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 Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed January 5, 2024. Claims 1-15 are currently pending, of which claims 1-15 are currently 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: “ontology engine”, “graph engine”, “human machine interface”, and “analytics engine” in claim 1.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-15 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.
Claim 10 recites “the method of claim 1” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It is not clear what this claim depends from, as claim 1 is a system and claim 9 is a method claim. Examiner notes that for claim interpretation purposes, this will be treated as depending from the method of claim 9.
Claim 11 recites “the method of claim 1” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It is not clear what this claim depends from, as claim 1 is a system and claim 9 is a method claim. Examiner notes that for claim interpretation purposes, this will be treated as depending from the method of claim 9.
Claim 12 recites “the method of claim 1” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It is not clear what this claim depends from, as claim 1 is a system and claim 9 is a method claim. Examiner notes that for claim interpretation purposes, this will be treated as depending from the method of claim 9.
Claim 13 recites “the method of claim 1” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It is not clear what this claim depends from, as claim 1 is a system and claim 9 is a method claim. Examiner notes that for claim interpretation purposes, this will be treated as depending from the method of claim 9.
Claim 14 recites “the method of claim 1” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It is not clear what this claim depends from, as claim 1 is a system and claim 9 is a method claim. Examiner notes that for claim interpretation purposes, this will be treated as depending from the method of claim 9.
Claim 15 recites “the method of claim 1” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It is not clear what this claim depends from, as claim 1 is a system and claim 9 is a method claim. Examiner notes that for claim interpretation purposes, this will be treated as depending from the method of claim 9.
Claims 1 and 2 recite limitations “ontology engine”, “graph engine”, and “analytics engine” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is unclear what these engines are and whether or not they are directed to hardware elements, software elements, or a combination of both. Applicant’s disclosure merely talks about the functionality of these engines but denote any structure, just that they are somehow included with the RAM. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 3-8 are rejected based on their dependency from the above-rejected claim 1.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thomsen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0012265; hereinafter “Thomsen”).
As per claim 1, Thomsen teaches a system for production process monitoring using graph learning, comprising: a processor; and a memory having modules stored thereon for execution by the processor (See Thomsen paras. [0220-222]), the modules comprising:
an ontology engine configured to generate a production ontology based on data received from an engineering design process, wherein the ontology includes selection of production machines, definition of work products and workstations, and workflow design (See Thomsen para. [0120]: “hierarchical tree structure having nodes representing one or more plant facilities and associated production areas, production lines, industrial assets, and/or industrial devices, as defined by plant model 522. Selection of any of the nodes of the navigation menu invokes a corresponding data presentation on a data display area 1608 of the data presentation 1604. The data display area 1608 renders selected subsets of the BIDT data corresponding to the selected node”; para. [0143]: definitions of assets and values associated therewith included in the BIDT data that is included in the ontologies);
a graph engine configured to:
instantiate a production graph based on the production ontology, the production graph comprising nodes and edges, wherein the nodes represent components of the production ontology, including production machines and work products and the edges represent relationships between the components (See Thomsen paras. [0122-123], [0168], and [0178]: can visualize/present models of the industrial area, where the model can include graphical representations of industrial assets as well as physical relationships between these industrial assets);
read production process data from control systems of the production environment (See Thomsen paras. [0091]: “value contained in the Event BIDT 608 can represent an instantaneous or persistent event associated with an industrial asset”); and
populate the production graph with production process data in real time to generate a time series of production graphs (See Thomsen paras. [0056], [0091], [0168], and [0172]: presentation component of BIDT events, and various state of industrial systems and their associated devices);
a human machine interface configured to display the time series of production graphs to reflect updated status of the production process including location of work products among the workstations (See Thomsen paras. [0056], [0168], and [0170]: HMI to display system data, including positions and present states. A presentation component can generate the virtualized presentation of the industrial asset);
an analytics engine configured to:
execute machine learning algorithms to extract trends from the time series of production graphs (See Thomsen para. [0174]: “Predictive analysis component 512 can predict this future asset behavior based on learned trends of asset behavior as a function of various asset conditions or states identified based on mining of the historical BIDT data 2608 and application of digital twin 2306”);
generate one or more predictions of the production process based on the extracted trends (See Thomsen paras. [0189-194]: predictions of various behaviors and statuses of production equipment and processes); and
indicate in the production graph the one or more predictions (See Thomsen paras. [0163], [0169], and [0174]: time-series historized data displayed. Furthermore, “can also extend the visualization to predicted future behavior of the asset based on predictive analysis performed on the historical data”).
As per claim 3, Thomsen further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the extracted trends include machine utilization (See Thomsen paras. [0098] and [0189-194]: predicting various behaviors and statuses, including impending component failures).
As per claim 4, Thomsen further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more predictions includes movement of the work product to one or more production machines (See Thomsen paras. [0178], [0184], and [0194]: monitoring movement of product through industrial assets).
As per claim 5, Thomsen further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more predictions includes prognostics for the production machines (See Thomsen para. [0191]: “predictive analysis component 512 can identify an impending failure of a component of automation system 3008 (e.g., a bearing, a pump, a motor, etc.), an impending exhaustion of a material supplied to the automation system 3008, or other such concerns”).
As per claim 6, Thomsen further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more predictions includes production output (See Thomsen paras. [0189]: predictions can include production goals and failures to meet them).
As per claim 7, Thomsen further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more predictions includes work product movement efficiency (See Thomsen para. [0184]: “movement of product through the industrial assets (including speeds, accelerations, locations, lags, etc.)” and lags and movement can be a measure of efficiency).
As per claim 8, Thomsen further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the predictors include utilization of the production machines (See Thomsen paras. [0189-194]: predicting various behaviors and statuses, including the amount of energy consumption).
As per claims 9, 11-13, 14, and 15, the claims are directed to a method that implements the same features as the system of claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 8, respectively, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Allowable Subject Matter
As per claims 2 and 10, the prior art of record does not explicitly teach or suggest the combination of the predictions, the runtime analytics, and the leveraged weight sharing as claimed. Should Applicant cure the issues under 35 U.S.C. §112, these claims would be allowable if written into independent claims 1 and 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Royval et al. (U.S. 2018/0137424) discloses an ontological structure can include “nodes related to particular elements and edges defining relationships between those elements.” (Royval paras. [0097-98]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Klicos whose telephone number is (571)270-5889. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/NICHOLAS KLICOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118