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 1-4, 6-9, 11-17 are pending.
Claims 5, 10, 18-20 are cancelled.
Claim Objections
The objection to the claims has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
In Remarks p. 7, Applicant contends there is no disclosure in Wang that the grid operator performs the desired corrective action based on anything else than on the operator's own expertise.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that Wang para 119 describes "an alert, such as a message, may be transmitted to computing device tasked with managing operation of that asset or sensor". The computing device's management of operation of the asset would apply to the claimed taking corrective actions based on the received message.
In Remarks p. 7, Applicant contends any modification of Wang to include the claimed subject matter would necessarily rely on the Applicant's own teachings as providing the motivation for any modification and this would amount to an improper hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that in response to Applicant's argument that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgement on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed Apr 24, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant's amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 15 each recite the limitation "and based on the simulated effects, for foreseeing consequences before actually implementing the predefined action". The limitation appears to refer to an action "based on the simulated effects", but only follows with a purpose statement and no action based on the simulated effects. The Examiner is interpreting the limitation as determining consequences before actual implementation of the predefined action. The meaning of the term is not clear from the claims or specification.
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) 1-3, 6-9, 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al, US Patent Pub US 20200293032 A1 (hereinafter Wang), in view of Kimura et al, US Patent Pub US 20200257277 A1 (hereinafter Kimura), in view of Kimura et al, US Patent Pub US 20200257277 A1 (hereinafter Kimura), and in view of Aylott et al, US Patent Pub US 20160188769 A1 (hereinafter Aylott).
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.)
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).
But the combination of Wang and Kimura fails to specify a simulator, configured for simulating effects of the predefined action and based on the simulated effects, for foreseeing consequences before actually implementing the predefined action.
However Aylott teaches a simulator, configured for simulating effects of the predefined action and based on the simulated effects, for foreseeing consequences before actually implementing the predefined action. (Aylott, para 4, 482-493 – A simulation model that is used to simulate production effects based on expected performance and changes to equipment, feed rates, or product specifications to forecast for known future effects /”foreseeing consequences” which may alter engineering decisions/”predefined actions” based purely on current conditions.)
Wang, Kimura, and Aylott 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 Kimura, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Aylott.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to enable an engineer to forecast for known future effects (such as well depletion or equipment performance degradation) which may alter engineering decisions based purely on current conditions by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Aylott (para 4).
This rejection also applies to claim 15.
Claim 2
The combination of Wang, Kimura, and Aylott teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Wang, Kimura, and Aylott further teaches 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
The combination of Wang, Kimura, and Aylott teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Wang, Kimura, and Aylott further teaches 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
The combination of Wang, Kimura, and Aylott teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Wang, Kimura, and Aylott further teaches 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
The combination of Wang, Kimura, and Aylott teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Wang, Kimura, and Aylott further teaches 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
The combination of Wang, Kimura, and Aylott teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Wang, Kimura, and Aylott further teaches 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
The combination of Wang, Kimura, and Aylott teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Wang, Kimura, and Aylott further teaches 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 13
The combination of Wang, Kimura, and Aylott teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Wang, Kimura, and Aylott further teaches 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
The combination of Wang, Kimura, and Aylott teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Wang, Kimura, and Aylott further teaches 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(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) , in view of Kimura et al, US Patent Pub US 20200257277 A1 (hereinafter Kimura), in view of Kimura et al, US Patent Pub US 20200257277 A1 (hereinafter Kimura), and in view of Aylott et al, US Patent Pub US 20160188769 A1 (hereinafter Aylott) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-9, 13-17 above, in view of Chen, “How OPC UA Servers Facilitate Efficient SCADA Device Data Management”, 2014, Moxa, pp 1-10 (hereinafter Chen)
Claim 4
The combination of Wang, Kimura, and Aylott teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Wang, Kimura, and Aylott 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, Kimura, Aylott, 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, Kimura, and Aylott, 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) 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), in view of Kimura et al, US Patent Pub US 20200257277 A1 (hereinafter Kimura), in view of Kimura et al, US Patent Pub US 20200257277 A1 (hereinafter Kimura), and in view of Aylott et al, US Patent Pub US 20160188769 A1 (hereinafter Aylott) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-9, 13-17 above, in view of B-Scada, “User guide part 9 Alarming”, 2017, B-Scada Status Enterprise, pp 8-11
Claim 11
The combination of Wang, Kimura, and Aylott teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Wang, Kimura, and Aylott 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), in view of Kimura et al, US Patent Pub US 20200257277 A1 (hereinafter Kimura), in view of Kimura et al, US Patent Pub US 20200257277 A1 (hereinafter Kimura), and in view of Aylott et al, US Patent Pub US 20160188769 A1 (hereinafter Aylott) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-9, 13-17 above, in view of Khandrika et al, US Patent Pub US 20080276253 A1 (hereinafter Khandrika)
Claim 12
The combination of Wang, Kimura, and Aylott teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Wang, Kimura, and Aylott 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, Kimura, Aylott, 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, Kimura, and Aylott, 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).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights