) objectives], 0266 [KPIs…optimized], 0294 [KPIs], 0297 [KPI outcome…change in KPI…KPI outcomes]).
As per claim 5, Johnson discloses the device of claim 4, wherein the experiment execution module further comprises a custom output processing module, and the experiment execution result comprises custom output data defined by a manager, wherein the custom output data is extracted by the custom output processing module (see citations above for claim 1 and 4 and see, for example, ¶¶ 0044-0047 [simulation…user to configure…user (decision maker)…users…manager…customer design and development…user created scenario…output…results…form of graphs, heat maps, and aggregated values; with 0134 [custom analytics]]]; see also 0187-0189, 0197).
As per claim 6, Johnson discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the model is selected by receiving a selection by a manager via a user interface of the device for designing the what-if simulation experiment (see citations above for claims 1, 3, 4-5, and see ¶¶ 0021-0023 [targeted state…adjusting aspects…levels (and other limitations)…factors…planned usages…factors…operating limits…so as to achieve targeted…results; 0022 [user interface], 0040-0041 [configurable by the user for the user to make a decision…what-if tool]], 0057 [with 0065-0070 [factors…thresholds… models are orchestrated through simulation…present information pertaining to the modelling in user interfaces on the one or more client machines…experiment with what-if scenarios]]; 0089 [presented in a user interface…may experiment with what-if scenarios]).
As per claim 7, Johnson discloses the device of claim 1, further comprising: a data analysis module for analyzing and presenting the experiment execution result to a manager (¶¶ 0009 [data...analytical system], 0039-0044 [data…statistical analysis…simulation…analytic framework…simulation…analyze (data)… post-processing the output and reporting the results…for the user to make decision], 0057 [with 0065-0070 [factors…thresholds… models are orchestrated through simulation…present information pertaining to the modelling in user interfaces on the one or more client machines…experiment with what-if scenarios]]; 0089 [presented in a user interface…may experiment with what-if scenarios]; 0044-0047 [simulation…user to configure…user (decision maker)…users…manager…customer design and development…user created scenario…output…results…form of graphs, heat maps, and aggregated values; with 0134 [custom analytics]]]).
As per claim 8, Johnson discloses the device of claim 7, wherein analyzing the experiment execution result in the data analysis module comprises performing correlation coefficient analysis and sensitivity analysis between the performance indicators and the target factors (see citations above for claims 1, 2-3, 6-7, and see ¶¶ 0038-0042 [shows performing correlation coefficient analysis with detail – planning and purposed orchestration is incorporated to achieve desired states of the physical assets and the operations that use and consume those assets (e.g., using an agent-based and/or discrete event simulation approach)…operations simulation…digital representation of an actual state of an asset or operations model as it can best be approximated at a particular time period based on data inputs and statistical analysis; with 0009 [depicting data and analytical system relationships for asset and operations state control; with 0013 [relationship diagram depicting physical and business optimization of an example industrial system]], 0044 stating [event simulation that models some or all of the provider-customer ecosystem, from airline flights to maintenance and parts management…depending on the inputs, the simulation can be used to analyze the impact of different potential future scenarios, or can be used to conduct sensitivity analysis on parameters of interest…this holistic modeling (correlation coefficient analysis and sensitivity analysis) capability allows a user to configure the simulation to address specific questions to identify win-win recommendations for the provider and customers]], 0047 [sensitivity analysis]; Applicant’s extremely broad limitation is also detailed in the following example in paras. 0086-0087, 0097-0098, 0119-0121, 0129-0130, 0134-0142).
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 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.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al., (US 2017/0323231) in view of Schoch et al., (US 2022/0164725).
As per claim 9, Johnson discloses a system for performing simulation of work schedule of a factory (¶¶ 0021-0023 [industrial system…adjusting various aspects of the industrial system… operational assignments, placement of new or repaired apparatus as a function of cost and technical capabilities of the components of the system, the configuration of those components, the real time physical control settings of engine fuel and air, the specific operations or control of the business system or network, such as scheduling spare parts stocking level and location placement, scheduling the type of parts to be stocked such as new parts or rebuilt parts or certified used parts that may not have had a repair, deriving the schedule for maintenance operations applied to the engines and their work scope determination, the costs and risks of service, and myriad other factors… calculation of scenarios of industrial systems exposed to certain exogenous factors with respect to their simulated state estimation, repair work scopes according to the terms of a maintenance and repair guide or a contract for services or regulation, repair resource estimation, contractual revenue and cost estimation and the optimization of assignment and operations policy to satisfy the probabilistic goals; with 0035-0039 [orchestration…in…event and agent based simulation…data driven methods into the simulation…operation simulation], 0023-0025 [is computed in a control system (execution)…achieve…results…schedules…various operating schedules and policies]]), comprising:
a client device for designing and executing a what-if simulation experiment; a simulation management server including a management module for managing an application for the what-if simulation experiment on the client device (see citations above for claims 1, 3, 4-5, and see ¶¶ 0021-0023 [targeted state…adjusting aspects…levels (and other limitations)…factors…planned usages…factors…operating limits…so as to achieve targeted…results; 0022 [user interface], 0040-0041 [configurable by the user for the user to make a decision…what-if tool]], 0057 [with 0065-0070 [factors…thresholds… models are orchestrated through simulation…present information pertaining to the modelling in user interfaces on the one or more client machines…experiment with what-if scenarios]]; 0089 [presented in a user interface…may experiment with what-if scenarios]); and
an external DB for storing data for the what-if simulation experiment (fig. 3; ¶¶ 0040 [post-processed databases…reporting the results from the simulation; 0024 [shows databases of external computer systems]], 0258 [networked…system…servers…web servers…servers….coupled to database servers]), wherein the client device comprises:
an experiment design module for generating experiment design data by selecting one or more factors from a plurality of factors included in reference information as target factors (see citations above and see with ¶¶ 0010 [simulation based orchestration ; with 0014 [decision support interface for co-optimization of design and operations]]; 0035-0040 [orchestration…in…event and agent based simulation…orchestration logic…work scope scheduling, inventory planning, route assignment, asset assignment to a higher level system (e.g., a certain aircraft engine to a certain aircraft) design modification, dynamical control, financing, service contract underwriting, or service contract operations management…scenario planning and purposed orchestration…simulation model…simulation engine…designed…interacting with…simulation]), and
setting levels of the selected target factors, the reference information being an input value to a model that serves as a target of a what-if simulation experiment (see citations above and see with, for example, ¶¶ 0021-0023 [targeted state…adjusting aspects…levels (and other limitations)…factors…planned usages…factors…operating limits…so as to achieve targeted…results; 0041 [what-if tool]], 0057 [with 0065-0070 [factors…thresholds… models are orchestrated through simulation…experiment with what-if scenarios]]); and
an experiment execution module for outputting an experiment execution result by executing the what-if simulation experiment for the model in parallel by using an executor comprising a plurality of execution engines based on the experiment design data, wherein the simulation management server further comprises a simulation module for executing the what-if simulation experiment (see citations above and in addition to above citations see, for example, ¶¶ 0039-0042 [operations simulation…simulation engine…parallelized…high-performance computing environment, serving multiple…applications…the simulation assumptions data base or in-memory arrays, post-processing the output…interacting with the post-processed databases or computer(s)…reporting the results from the simulation…these models can be used to understand the actual performance of the equipment in its operating environment, ultimately providing better forecasts for performance degradation, maintenance work-scopes, scheduling…models…integrated…used to provide…perspective to identify system-level efficiencies and strategic planning…logical extension…is to model the actual customer and provider operations used to generate desired business outcomes and, ideally, optimize the processes to improve either or both customer and provider financial objectives…discrete-event simulation models (0043 shows an example of what-if experiment being done with model is intended to simulate the ecosystem on the time-scale of months to years to understand the aggregate impact of operating decisions over time); with 0044 [simulation engine…parallelized…serving multiple apps…inputs…simulation…analyze the impact of different potential future scenarios, or can be used to conduct sensitivity analysis on parameters of interest…identify win-win recommendations…app…interacting with the core simulation, post-processing the output and reporting the results in a relevant format for the user to make a decision]], 0047-0051), and if the client device transmits an experiment execution request to the simulation management server, the what-if simulation experiment by the experiment execution module is not executed (¶¶ 0070 [discusses the module to experiment with what-if scenarios; see with 0043 [discrete-event simulation models (shows an example of what-if scenario being done with model is intended to simulate the ecosystem on the time-scale of months to years to understand the aggregate impact of operating decisions over time) – notes the module 0070 and 0043 are not the same and 0070 shows a side experiment – there are separate modules described in Johnson and they don’t run together], 0087-0095 [also show the separation of different modules through which a use can run various experimental simulation and when one is used the other is not used – see with e.g. 0133, 0135, 0137-0138, 0146-0169 [various modules]]], 0257 [module…client machines…client applications…include modules]).
Johnson does not explicitly state (although it is implicit in its processes) a module not selected/used.
Analogous art Schoch discloses, in an industrial setting, a module not selected/used (for example, see ¶¶ 0074 [that some modules are used and other are not], 0108).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Johnson a module not selected/used as taught by analogous art Schoch since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Schoch would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, some of the pertinent art is as follows:
Yu et al., (US 2022/0100922): Provides for predicting industrial automation network performance, a method generates algorithm parameters in a first standard format for a network calculus model from design data for a network implementation. The method generates the network calculus model from the algorithm parameters. The network calculus model models worst-case performance for the network implementation. The method generates model parameters in a second standard format for a network simulation model from the design data. The method generates the network simulation model from the model parameters. The network simulation model models probabilistic performance for the network implementation. The method executes the network calculus model to determine network calculus results. The method executes the network simulation model to determine network simulation results. The method determines a system policy difference between the network calculus results, the network simulation results, and the system policy. The method updates the design data based on the system policy difference.
Chun (US 2014/0046633): Relates to a simulation apparatus and a method for designing and simulating a model concurrently but separately. The simulation apparatus includes a model designing device configured to design a plurality of simulation models, and a model simulating device configured to be physically separated from but logically connected to the model designing device to simulate the plurality of simulation models designed in the model designing device.
Chen et al., (US 8,065,132): Illustrates executing stochastic discrete event simulations for a stochastic model through a design of experiments approach. Streams of random numbers are associated with stochastic model components that are sources of random variation within the stochastic model. A system is configured to manage the streams while the stochastic model is being executed during a simulation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. 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.
/Gurkanwaljit Singh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights