Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/475,681

Operator Centric System for Resolution of Abnormal Situations in a Plant

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Sep 27, 2023
Examiner
OGG, DAVID EARL
Art Unit
2119
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
ABB Schweiz AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
241 granted / 290 resolved
+28.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
317
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
13.2%
-26.8% vs TC avg
§103
41.0%
+1.0% vs TC avg
§102
10.9%
-29.1% vs TC avg
§112
30.9%
-9.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 290 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim Objections Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: The backslash “\” at the end of claim 2 should be removed. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 3, 17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The term “key performance indicators, KPIs” should read “key performance indicators (KPIs)”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “piping and instrumentation diagram, P&ID” should read “piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID)”. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al, US Patent Pub US 20200293032 A1 (hereinafter Wang). Claim 1 Wang discloses an assistance system for analyzing an abnormal situation in an industrial plant, the industrial plant comprising components of the plant (Wang, para 101-104 - Extremely Fast Substation Monitoring System (EFSMS) module used to monitor the health of one or more assets of a power grid system.), the assistance system comprising: a plant topology repository comprising a representation of the components of the plant and relations between the components (Wang, para 116 - The repository contains topology data such as PMU/SCADA-based topology data that is indicative of a topology of components for the power grid system); a monitoring subsystem configured for monitoring signals from the components and for monitoring a related event, as a key for the monitored signals (Wang, para 36-38, 49, Fig. 3 refs(300-360) - An on-line monitor module performs real time data streaming, analysis and decision-making processes at a sub-second rate for performance and classification of on-line data/signals and events, and a similarity between a new instances and an existing training instance/”key for the monitored signals”.); an aggregation subsystem configured for storing a plurality of the monitored signals and the related events, wherein at least one of the events is the abnormal situation (Wang, para 118-119 – The repository contains a variety of event and event analysis data, including anomaly/abnormal data.); an identification subsystem configured for comparing currently monitored signals to stored monitored signals and the related events (Wang, para 38, 46-47, 79 - A multi-class classifier using a neural network model that monitors on-line data/”currently monitored signals” with stored data and event data.); and an evaluation subsystem configured for outputting a predefined action, if the currently monitored signals match to the event that is the abnormal situation. (Wang, para 104, 119 - If a processor identifies an anomaly such as an asset or sensor which has failed or is about to fail, an alert/”predefined action”, such as an alarm message, may be transmitted to computing device tasked with managing operation of that asset or sensor.) This rejection also applies to claim 15. Claim 2 Wang discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. Wang further discloses the signals comprise current, temperature, and/or further loggable signals of the components. (Wang, para 38 – Monitored data/signals including current, temperature, and other operational/signal data that can be stored/logged.) This rejection also applies to claims 16 and 19. Claim 3 Wang discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. Wang further discloses the events comprise alarms, named situations, quality measures, and/or further key performance indicators, KPIs. (Wang, para 33, 38, 65-66 – Events including alarms, power quality, operator-acknowledged event with a label/”named situations”.) This rejection also applies to claims 17 and 20. Claim 6 Wang discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. Wang further discloses the predefined action comprises to highlight the components involved in the abnormal situation. (Wang, para 96, 104 – An alarm/predefined action that indicates/highlights abnormal condition in substation equipment.) Claim 7 Wang discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. Wang further discloses the predefined action comprises to display the signals involved in the abnormal situation. (Wang, para 101, 104 – Displaying statistical information related to disturbances and events in an alarm/predefined action.) Claim 8 Wang discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. Wang further discloses the predefined action comprises ordering a maintenance and/or a repair of at least one of the components (Wang, para 28 - Early warning indications may be provided for potentially malfunctioning equipment, and equipment may be proactively replaced or repaired before the equipment becomes damage.) Claim 9 Wang discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. Wang further discloses the predefined action is attributed with an amount of executions. (Wang, para 35 – An alarm/”predefined action” based on a number of unclassified instances reach to a certain threshold number/”amount of executions”.) Claim 10 Wang discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. Wang further discloses comprising a simulator, configured for simulating effects of the predefined action. (Wang, para 96 – A dispatcher training simulator used to simulate fault conditions to generate training alarms/”predefined action”.) Claim 13 Wang discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. Wang further discloses a knowledge extractor, configured for searching information about the components. (Wang, para 35-36 - Automatic updating of a model by searching for PMU related asset condition data from publicly available resources.) Claim 14 Wang discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. Wang further discloses an artificial neural net, ANN, based matching engine, configured for comparing currently monitored signals to stored monitored signals and the related events. (Wang, para 32, 80 – The volume of PMU data together with operational and non-operational data, along with the help of advanced artificial intelligence (AI), an Artificial neural network (ANN), and/or machine learning (ML) technology for asset monitoring and diagnosis.) Claim 18 Wang discloses a method for training an artificial neural net (ANN) for comparing currently monitored signals to stored monitored signals and a related event (Wang, para 32, 80 – The volume of PMU data together with operational and non-operational data, along with the help of advanced artificial intelligence (AI), an Artificial neural network (ANN), and/or machine learning (ML) technology for asset monitoring and diagnosis.), the method comprising the steps of: selecting a set of components of an industrial plant and stored signals from the components (Wang, para 52 – An automatic feature extraction, transformation (time, frequency, etc.), selection and aggregation to facilitate the classifier decision making process.); for each event, using a sequence of stored signals and an evaluation-value as an input for the ANN (Wang, para 85-86 – The classifier takes event data consisting of streaming time series/”sequence of stored signals” to a pretrained time series/”evaluation value” as input the ANN.); and when a predefined positive matching-criterion for the event is exceeded and/or a predefined negative matching-criterion is underrun, stopping the training. (Wang, para 93 - The last layer of a neural network is a softmax function layer, which is the algebraic simplification of N logistic classifiers, normalized per class by the sum of the N−1 other logistic classifiers/” positive matching-criterion for the event”.) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 non-obviousness. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al, US Patent Pub US 20200293032 A1 (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-20 above, in view of Chen, “How OPC UA Servers Facilitate Efficient SCADA Device Data Management”, 2014, Moxa, pp 1-10 (hereinafter Chen) Claim 4 Wang discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. But Wang fails to specify the monitored signals and/or the related events are monitored by means of an Open Platform Communications Unified Architecture (OPC UA). However Chen teaches the monitored signals and/or the related events are monitored by means of an Open Platform Communications Unified Architecture (OPC UA). (Chen, pg 2 – Communicating monitored signals and events from monitored devices/components using OPC UA.) Wang and Chen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to plant control systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above plant control system, as taught by Wang, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide a seamless communication solution that can save an impressive amount of bandwidth by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Chen (abstract). Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al, US Patent Pub US 20200293032 A1 (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-20 above, in view of Kimura et al, US Patent Pub US 20200257277 A1 (hereinafter Kimura) Claim 5 Wang discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. But Wang fails to specify the plant topology repository is a piping and instrumentation diagram, P&ID, and/or uses a P&ID semantic. However Kimura teaches the plant topology repository is a piping and instrumentation diagram, P&ID, and/or uses a P&ID semantic. (Kimura, para 38-40 – Plant topology and the piping and instrumentation diagram is stored/repository and used to create the system models.) Wang and Kimura are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to plant control systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above plant control system, as taught by Wang, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Kimura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to easily generate a dynamic model for performing a dynamic simulation of a plant, by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Kimura (abstract). Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al, US Patent Pub US 20200293032 A1 (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-20 above, in view of B-Scada, “User guide part 9 Alarming”, 2017, B-Scada Status Enterprise, pp 8-11 Claim 11 Wang discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. But Wang fails to specify an event annotation system, configured for annotate textual, graphical, and/or other kind of notes to an event. However BScada teaches an event annotation system, configured for annotate textual, graphical, and/or other kind of notes to an event. (BScada, sec 3.2 – Adding a comment/annotation that allows for text comments relating to an alarm in an event log.) Wang and Kimura are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to event monitoring systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above event monitoring system, as taught by Wang, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Kimura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to easily generate a dynamic model for performing a dynamic simulation of a plant by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Kimura (abstract). Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al, US Patent Pub US 20200293032 A1 (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-20 above, in view of Khandrika et al, US Patent Pub US 20080276253 A1 (hereinafter Khandrika) Claim 12 Wang discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. But Wang fails to specify an event journal, configured for storing dependencies between at least two components and/or their signals. However Khandrika teaches an event journal, configured for storing dependencies between at least two components and/or their signals. (Khandrika, para 18-19 - Event correlation template specifies various components of distributed application, the relationships between the components, and the relationships between events logged by the different components.) Wang and Khandrika are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to plant control systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above plant control system, as taught by Wang, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Khandrika. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide automated event correlation by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Khandrika (para 1). Citation of Pertinent Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Miller, US Patent Pub US 20080065705 relates to claims regarding process data collection and monitoring information from field devices and the process controllers, alarming, detecting abnormal situations, and OPC connections. Miller et al, US Patent Pub US 20080125877A1 relates to claims regarding process data collection and monitoring information from field devices and the process controllers, alarming, detecting abnormal situations, and OPC connections. Pandian et al, US Patent Pub US 20180017959 A1 relates to claims regarding detecting instances of a control system event, communicating the event to operators, and detecting alarms, failures or other abnormal events. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E OGG whose telephone number is (469) 295-9163. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Thurs 7:30 am - 5:00 pm CT. 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, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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. /DAVID EARL OGG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 27, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596339
PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT DEVICE, PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591217
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING A CONFIGURATION PROCESS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12572134
I/O Server Services for Selecting and Utilizing Active Controller Outputs from Containerized Controller Services in a Process Control Environment
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12547153
METHOD, CONTROL UNIT, MEASUREMENT SYSTEM, COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12544834
AGENT DROPLET DEPOSITION DENSITY DETERMINATIONS FOR POROUS ARTICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+12.1%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 290 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month