DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Communication received on December 13, 2023 for application number 18/538,380. This Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, and Claims.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
This application claims the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), filed on June 14, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/13/2023 and 08/13/2025 are noted. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to Judicial Exceptions without significantly more. The claims recite mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculation and a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recitation of generic computer and generic computer components does not sufficient to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims only recites generic computer components, which are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The USPTO has published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under the Guidance, the Examiner first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (Guidance, Step 2A, prong 1); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) (9th Ed., Rev. 08.2017, 2018)) (Guidance, Step 2A, prong 2).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do the Examiner then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. (Guidance (Step 2B)).
Evaluate Step 2A Prong One
(a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites an abstract idea;
(b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
In TABLE 1 below, the Examiner identifies in italics the specific claim limitations that recite an abstract idea.
TABLE 1
Independent Claim 10
Analysis Under Revised Guidance
(a) A remote control system comprising: a receiving module configured to receive semi- structured data including first data of a first level related to a plurality of control targets and a plurality of second data of a second level related to a plurality of the control targets, wherein a plurality of second identification information are respectively set for a plurality of the second data; a database; an information storage module configured to store a plurality of the second identification information and storage position information indicating storage positions of a plurality of the second identification information in the database; …and a notification module configured to output information related to one of a plurality of the control targets based on the second data stored in the database.
(b) a registration module configured to write a plurality of the second data to the database based on the storage position information;
“write a plurality of the second data to the database” is an abstract idea, i.e., “a mathematical calculation” to write second data to a database.
In view of the above analysis, Claims 1 and 10 recites an abstract idea under the Revised Guidance because the limitations (b) – (d) each recite mathematical relationship, mathematical calculation and/or a mental process. Dependent claims 2-9 also recite abstract idea because they include limitations (b) – (d) by virtue of their dependencies to claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-9 further recites additional limitations. However, these limitations also recite abstract idea, i.e., “mathematical concept – mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations” and i.e., a “mental process” similar to the limitations of claims 1, discussed above.
Evaluate Step 2A Prong Two:
Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrated the recited Judicial exception into a Practical Application of the exception.
Having determined that the claims recites a judicial exception, the analysis under the Guidance turns now to determining whether there are “additional element that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”. The examiner determines whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions; and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application”.
Independent claim 1 further recite “registration module”, which is a generic/conventional computer storage. Claim 1 does not recite any additional element that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The recitation of generic computer and generic computer components does not sufficient to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Guidance at MPEP 2106.04 (“Performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not necessarily preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping.”)
As discussed above, independent claim 1 recites the mathematic calculation steps to write second data to a database. This limitation is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation on a piece of paper, but for the recitations of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “module”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Evaluate Step 2B:
Evaluate whether the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well-known. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not add any specific limitations beyond what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Here, claim 1 recite “module”, which are mere generic computer components that are recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-understood, routine, conventional activity when expressed at this high level of generality. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea) and is not eligible.
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the claim recitations of receiving, storing and outputting data.
Receiving, storing, and outputting are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception with no evidence of improvement. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of receiving and outputting data (receiving or transmitting over a network), are well-understood, routine and conventional activity according to MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i), and storing data (storing and retrieving information in memory), are well-understood, routine and conventional activity according to MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv), thus, cannot provide an inventive concept.
As a result, representative claim(s) 1 and 10 do not recite any elements, or ordered combination of elements, which transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible subject matter. In addition, the claim(s) does not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a); (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b); (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different state or thing (see 2106.05(c). Further, the claim does not recite any improvement to computer functionality or specify how the one or more processors are used to improve functionality of a computing device. Considering the claim(s) as a whole, the additional elements fail to apply or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way and the additional limitations recited beyond the judicial exception itself fail to integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims 1-10 of this application are rejected.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of a mathematical concept, for example the claims are directed toward the mathematical concept of writing second data included in a first data to columns of a first data table, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The limitations associated with writing data is associated with a domain are considered to be an abstract idea that falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a module to perform the writing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitations related to receiving, storing, and outputting are considered by the examiner to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity according to MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv), because the inventive subject matter is directed toward collecting data from remote facilities. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Because of these reasons the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) 1-10 are rejected.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
- a receiving module in claim 1, claim 4, claim 10;
- an information storage module in claim 1, claim 10;
- a registration module in claim 1, claim 2, claim 10;
- a notification module in claim 10.
Despite Applicant’s assertion in para [0030] of the specification that the terms “module” are not intended as generic terms, the above-listed elements still meet the criteria of the three-pronged test for 35 USC 112(f) interpretation. That is, Applicant’s mere assertion that a “module” is not a generic placeholder does not make it so, and each of these elements are recited without sufficient structure for performing each claimed function because a “module” does not have inherent structural meaning.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, each of the various “module” elements listed above are interpreted as computer-executable instructions implemented with general purpose processor-based computing devices, consistent with at least para [0030] of Applicant’s specification are interpreted as software implemented on a general purpose computing device that may perform any type of broad data analysis and data generation functions in accordance with this paragraph.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10 recite “… a notification module configured to output information,…”. Examiner has read the entire discloser to ascertain clear support for limitations. Examiner did not find any support in written description support regarding a notification module. It is unclear if this is a typographical error.
Therefore, in view of the foregoing analyses, and Examiner’s reading of the entire disclosure of Applicant’s instant invention, Examiner finds a lack of written description support for the claim language: ““… a notification module configured to output information…”. Applicant is invited to show where support for the limitations can be found within the disclosure of the invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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 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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilieva et al. (US 2015/0074743) (hereinafter Ilieva) in view of Switzer et al. (US 2018/0373434) (hereinafter Switzer).
Regarding claim 1, Ilieva teaches a data collection system comprising: a receiving module configured to receive semi- structured data including first data of a first level and a plurality of second data of a second level (see Fig. 14, Figs. 16A-16B, para [0061], para [0070], discloses first and second levels of data hierarchically organized), the first data including a plurality of the second data (see Fig. 14, Figs. 16A-16B, para [0062], para [0071], discloses first data, customer information resources including a second data of customer identification and orders), wherein a plurality of second identification information are respectively set for a plurality of the second data (see Fig. 14, para [0062], discloses customer identifier numbers (second identification information) for a set of customer orders (second data)); a database (see para [0089], discloses an authorization-service database).
Ilieva does not explicitly teach an information storage module configured to store storage position information indicating storage positions of a plurality of the second identification information in the database; and a registration module configured to write a plurality of the second data to the database based on the storage position information.
Switzer teaches an information storage module configured to store storage position information indicating storage positions of a plurality of the second identification information in the database (see Fig. 2, para [0047-0048], para [0054], discloses digital asset management system, component database storing component sets i.e, packaged files that have respective identifier (position information) uniquely labels each component); and a registration module configured to write a plurality of the second data to the database based on the storage position information (see Fig. 2, para [0112], para [0126, 0133], discloses a cloud synchronization system that allocates cloud identifiers to respective components stored in component database based on corresponding mapping of component to packaged file).
Ilieva/Switzer are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Ilieva to include position information indicating storage positions from disclosure of Switzer. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Switzer as “provide improved digital asset management and synchronization between a digital asset stored either within a component database or a packaged file” (para [0006]) and including position information indicating storage positions is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 10, Ilieva teaches a remote control system comprising: a receiving module configured to receive semi- structured data including first data of a first level related to a plurality of control targets and a plurality of second data of a second level related to a plurality of the control targets (see Fig. 14, Figs. 16A-16B, para [0061-0062], para [0070-71], discloses first and second levels of data hierarchically organized, the first data is customer information resources and second data is customer orders), wherein a plurality of second identification information are respectively set for a plurality of the second data (see Fig. 14, para [0062], discloses customer identifier numbers (second identification information) for a set of customer orders (second data)); a database (see para [0089], discloses an authorization-service database).
Ilieva does not explicitly teach an information storage module configured to store a plurality of the second identification information and storage position information indicating storage positions of a plurality of the second identification information in the database; a registration module configured to write a plurality of the second data to the database based on the storage position information; and a notification module configured to output information related to one of a plurality of the control targets based on the second data stored in the database.
Switzer teaches an information storage module configured to store a plurality of the second identification information and storage position information indicating storage positions of a plurality of the second identification information in the database (see Fig. 2, para [0047-0048], para [0054], discloses digital asset management system, component database storing component sets i.e, packaged files that have respective identifier (position information) uniquely labels each component); a registration module configured to write a plurality of the second data to the database based on the storage position information (see Fig. 2, para [0112], para [0126, 0133], discloses a cloud synchronization system that allocates cloud identifiers to respective components stored in component database based on corresponding mapping of component to packaged file); and a notification module configured to output information related to one of a plurality of the control targets based on the second data stored in the database (see para [0081-0082], discloses detecting changes to a packaged file of digital assets and alerting component manager and notifying the component manager of modification).
Ilieva/Switzer are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Ilieva to include position information indicating storage positions from disclosure of Switzer. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Switzer as “provide improved digital asset management and synchronization between a digital asset stored either within a component database or a packaged file” (para [0006]) and including position information indicating storage positions is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilieva et al. (US 2015/0074743) (hereinafter Ilieva) in view of Switzer et al. (US 2018/0373434) (hereinafter Switzer) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Bhatewara et al. (US 2022/0413889)(hereinafter Bhatewara).
Regarding claim 2, Ilieva/Switzer teach a system of claim 1.
Ilieva/Switzer does not explicitly teach the database includes a second database including a plurality of tables; first identification information is set for the first data; the storage position information includes first information and second information, the first information indicating a correspondence relationship between the first identification information and at least two columns of a first table in a plurality of the tables, and the second information indicating a correspondence relationship between any of a plurality of the second identification information and a column of a second table in a plurality of the tables; and the registration module is configured to write at least two of a plurality of the second data included in the first data to at least two columns of the first table based on the first information, and writes the second data to a column of the second table based on the second information.
Bhatewara teaches the database includes a second database including a plurality of tables (see Fig. 8, Fig. 25A, para [0052], para [0083], disclose virtual -data-center database includes features table including relational-database tables in a storage system); first identification information is set for the first data (see Fig. 25B, para [0083], para [0085], discloses key field as first identification information); the storage position information includes first information and second information (see Fig. 25B, para [0085], para [0088], discloses universal resource locator (storage position information) that includes first and second information), the first information indicating a correspondence relationship between the first identification information and at least two columns of a first table in a plurality of the tables (see Fig.25B, para [0085-0086], discloses key fields identifying rules in tables for converting extract values in columns of a first table), and the second information indicating a correspondence relationship between any of a plurality of the second identification information and a column of a second table in a plurality of the tables (see Figs. 25A-25C, para [0084], para [0087], discloses feature syntax indicating unified representation of values used in an intent portion corresponding to column values); and the registration module is configured to write at least two of a plurality of the second data included in the first data to at least two columns of the first table based on the first information, and writes the second data to a column of the second table based on the second information (see Figs. 25A-25B, Fig. 26A, para [0084], para [0087-0088], discloses obtaining configurations using REST GET request).
Ilieva/Switzer/Bhatewara are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Ilieva/Switzer to include a second database including plurality of tables from disclosure of Bhatewara. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Bhatewara as “allow a distributed computer system to access new and improved facilities and capabilities” (para [0005]) and including a second database including plurality of tables is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilieva et al. (US 2015/0074743) (hereinafter Ilieva) in view of Switzer et al. (US 2018/0373434) (hereinafter Switzer) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Bhatewara et al. (US 2022/0413889)(hereinafter Bhatewara) and Graber et al. (US 2021/0165873) (hereinafter Graber).
Regarding claim 3, Ilieva/Switzer teach a system of claim 1.
Ilieva/Switzer/Bhatewara does not explicitly teach the second data includes data related to an asset; the asset includes at least one of equipment, device, product, material, jig, tool, software, system, employee, factory, plant, production plan information, maintenance plan information; maintenance response information, specification information, or order information; the first data includes a set of second data related to an aspect of the asset; and the second data includes product characteristics, process variables, external links, capabilities of the asset, attributes of the asset, or operational status of the asset.
Graber teaches the second data includes data related to an asset (see para [0094], discloses application extensions associated with assets); the asset includes at least one of equipment, device, product, material, jig, tool, software, system, employee, factory, plant, production plan information, maintenance plan information; maintenance response information, specification information, or order information (see para [0094-0095], discloses application extensions assets); the first data includes a set of second data related to an aspect of the asset (see Fig. 8, para [0104-0106], discloses first data includes second data related to application extension); and the second data includes product characteristics, process variables, external links, capabilities of the asset, attributes of the asset, or operational status of the asset (see Fig. 8, para [0122], discloses markup language, styling, assets, or scripts in the application extension).
Ilieva/Switzer/Bhatewara/Graber are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Ilieva/Switzer/Bhatewara to include a second data related to asset including software from disclosure of Graber. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Graber as “develop and provide applications that meet the current or future needs of various organizations” (para [0002]) and including a second data related to asset including software is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 4, Ilieva/Switzer teach a system of claim 1.
Ilieva/Switzer/Bhatewara does not explicitly teach the receiving module is configured to receive an asset administration shell; the asset administration shell includes a header and a body; the header includes an asset identifier and an asset administration shell identifier; and the body includes the first data.
Graber teaches the receiving module is configured to receive an asset administration shell (see para [0027], discloses an extension shell (asset administration shell)); the asset administration shell includes a header and a body (see Fig. 8, para [0027], para [0106], discloses header and body); the header includes an asset identifier and an asset administration shell identifier (see Fig. 8, para [0025], para [0027], discloses information that identifies an extension of hosting application and an identifier associate with an extension body that corresponds to the extension shell); and the body includes the first data (see Fig. 8, para [0027], discloses extension body includes information corresponding to tag included in the extension shell).
Ilieva/Switzer/Bhatewara/Graber are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Ilieva/Switzer/Bhatewara to include a second data related to asset including software from disclosure of Graber. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Graber as “develop and provide applications that meet the current or future needs of various organizations” (para [0002]) and including a second data related to asset including software is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilieva et al. (US 2015/0074743) (hereinafter Ilieva) in view of Switzer et al. (US 2018/0373434) (hereinafter Switzer) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Tsubota et al. (US 2017/0008162)(hereinafter Tsubota).
Regarding claim 5, Ilieva/Switzer teach a system of claim 1.
Ilieva/Switzer does not explicitly teach the semi-structured data includes first semi- structured data related to a sensor; the second data of the first semi-structured data includes a measurement value of the sensor, sensor identification information, and measurement time; and the database includes a first time-series database storing time-series data of the measurement value for each sensor identification information.
Tsubota teaches the semi-structured data includes first semi- structured data related to a sensor (see Fig. 8B, para [0284], discloses hierarchy levels related to sensor modules); the second data of the first semi-structured data includes a measurement value of the sensor, sensor identification information, and measurement time (see Figs. 8A-8B, Fig. 28, para [0247], para [0434], discloses measurement value obtained in smart meter and time-series data tracking of sensor data); and the database includes a first time-series database storing time-series data of the measurement value for each sensor identification information (see Fig. 28, para [0434], para [0438], discloses time-series data tracking table stored).
Ilieva/Switzer/Tsubota are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Ilieva/Switzer to include sensor data from disclosure of Tsubota. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Tsubota as “the reliability of the data communication can be improved” (para [0401]) and including sensor data is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 6, Ilieva/Switzer teach a system of claim 1.
Ilieva/Switzer does not explicitly teach wherein the storage position information indicates a correspondence relationship between the second identification information of the first semi-structured data and a storage position in the first time-series database.
Tsubota teaches wherein the storage position information indicates a correspondence relationship between the second identification information of the first semi-structured data and a storage position in the first time-series database (see Fig. 20, Fig. 23, para [0413], para [0432], discloses uniform resource locator, URL indicating relationship between data).
Ilieva/Switzer/Tsubota are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Ilieva/Switzer to include sensor data from disclosure of Tsubota. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Tsubota as “the reliability of the data communication can be improved” (para [0401]) and including sensor data is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 7, Ilieva/Switzer teach a system of claim 1.
Ilieva/Switzer does not explicitly teach the semi-structured data includes second semi- structured data related to a status change detected by the sensor; the second data of the second semi-structured data includes identification information of the status change, a time of the status change, and a type of the status change; and the database includes a second time-series database storing time-series data comprising the time of the status change and the type of the status change for each identification information of the status change.
Tsubota teaches the semi-structured data includes second semi- structured data related to a status change detected by the sensor (see para [0137], para [0306], discloses configuration status change); the second data of the second semi-structured data includes identification information of the status change, a time of the status change, and a type of the status change (see para [0592], discloses status of change and type of changes after a time period); and the database includes a second time-series database storing time-series data comprising the time of the status change and the type of the status change for each identification information of the status change (see para [0592], discloses status change according to time that has past).
Ilieva/Switzer/Tsubota are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Ilieva/Switzer to include sensor data from disclosure of Tsubota. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Tsubota as “the reliability of the data communication can be improved” (para [0401]) and including sensor data is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 8, Ilieva/Switzer teach a system of claim 1.
Ilieva/Switzer does not explicitly teach wherein the status change includes an event in which the measurement value of the sensor exceeds an acceptable range.
Tsubota teaches wherein the status change includes an event in which the measurement value of the sensor exceeds an acceptable range (see para [0198], para [0671], discloses temperature exceeds a suitable range and an alert signal is sent).
Ilieva/Switzer/Tsubota are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Ilieva/Switzer to include sensor data from disclosure of Tsubota. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Tsubota as “the reliability of the data communication can be improved” (para [0401]) and including sensor data is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 9, Ilieva/Switzer teach a system of claim 1.
Ilieva/Switzer does not explicitly teach wherein the storage position information indicates a correspondence relationship between the second identification information of the second semi- structured data and the storage position in the second time-series database.
Tsubota teaches wherein the storage position information indicates a correspondence relationship between the second identification information of the second semi- structured data and the storage position in the second time-series database (see Fig. 20, para [0432], discloses specifying of a file name, including URL and range in which data is recorded).
Ilieva/Switzer/Tsubota are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Ilieva/Switzer to include sensor data from disclosure of Tsubota. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Tsubota as “the reliability of the data communication can be improved” (para [0401]) and including sensor data is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Cella et al. US Publication No. 2021/0360070.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY HARMON whose telephone number is (571)270-5861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
/Courtney Harmon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159