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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-20, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claims recite an abstract idea reflected in the representative functions of the independent claims—including:
receiving a selection of a first dataset associated with one or more operations of one or more industrial automation components of an industrial system configured to perform a batch operation;
generating an optimized dataset based on the dataset;
receiving a second dataset associated with one or more additional operations of one or more additional industrial automation components of an additional industrial system configured to perform an additional batch operation;
determining one or more deviations between the optimized dataset and the second dataset;
determining a contribution of each of a set of parameters to the one or more deviations; and
generating a visualization representative of the contribution of each of a set of parameters to the deviation.
These limitations taken together qualify as a certain method of organizing human activities because they recite collecting, analyzing, and outputting information determining deviations from optimal operations of industrial equipment (i.e., in the terminology of the 2019 Revised Guidance, fundamental economic practices). Additionally, it recites processes that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper (e.g., a person observing and evaluating industrial operations datasets, then arriving at a judgment on deviations). Finally, it also recites mathematical calculations/relationships (generating an optimized dataset based on the dataset, determining one or more deviations between the optimized dataset and the second dataset, determining a contribution of each of a set of parameters to the one or more deviations).
It shares similarities with other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts (see Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)—process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, which also characterizes the invention; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)—obtaining and comparing intangible data, which also characterizes the invention; Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 890 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018)—parsing, comparing, storing, and editing data, which also characterizes the invention; University of Florida Research Foundation v. GE Company, 916 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019)—collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and displaying data, which also characterizes the invention; SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018)—collection and mathematical analysis of financial data, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as collection and mathematical analysis of industrial system data).
These cases describe significantly similar aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The elements merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment (e.g., computers and the Internet) in which to carry out the judicial exception (processing system, non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself (e.g., modules, program code, etc. to automate the abstract idea), this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it."
Aside from such instructions to implement the abstract idea, they are solely used for generic computer operations (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data), employing the computer as a tool. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.") (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (emphasis added). That the claims are being applied in the context of one or more industrial automation components of an industrial system configured to perform a batch operation is merely a field-of-use limitation and a source of data gathering (see also Electric Power Grp. above, which analyzed real-time power grid metrics and displayed a result of the analysis).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they amount to nothing more than a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to apply it there). Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional computing elements (processing system, non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions—see published Specification ¶ 0037 describing these at a high level of generality, as "general purpose," and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements).
That the claims are being applied in the context of one or more industrial automation components of an industrial system configured to perform a batch operation is merely a field-of-use limitation and a source of data gathering (see also Electric Power Grp. above, which analyzed real-time power grid metrics and displayed a result of the analysis). The Specification also supports that these are not particular components but instead reference a wide variety of possible elements (published Specification ¶ 0033).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these basic computer functions).
"The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer components recited in the claims—such as a database, user terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole, into 'significantly more' than a claim to the abstract idea itself. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (i.e., they merely narrow the abstract idea by adding limitations that fit into the abstract categories identified above for the same reasons and without adding any new additional elements beyond it, e.g., adding the further mathematical calculations in claims 4-7). Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims (i.e., a generic computer). Claims 2, 9, and 16 add the additional limitations of generating and sending one or more commands to the industrial automation components. However, there is no detail as to what type of command or to what type of components these are. At the high level of generality claimed, this merely presents an insignificant extra-solution activity. It is only tangentially related and has no specific nexus with the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. Although they add the elements identified in 2A above (i.e., generating and sending one or more commands to the industrial automation components), these do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known elements for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above (see ¶ 0049 describing the elements at a high level of generality and absent any particular technical detail, thus demonstrating that these limitations are conventional). Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hallihole, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0354684 (Reference A of the attached PTO-892).
As per claim 1, Hallihole teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, via a processing system (¶ 0099), a selection of a first dataset associated with one or more operations of one or more industrial automation components of an industrial system configured to perform a batch operation (¶ 0128; see also ¶¶ 0078, 115—industrial automation components of an industrial system configured to perform a batch operation);
generating, via the processing system, an optimized dataset based on the dataset (¶¶ 0050, 140);
receiving, the processing system, a second dataset associated with one or more additional operations of one or more additional industrial automation components of an additional industrial system configured to perform an additional batch operation (¶¶ 0088, 116, 154);
determining, via the processing system, one or more deviations between the optimized dataset and the second dataset (¶ 0057, 87-88, 119, 130);
determining, via the processing system, a contribution of each of a set of parameters to the one or more deviations (¶¶ 0135, 144, 163); and
generating, via the processing system, a visualization representative of the contribution of each of a set of parameters to the deviation (¶ 0125; Fig. 5).
As per claim 2, Hallihole teaches claim 1 as above. Hallihole further teaches receiving, the processing system, feedback associated with at least one of the set of parameters (¶¶ 0094, 130, 137); generating, via the processing system, one or more commands for the one or more industrial automation components based on the feedback (¶ 0143); and sending, via the processing system, the one or more commands to the one or more industrial automation components (¶ 0143).
As per claim 3, Hallihole teaches claim 2 as above. Hallihole further teaches receiving the feedback via a user input (¶¶ 0090, 94, 137).
As per claim 4, Hallihole teaches claim 1 as above. Hallihole further teaches the optimized dataset is generated by normalizing the dataset (¶ 0050).
As per claim 5, Hallihole teaches claim 4 as above. Hallihole further teaches the optimized dataset corresponds to a normal distribution that is normalized based on a mean of the dataset and a standard deviation of the dataset (¶¶ 0051, 70).
As per claim 6, Hallihole teaches claim 5 as above. Hallihole further teaches the optimized dataset is normalized based on a minimum and a maximum of the dataset in response to the dataset deviating from the normal distribution (¶ 0050).
As per claims 8-13, Hallihole teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause a processing system to perform operations (¶ 0099) comprising: steps implementing the analogous features of claims 1-6 (see citations above).
As per claims 15-20, Hallihole teaches a system, comprising: one or more industrial automation components of an industrial system configured to perform a batch operation (¶¶ 0078, 115); and a processing system configured to perform operations (¶ 0099) comprising: steps implementing the analogous features of claims 1-6 (see citations above).
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.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallihole, et al. in view of Jun, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0142936 (Reference B of the attached PTO-892).
As per claims 7 and 14, Hallihole teaches claims 1 and 8 as above. Hallihole does not explicitly teach the contribution of each of the set of parameters to the one or more deviations is determined based on an adjusted symmetric mean absolute percentage; which is taught by Jun (¶¶ 0062-65). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element because it is merely a combination of old elements in the art of analysis and diagnostics of industrial facilities (see Jun ¶ 0006). In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mazur, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0026334 (Reference C of the attached PTO-892) relates to industrial performance analytics.
Paulitsch, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0267368 (Reference D of the attached PTO-892) relates to industrial performance analytics.
Jin, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/01777754 (Reference E of the attached PTO-892) relates to industrial performance analytics.
Strohmenger, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0274552 (Reference F of the attached PTO-892) relates to industrial performance analytics.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628