DETAILED ACTION
A. This action is in response to the following communications: Transmittal of New Application filed 03/28/2024.
B. Claims 1-20 remains pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim limitation “11, 14 and 16” invokes 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. Means plus function in the claim limitation is “program code for” which in the specification is described as generic computer with no corresponding algorithm to support it, see paragraphs 14 and 72 of the claimed disclosure recited below for convenience. 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.
[0014]
Illustrative embodiments of the invention are implemented as a computer program product having a computer usable medium with computer readable program code thereon. The computer readable code may be read and utilized by a computer system in accordance with conventional processes.
[0072]
The processing device 702 may be a programmable type, a dedicated, hardwired state machine, or a combination thereof. The processing device 702 may further include multiple processors, Arithmetic-Logic Units (ALUs), Central Processing Units (CPUs), Digital Signal Processors (DSPs), or Field-programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA), among other things. For forms of the processing device 702 with multiple processing units, distributed, pipelined, or parallel processing may be used. The processing device 702 may be dedicated to performance of just the operations described herein or may be used in one or more additional applications. The processing device 702 may be of a programmable variety that executes processes and processes data in accordance with programming instructions (such as software or firmware) stored in the memory device 706. Alternatively or additionally, programming instructions are at least partially defined by hardwired logic or other hardware. The processing device 702 may be comprised of one or more components of any type suitable to process the signals received from the input/output device 704 or elsewhere, and provide desired output signals. Such components may include digital circuitry, analog circuitry, or a combination thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity without significantly more. The claim(s) 1 recite(s) “parsing…, “determining…”, generating a user interface…”, “marking a set of parsed words…” and “marking another set of parsed words…”, grouping of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a generic content server and generic storage devices does not take the claim out of the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of storing and updating parsed (selected/filtered) information in a computer environment. The claimed “non-transitory storage devices” and “program product” are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools perform an information gathering and update process. Even considered in combination, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer with storage devices recited at a high level of generality is not a practical application of the abstract idea.The limitation generating (with data selections) a generic user interface executed by a generic computer, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a program code,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a program code” language, “in response to receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually organizing data.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to the significantly more than the judicial exception because as noted previously, the program code and the storage devices individually and in combination merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of updating information in a computer environment. The same applies here. (MPEP 2106.05(d). Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is ineligible.
Claims 2-20 do not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under the same rational.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prakash, Ravi Kumar Herunde et al. (US Pub. 2020/0327029 A1), herein referred to as “Prakash”.
As for claims 11 and 1, Prakash teaches. A computer program product and corresponding method of claim 1 for use on a computer system for interpreting incident reports, the computer program product comprising a tangible, non-transient computer usable medium having computer readable program code thereon, the computer readable program code comprising (par. 8 hardware environment for implementing the system; par. 14 the system includes a cloud based or cloud/on-site hybrid historian system, collectively referred to herein as a historian and/or a historian database, the use of a historian allows for the centralization of asset and/or process data obtained from multiple locations e.g., industrial plants.)
program code for parsing an incident report (fig. 5 graphical use interface that shows multiple incident reported in the industrial plant being monitored);
program code for determining a plurality of abnormal condition scores, each abnormal condition scores corresponding to at least one parsed word of the incident report (fig. 5; par. 98 the grid 510 can show a list of all alarms generated for the selected asset as well as for its children. Some further embodiments include one or more additional, adjoining and/or overlapping designs including alarm display and statistics);
program code for determining a plurality of normal condition scores, each normal condition score corresponding to at least one parsed word of the incident report (par. 99 different status indications can depict normal to abnormal and therein in-between for various readings and statistics);
program code for generating a user interface including a visual representation of the incident report (fig. 5 depicts a grid and read out of data derived from human machine interface with assets monitored in an industrial plant environment);
program code for marking a set of parsed words corresponding to a portion of the plurality of abnormal condition scores using a first visual indicator (fig. 14 denotes the beginning of an author to create a model that will interpret data from human machine interface of machine assets in the plant to monitor and report back to the user; the various figures denote in great detail how the user can configure the look and style of the reports; par. 125); and
program code for marking another set of parsed words corresponding to a portion of the plurality of normal condition scores using a second visual indicator (par. 136 after the user has configured the models from GUI fig. 14-35 the fig.36 shows various indications and details about the information from the machine assets being monitored).
As for claims 12 and 2, Prakash teaches. The computer program product of claim 11 and corresponding method of claim 1, wherein
parsing the incident report includes:
dividing the incident report into at least two portions;
dividing the first portion of the incident report into individual words; and
determining a plurality of phrases in the second portion of the incident report,
wherein the at least one parsed word corresponding to one of the abnormal condition scores is one of the individual words of the first portion or one of the phrases of the second portion (fig. 5 depicts different portions and fig. 36 the different output GUI also shows different portions to show different reportable information).
As for claims 13 and 3, Prakash teaches. The computer program product of claim 12 and corresponding method of claim 2, wherein determining the plurality of phrases includes determining two-word phrases or three-word phrases (fig. 36; par. 147 a paragraph of information can be created to constructively convey to the user the nature of the status of machines being monitored).
As for claims 14 and 4, Prakash teaches. The computer program product of claim 11 and corresponding method of claim 1, comprising:
program code for ranking the plurality of abnormal condition scores;
program code for determining the portion of the plurality of abnormal condition scores using the plurality of abnormal condition scores ranking;
program code for ranking the plurality of normal condition scores; and
program code for determining the portion of the plurality of normal condition scores using the plurality of abnormal condition scores ranking (par. 22 simulations are used to create importance rankings used to determine information to display to a user).
As for claims 15 and 5, Prakash teaches. The computer program product of claim 14 and corresponding method of claim 4, wherein determining the portion of the plurality of normal condition scores includes comparing a first normal condition score and a first abnormal condition score corresponding to the same parsed word (fig. 36 report on same biscuit extrusion information; keyword “CRK2Extruder” is being used in different context for different reportable information).
As for claims 16 and 6, Prakash teaches. The computer program product of claim 14 and corresponding method of claim 4, comprising:
program code for marking the set of parsed words corresponding to the portion of the abnormal condition scores using a third visual indicator based on the ranking of the plurality of abnormal conditions scores; and program code for marking the set of parsed words corresponding to the portion of the normal condition scores using a fourth visual indicator based on the ranking of the plurality of normal condition scores (par. 26 the importance ranking is created manually for one or more assets. In some embodiments, the importance ranking is based on one or more of: production flow impact, historical data, maintenance data, simulation data, AI training, or any other data source available to the system. In some embodiments, the importance ranking is different for different assets).
As for claims 17 and 7, Prakash teaches. The computer program product of claim 16 and corresponding method of claim 6, wherein the first visual indicator includes highlighting in a first color, the second visual indicator includes highlighting in a second color, and the third and fourth visual indicators include degrees of highlighter tinting (par. 25 if a user is viewing alarm data from a piece of equipment on a portable computer, such as a cell phone, for example, then the user may see one or more equipment control charts with the alarm points highlighted, a list of alarms, and breadcrumbs at the top of the browser that leads to a hierarchy of equipment and/or shows a link to previously viewed items).
As for claims 18 and 8, Prakash teaches. The computer program product of claim 11 and corresponding method of claim 1, wherein parsing the incident report includes stemming a word of the incident report, and wherein marking the set of parsed words corresponding to the portion of the plurality of abnormal condition scores includes determining positions of the parsed words within the incident report (fig. 5, 570 the tag (parsed word) is attributed to identifying key data pertinent for alarm display to the user).
As for claims 19 and 9, Prakash teaches. The computer program product of claim 11 and corresponding method of claim 1, comprising:
flagging the incident report in response to the plurality of abnormal condition scores and the plurality of normal condition scores (fig. 5, 560 flagged alarms with numerical and icon shape and color can denote various statistical information to the user).
As for claims 20 and 10, Prakash teaches. The computer program product of claim 11 and corresponding method of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of abnormal condition scores indicate a likelihood of an abnormal condition given the inclusion of the corresponding at least one parsed word in a given portion of the incident report (fig. 5; par. 98-100 condition 564 denote likelihood of the serious alarm nature by indication graphic and words denoting severity).
(Note :) It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Inquires
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to NICHOLAS AUGUSTINE at telephone number (571)270-1056.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
213
559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
/NICHOLAS AUGUSTINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178 December 5, 2025