DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-14 have been presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
PRIORITY
3. Acknowledgment is made that this application is a continuation of PCT/EP2022/064787 filed 05/31/2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to EP 21179326.0 filed 06/14/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/12/23, 5/2/25, and 6/11/26 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS’ as to the merits.
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.
5. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
i) In view of Step 1 of the analysis, claim(s) 1 is directed to a statutory category as a process which represents a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-14 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
ii) In view of Step 2A, Prong One, claim 1 recites the abstract idea of modeling intentions of a user which constitutes an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
The limitation of "formulating, by an assistance system, intentions of an actor by guiding the actor to provide the intentions to the assistance system in a controlled natural language using semi-formal phrases, wherein the intentions are hierarchically structured and comprise at least a goal, describing a goal to be achieved, at least an implementation, describing how the goal can be achieved, and at least a requirement describing requirements for the at least one implementation;” would be analogous to a person formulating a goal based on a given intention and thus fall under Mental Processes. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
The limitation of “translating, by the assistance system, the intentions into an intention model, wherein the intention model describes a relationship between the intentions;” would be analogous to a person formulating a goal based on a given intention and thus fall under Mental Processes. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-14 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
iii) In view of Step 2A, Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitation in claim 1 of “transforming, by the assistance system, the intention model into a graphical representation of the intention model and providing the graphical representation to the actor;” and “modeling, by the assistance system, the intention model using modelling data provided by the actor, wherein the graphical representation allows the actor to provide the modelling data to the assistance system” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of “transforming, by the assistance system, the intention model into a graphical representation of the intention model and providing the graphical representation to the actor;” and “modeling, by the assistance system, the intention model using modelling data provided by the actor, wherein the graphical representation allows the actor to provide the modelling data to the assistance system” claim 1, alternatively can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-14 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
iv) In view of Step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation in claim 1 of “transforming, by the assistance system, the intention model into a graphical representation of the intention model and providing the graphical representation to the actor;” and “modeling, by the assistance system, the intention model using modelling data provided by the actor, wherein the graphical representation allows the actor to provide the modelling data to the assistance system” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of “transforming, by the assistance system, the intention model into a graphical representation of the intention model and providing the graphical representation to the actor;” and “modeling, by the assistance system, the intention model using modelling data provided by the actor, wherein the graphical representation allows the actor to provide the modelling data to the assistance system” in claim 1, alternatively can be viewed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 further defines elements of the modeling which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claim 3 further defines elements of the modeling which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claim 4 further defines attributes of the modeling which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claim 5 further defines elements of the modeling which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claim 6 further defines elements of the modeling which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claim 7 further defines attributes of the modeling which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claim 8 further defines elements of the modeling which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claim 9 further defines elements of the natural language which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claim 10 further defines elements of the natural language which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claim 11 further defines the goal of the modeling which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claim 12 further defines verification of the modeling which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claim 13 further defines the goal of the modeling which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claim 14 further defines additional uses of the modeling which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
v) Accordingly, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
6. Claims 1-14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. i) The term “semi-formal” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “semi-formal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such the claims are rendered vague and indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
All claims dependent upon a rejected base claim are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
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.
7. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Tommila, Teemu, Juhani Hirvonen, and Antti Pakonen. "Fuzzy ontologies for retrieval of industrial knowledge–a case study." VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland: Espoo, Finland (2010), hereafter T.
Regarding Claim 1: The reference discloses A method for formulation and modelling of intentions in process plant engineering, comprising:
formulating, by an assistance system, intentions of an actor by guiding the actor to provide the intentions to the assistance system in a controlled natural language using semi-formal phrases, wherein the intentions are hierarchically structured and comprise at least a goal, describing a goal to be achieved, at least an implementation, describing how the goal can be achieved, and at least a requirement describing requirements for the at least one implementation; (T. Page 13, “In the KNOWMOBILE project, we developed a concept of a tool for searching plant knowledge with a search engine based on a fuzzy ontology. The usage scenario for the tool was that a process expert, dealing with a problem in the process chemistry of a pa-per machine, wishes to find past problem solving cases of a similar setting in order to find possible solutions to a current issue.”)
translating, by the assistance system, the intentions into an intention model, wherein the intention model describes a relationship between the intentions; (T. Page 18, “Classification (is-a) and decomposition (part-of) can be found in most ontologies and data models. They are important in the industrial context as well. So, the keywords in each category are linked by is-a and part-of relationships as illustrated in Figure 6. Fur-thermore, the ontology should model functional and other kinds of dependencies be-tween keywords in various keyword categories.”)
transforming, by the assistance system, the intention model into a graphical representation of the intention model and providing the graphical representation to the actor; (T. Figure 21)
modeling, by the assistance system, the intention model using modelling data provided by the actor, wherein the graphical representation allows the actor to provide the modelling data to the assistance system. (T. Page 37, “The GUI component (Graphical User Interface) guides the user in specifying the infor-mation query, and presents the results. Tools for browsing and evaluating the fuzzy rea-soner component directly were also provided.”)
Regarding Claim 2: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein modelling the intention model comprises adjusting and/or extending the intentions of the intention model. (T. Page 37, “The fuzzy ontology reasoner component is used to process ontology-based informa-tion. Its main function in the demo is to extend a list of query keywords to a list of their closest neighbours in terms of fuzzy ontology relationships. For maintenance and evaluation purposes, the component interface also provides methods for directly access-ing the ontology concepts and relationships.
Finally, the application logic component binds all the functionality together by taking the query, using the reasoner component to extend it, passing the extended query to the report database and then combining and ordering the results for the GUI.” See also Page 44, “ Furthermore, use the concept relationships defined in the Paperbase terminol-ogy to further extend the query to related keywords.”)
Regarding Claim 3: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the actor is guided to provide the intention that each implementation is assigned to at least one goal; and that each requirement is assigned to at least one implementation intention. (T. Figure 18)
Regarding Claim 4: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the intention model comprises a plurality of abstraction layers, wherein the intentions are assigned to the abstraction layers; and wherein at least one goal is assigned to each abstraction layer. (T. Figure 18)
Regarding Claim 5: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the intention model applies an ontology-based representation of concepts and their relations of the semi-formal phrases. (T. Figure 13)
Regarding Claim 6: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein formulating the intentions comprises inferring, by a reasoning engine of the assistance system, the semi-formal phrases using a knowledge database of the assistance system. (T. Page 9, “Typically ontologies describe concepts (classes), individuals, properties and relations relevant for an application area. In addition to conceptual models, ontologies apply for-mal Description Logics (DL) to define the rules and axioms that describe the logical inferences and fundamental truths of the domain. An ontology language, such as the Web Ontology Language (OWL, see W3C 2009), is used to encode the ontology. As such, an ontology is far more complicated than a taxonomy that is mostly focussed on the classification of concepts in a domain.”)
Regarding Claim 7: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein each abstraction layer is associated with a discipline of the actor modelling the intention model. (T. Page 30, “A possible dimension for categorising technical systems comes from their primary pur-pose and engineering discipline. The role of process systems is to transfer and transform process materials. In other words, process systems are more or less identical to the term ”process equipment”. They belong to the realm or process and plant engineers.”)
Regarding Claim 8: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the intention model comprises an actor boundary comprising the intentions of the actor; wherein the intention model within the actor boundary comprises the goal and the implementation that are modelled by the actor, and wherein the actor models the intention model outside of the actor boundary, wherein the intention model outside of the actor boundary comprises the requirements; and wherein the requirements define requirements for the intention model modelled by another actor. (T. Figure 16, where several different systems are classified by purpose and discipline and involve different actors and requirements)
Regarding Claim 9: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the controlled natural language comprises fixed text blocks, predefined key words, predefined logical operators and/or free text fields with natural language. (T. Figure 31)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 nonobviousness.
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.
8. Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over T in view of Becerra Castro, Carlos, Javier Franch Gutiérrez, and Hernán Astudillo Rojas. "From i* models to service oriented architecture models." Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Architectures, Concepts and Technologies for Service Oriented Computing, ACT4SOC 2010, in Conjunction withICSOFT 2010. INSTICC Press, 2010, hereafter Becerra.
Regarding Claim 10: T does not explicitly recite The method of claim 1, further comprising transforming the semi-formal phrase using a goal-oriented requirements language (GRL), wherein the GRL uses a subset of an i* goal modelling framework.
However Becerra discloses transforming the semi-formal phrase using a goal-oriented requirements language (GRL), wherein the GRL uses a subset of an i* goal modelling framework. (Becerra. Page 1, 3rd paragraph “generates candidate architectures from i* [20] models and helps architects to select a solution, with the SOA patterns using. The i* models are used because: facilitates reasoning about the purpose of a proposed solution; i* models can be analyzed to demonstrate which goals realize other goals and which goals conflict or negatively contribute to other goals; demonstrates the contribution of the proposed and designed solution to the actual need [22].”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the GRL aspect of Becerra with the model of T since it “facilitates reasoning about the purpose of a proposed solution; i* models can be analyzed to demonstrate which goals realize other goals and which goals conflict or negatively contribute to other goals; demonstrates the contribution of the proposed and designed solution to the actual need…” (Becerra. Page 1, 3rd paragraph)
9. Claim(s) 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over T in view of Ahmad, Mussawar, et al. "Ensuring the consistency between assembly process planning and machine control software." 2017 IEEE 15th International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN). IEEE, 2017, hereafter Ahmad.
Regarding Claim 11: T does not explicitly recite The method of claim 1, further comprising providing, by the assistance system, possible design solutions for the process plant that fulfil the intentions.
However Ahmad discloses providing, by the assistance system, possible design solutions for the process plant that fulfil the intentions. (Ahmad. Page 73, Figure 3-4 with respective “design validation”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the design solution aspect of Ahmad with the model of T in order “to highlight
(almost instantaneously) what aspects of the Resource domain may need modifications and at what level” and “ enable effective communication and design verification.” (Ahmad. Figure 3-4)
Regarding Claim 12: T does not explicitly recite The method of claim 1, further comprising performing, by the assistance system, a consistency check of the intention model.
However Ahmad discloses performing, by the assistance system, a consistency check of the intention model. (Ahmad. Page 98, Figure 3-17 with respect to consistency checking)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the consistency checking aspect of Ahmad with the model of T in order “to highlight
(almost instantaneously) what aspects of the Resource domain may need modifications and at what level” and “enable effective communication and design verification” (Ahmad. Figure 3-4) and “allow one to determine whether or not the respective descriptions are inconsistent” (Ahmad. Page 98, top paragraph)
Regarding Claim 13: T does not explicitly recite The method of claim 1, further comprising designing at least part of the process plant using the intention model and the provided design solutions.
However Ahmad discloses designing at least part of the process plant using the intention model and the provided design solutions. (Ahmad. Page 73, Figure 3-4 with respective “design validation”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the design solution aspect of Ahmad with the model of T in order “to highlight
(almost instantaneously) what aspects of the Resource domain may need modifications and at what level” and “ enable effective communication and design verification.” (Ahmad. Figure 3-4)
Regarding Claim 14: T does not explicitly recite The method of claim 1, further comprising providing, by the assistance system, a product, process, and resource (PPR) model extension of the intention model providing a PPR view to the actor using the intention model (MI).
However Ahmad discloses providing, by the assistance system, a product, process, and resource (PPR) model extension of the intention model providing a PPR view to the actor using the intention model (MI). (Ahmad. Page 26, first paragraph, “respective engineering tools to more accurately model the PPR domain relations and, where possible, provided a mechanism for integrating the generated data within consistent modelling and simulation environments . The major benefit is to make unambiguous the implicit relationships that exist between domains, thus moving toward the objective of facilitating rapid, error-free change and re-design/-engineering of manufacturing systems in response to new requirements (e.g. product design, production process and volume changes).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the PPR aspect of Ahmad with the model of T in order to “facilitating rapid, error-free change and re-design/-engineering of manufacturing systems in response to new requirements (e.g. product design, production process and volume changes).”)” (Ahmad. Page 26, first paragraph)
Conclusion
10. All Claims are rejected.
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
i) Lind, Morten, et al. "Modeling operating modes for the Monju nuclear power plant." Proc. 8 th ANS International Topic Meeting on Nuclear Plant Instrumentation, Control and Human-Machine Interface Technologies NIC&HMIT, San Diego, California. 2012.
ii) Lind, Morten. "Modeling Goals and Functions of Control and Safety Systems-theoretical foundations and extensions of MFM." (2005).
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10:00-6:00.
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, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SAA
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights