Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
acquiring, from a plurality of sensors configured to monitor an asset, data characterizing an operational efficiency of the asset over time;
receiving, via a computing system including at least one data processor and a memory storing instructions, the data characterizing the operational efficiency of the asset;
determining, by the at least one data processor, an operational efficiency of the asset and an operational efficiency threshold characterizing an undesirable operating efficiency;
determining, by the at least one data processor, a cleaning schedule for the asset based on the operational efficiency of the asset and the operational efficiency threshold; and
providing the cleaning schedule.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract idea of independent Claim 11.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim. Likewise, claim 11 is a system claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
In the instant case, claim 1 is found to recite at least one judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea), that being a Mental Process. This can be seen in the claim limitations of determining an operational efficiency, and determining a cleaning schedule, which is the judicial exception of a mental process because these limitations are merely evaluations, and/or judgements in order to identify reduced efficiency of the monitored asset, and are capable of being performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 11.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed method recites additional elements including “acquiring, from a plurality of sensors configured to monitor an asset, data characterizing an operational efficiency of the asset over time”; “receiving, via a computing system including at least one data processor and a memory storing instructions, the data characterizing the operational efficiency of the asset”; and “providing the cleaning schedule”, and using a data processor to perform the determining steps. However the acquiring, receiving, and providing steps are found to be merely “data gathering and output steps, which are recited at a high level of generality, and thus merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. Further, the computing system, data processor, and memory storing instructions are found to be equivalent to adding the words “apply it” and mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a general purpose computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, are recited at such a high level of generality (e.g. using the computing system, data processor, and memory storing instructions) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed method. For instance, nothing is done with the outputted cleaning schedule.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely performs insignificant extra-solution activit(ies). The insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., the acquiring, receiving, and outputting steps, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that Claim 1 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, Claim 11 merely recites a plurality of generically claimed sensors having no particular configuration with respect to a generically claimed asset, and a generic computing system; these additional elements also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the reasons noted above with respect to Claim 1.
With regards to the dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, these claims merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea, and the gathering of data for use in the abstract idea, and do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for parent claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-11, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coatzee et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0143324, hereinafter “Coatzee”) in view of Victor et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0283818, hereinafter “Victor”, cited on Applicant’s IDS dated 8/7/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Coatzee teaches a method (Fig. 8b) comprising: acquiring, from a plurality of sensors configured to monitor an asset, data characterizing an operational efficiency of the asset over time (Fig. 8b, 160; paragraph [0093], historical sensor data 20); receiving, via a computing system including at least one data processor and a memory storing instructions, the data characterizing the operational efficiency of the asset (Fig. 8b, 160; paragraph [0093], historical sensor data 20); determining, by the at least one data processor, an operational efficiency of the asset (Fig. 8b, 166, heat transfer coefficient, see paragraph [0008]); determining, by the at least one data processor, a cleaning schedule for the asset based on the operational efficiency of the asset (Fig. 8b, 172); and providing the cleaning schedule (Fig. 8b, 174).
Coatzee does not specifically teach determine an operational efficiency threshold characterizing an undesirable operating efficiency, and determine the cleaning schedule based on the operational efficiency threshold. However, Coatzee does teach determining the cleaning schedule based on an operational efficiency value, i.e., the heat transfer coefficient (Fig. 8b, 168, 170, Fig. 9a, paragraphs [0093]-[0094]). Further, Victor teaches a particular threshold comprising an efficiency-loss level (paragraph [0178]), and deviations over a set amount for heat exchange coefficients (paragraph [0179]) for use in determining a timeline for cleaning (paragraph [0175]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the threshold/set amount of Victor in the system of Coatzee, in order to improve process efficiencies and equipment reliability (see Victor, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding Claim 8, Coatzee in view of Victor teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Coatzee further teaches further comprising: determining, by the at least one data processor, an amount of fouling that has developed in the asset (Fig. 9b, fouling cycle indicates amount of fouling; paragraph [0094]).
Regarding Claim 9, Coatzee in view of Victor teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Coatzee further teaches wherein the asset is a heat exchanger (Fig. 1, heat exchanger 26) or a compressor (optional due to “or”), and the plurality of sensors comprise at least one of temperature sensors and pressure sensors (paragraph [0109]).
Regarding Claim 10, Coatzee in view of Victor teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Coatzee does not specifically teach wherein the operational efficiency threshold is determined based on at least one of historical operational data of the asset, a client preference, a predetermined efficiency requirement and a predetermined energy consumption threshold. However, Victor teaches wherein the operational efficiency threshold is determined based on at least one of historical operational data of the asset (paragraph [0179], prior problem heat exchange coefficient profiles), a client preference (optional due to “at least one of”), a predetermined efficiency requirement (paragraph [0178], efficiency-loss level) and a predetermined energy consumption threshold (paragraph [0178], cost threshold). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the threshold/set amount of Victor in the system of Coatzee, in order to improve process efficiencies and equipment reliability (see Victor, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding Claim 11, Coatzee teaches a system (Fig. 1) comprising: a plurality of sensors configured to monitor an asset (paragraph [0109]); and a computing system including at least one data processor and memory storing instructions (Fig. 1, enterprise system 12), which when executed by the at least on data processor causes the at least one data processor to perform operations comprising: receiving, from the plurality of sensors, the data characterizing the operational efficiency of the asset (Fig. 1, historical data 20, control system 32, paragraph [0068]; Fig. 8b, 160); determining an operational efficiency of the asset (Fig. 8b, 166, heat transfer coefficient, see paragraphs [0008] and [0093]); determining, using an optimization algorithm, a cleaning schedule for the asset based on the operational efficiency of the asset (Fig. 8b, 172; Fig. 9a; paragraphs [0093]-[0094]); and providing the cleaning schedule (Fig. 8b, 174, paragraph [0093]).
Coatzee does not specifically teach determine an operational efficiency threshold characterizing an undesirable operating efficiency, and determine the cleaning schedule based on the operational efficiency threshold. However, Coatzee does teach determining the cleaning schedule based on an operational efficiency value, i.e., the heat transfer coefficient (Fig. 8b, 168, 170, Fig. 9a, paragraphs [0093]-[0094]). Further, Victor teaches a particular threshold comprising an efficiency-loss level (paragraph [0178]), and deviations over a set amount for heat exchange coefficients (paragraph [0179]) for use in determining a timeline for cleaning (paragraph [0175]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the threshold/set amount of Victor in the system of Coatzee, in order to improve process efficiencies and equipment reliability (see Victor, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding Claim 18, Coatzee in view of Victor teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 11. Coatzee further teaches determining an amount of fouling that has developed in the asset (Fig. 9b, fouling cycle indicates amount of fouling; paragraph [0094]).
Regarding Claim 19, Coatzee in view of Victor teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 11. Coatzee further teaches wherein the asset is a heat exchanger (Fig. 1, heat exchanger 26) or a compressor (optional due to “or”), and the plurality of sensors comprise at least one of temperature sensors and pressure sensors (paragraph [0109]).
Regarding Claim 20, Coatzee in view of Victor teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 11. Coatzee does not specifically teach wherein the operational efficiency threshold is determined based on at least one of historical operational data of the asset, a client preference, a predetermined efficiency requirement and a predetermined energy consumption threshold. However, Victor teaches wherein the operational efficiency threshold is determined based on at least one of historical operational data of the asset (paragraph [0179], prior problem heat exchange coefficient profiles), a client preference (optional due to “at least one of”), a predetermined efficiency requirement (paragraph [0178], efficiency-loss level) and a predetermined energy consumption threshold (paragraph [0178], cost threshold). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the threshold/set amount of Victor in the system of Coatzee, in order to improve process efficiencies and equipment reliability (see Victor, paragraph [0003]).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coatzee in view of Victor, in further view of Griffiths et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0160679, hereinafter “Griffiths”).
Regarding Claim 2, Coatzee in view of Victor teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Coatzee does not specifically teach wherein the cleaning schedule comprises one or more minor cleanings for non-invasive cleaning of the asset. However, Griffiths teaches, in paragraph [0035], a predictive cleaning schedule that includes minor overhaul intervals, which is equated to non-invasive cleaning of the asset. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the minor overhaul intervals of Griffiths in the cleaning schedule of Coatzee, in order to determine optimum parameters of cleaning, including time intervale between cleanings (see Griffiths, paragraph [0035]).
Regarding Claim 3, Coatzee in view of Victor and Griffiths teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 2. Coatzee does not specifically teach wherein the cleaning schedule comprises one or more major cleaning for mechanical cleaning of the asset. However, Griffiths teaches, in paragraph [0035], a predictive cleaning schedule that includes major overhaul intervals, which is equated to major cleaning for mechanical cleaning of the asset. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the major overhaul intervals of Griffiths in the cleaning schedule of Coatzee, in order to determine optimum parameters of cleaning, including time intervale between cleanings (see Griffiths, paragraph [0035]).
Regarding Claim 12, Coatzee in view of Victor teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 11. Coatzee does not specifically teach wherein the cleaning schedule comprises one or more minor cleanings for non-invasive cleaning of the asset. However, Griffiths teaches, in paragraph [0035], a predictive cleaning schedule that includes minor overhaul intervals, which is equated to non-invasive cleaning of the asset. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the minor overhaul intervals of Griffiths in the cleaning schedule of Coatzee, in order to determine optimum parameters of cleaning, including time intervale between cleanings (see Griffiths, paragraph [0035]).
Regarding Claim 13, Coatzee in view of Victor and Griffiths teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 12. Coatzee does not specifically teach wherein the cleaning schedule comprises one or more major cleaning for mechanical cleaning of the asset. However, Griffiths teaches, in paragraph [0035], a predictive cleaning schedule that includes major overhaul intervals, which is equated to major cleaning for mechanical cleaning of the asset. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the major overhaul intervals of Griffiths in the cleaning schedule of Coatzee, in order to determine optimum parameters of cleaning, including time intervale between cleanings (see Griffiths, paragraph [0035]).
Claim(s) 4-7 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coatzee in view of Victor, in further view of Park (KR-20190072812-A).
Regarding Claim 4, Coatzee in view of Victor teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Coatzee does not specifically teach determining, by the at least one data processor, a predicted time to event corresponding to a time that the operational efficiency threshold will be reached; and providing the time to event. However, Coatzee does teach determining the cleaning schedule based on an operational efficiency value, i.e., the heat transfer coefficient (Fig. 8b, 168, 170, Fig. 9a, paragraphs [0093]-[0094]). Further, Victor teaches the operational efficiency threshold (paragraph [0178], [0179], paragraph [0175]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the threshold/set amount of Victor in the system of Coatzee, in order to improve process efficiencies and equipment reliability (see Victor, paragraph [0003]).
Coatzee in view of Victor does not specifically teach determining, by the at least one data processor, a predicted time to event corresponding to a time that the operational efficiency threshold will be reached; and providing the time to event. However, Park teaches determining, by the at least one data processor, a predicted time to event corresponding to a time that the operational efficiency threshold will be reached; and providing the time to event (paragraph that spans pages 4 and 5, extinction timing prediction unit 24, which gives an amount time until the effect of cleaning disappears, i.e., the asset will have a predetermined, reduced level of efficiency). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the extinction timing of Park in the system of Coatzee and Victor, in order to predict the cleaning time (see Park, first full paragraph on page 5).
Regarding Claim 5, Coatzee in view of Victor teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 4. Coatzee further teaches receiving, via the computing system, from the asset, data characterizing one or more operating states of the asset (paragraphs [0021] and [0035], fouled state, and paragraph [0031], clean state); and determining the cleaning schedule, by the at least one data processor, using an optimization algorithm, based on the operational efficiency of the asset, and the data characterizing the one or more operating states of the asset (Fig. 9a, paragraph [0094], optimum cleaning time; fouling cycle equated to operating states).
Coatzee does not specifically teach determining the cleaning schedule, by the at least one data processor, using an optimization algorithm, based the operational efficiency threshold. However, Coatzee does teach determining the cleaning schedule based on an operational efficiency value, i.e., the heat transfer coefficient (Fig. 8b, 168, 170, Fig. 9a, paragraphs [0093]-[0094]). Further, Victor teaches the operational efficiency threshold (paragraph [0178], [0179], paragraph [0175]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the threshold/set amount of Victor in the system of Coatzee, in order to improve process efficiencies and equipment reliability (see Victor, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding Claim 6, Coatzee in view of Victor teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 5. Coatzee further teaches further comprising: determining, by the at least one data processor, using the optimization algorithm, an optimized operating schedule for operation of the asset in the one or more operating states (Fig. 8a, 172, and Fig. 9a, coordination of cleaning schedule with plant shut downs and other planned maintenance in order to determine economical cleaning time equated to operating schedule; paragraphs [0093]-[0094])
Regarding Claim 7, Coatzee in view of Victor teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 5. Coatzee further teaches wherein the cleaning schedule is determined based on the optimized operating schedule (Fig. 9a, paragraph [0094], economical cleaning time determined based on optimum cleaning time and plant shutdowns and other planned maintenance).
Coatzee does not specifically teach wherein the cleaning schedule includes the predicted time to event. However, Park teaches a predicted time to event (paragraph that spans pages 4 and 5, extinction timing prediction unit 24, which gives an amount time until the effect of cleaning disappears, i.e., the asset will have a predetermined, reduced level of efficiency). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the extinction timing of Park in the system of Coatzee, in order to predict the cleaning time (see Park, first full paragraph on page 5).
Regarding Claim 14, Coatzee in view of Victor teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 11. Coatzee does not specifically teach determining a predicted time to event corresponding to a time that the operational efficiency threshold will be reached; and providing the time to event. However, Coatzee does teach determining the cleaning schedule based on an operational efficiency value, i.e., the heat transfer coefficient (Fig. 8b, 168, 170, Fig. 9a, paragraphs [0093]-[0094]). Further, Victor teaches the operational efficiency threshold (paragraph [0178], [0179], paragraph [0175]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the threshold/set amount of Victor in the system of Coatzee, in order to improve process efficiencies and equipment reliability (see Victor, paragraph [0003]).
Coatzee in view of Victor does not specifically teach determining a predicted time to event corresponding to a time that the operational efficiency threshold will be reached; and providing the time to event. However, Park teaches determining, by the at least one data processor, a predicted time to event corresponding to a time that the operational efficiency threshold will be reached; and providing the time to event (paragraph that spans pages 4 and 5, extinction timing prediction unit 24, which gives an amount time until the effect of cleaning disappears, i.e., the asset will have a predetermined, reduced level of efficiency). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the extinction timing of Park in the system of Coatzee and Victor, in order to predict the cleaning time (see Park, first full paragraph on page 5).
Regarding Claim 15, Coatzee in view of Victor teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 14. Coatzee further teaches receiving, from the asset, data characterizing one or more operating states of the asset (paragraphs [0021] and [0035], fouled state, and paragraph [0031], clean state); and determining the cleaning schedule using an optimization algorithm, based on the operational efficiency of the asset, and the data characterizing the one or more operating states of the asset (Fig. 9a, paragraph [0094], optimum cleaning time; fouling cycle equated to operating states).
Coatzee does not specifically teach determining the cleaning schedule, by the at least one data processor, using an optimization algorithm, based the operational efficiency threshold. However, Coatzee does teach determining the cleaning schedule based on an operational efficiency value, i.e., the heat transfer coefficient (Fig. 8b, 168, 170, Fig. 9a, paragraphs [0093]-[0094]). Further, Victor teaches the operational efficiency threshold (paragraph [0178], [0179], paragraph [0175]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the threshold/set amount of Victor in the system of Coatzee, in order to improve process efficiencies and equipment reliability (see Victor, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding Claim 16, Coatzee in view of Victor teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 15. Coatzee further teaches further comprising: determining, by the at least one data processor, using the optimization algorithm, an optimized operating schedule for operation of the asset in the one or more operating states (Fig. 8a, 172, and Fig. 9a, coordination of cleaning schedule with plant shut downs and other planned maintenance in order to determine economical cleaning time equated to operating schedule; paragraphs [0093]-[0094])
Regarding Claim 17, Coatzee in view of Victor teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 15. Coatzee further teaches wherein the cleaning schedule is determined based on the optimized operating schedule (Fig. 9a, paragraph [0094], economical cleaning time determined based on optimum cleaning time and plant shutdowns and other planned maintenance).
Coatzee does not specifically teach wherein the cleaning schedule includes the predicted time to event. However, Park teaches a predicted time to event (paragraph that spans pages 4 and 5, extinction timing prediction unit 24, which gives an amount time until the effect of cleaning disappears, i.e., the asset will have a predetermined, reduced level of efficiency). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the extinction timing of Park in the system of Coatzee, in order to predict the cleaning time (see Park, first full paragraph on page 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am to 3pm.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571)272-6334. 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.
/CYNTHIA L DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights