DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a Non-Final Office Action Correspondence in response to U.S. Application No. 18/634633 filed on April 12, 2024.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: There are two claimed 1. Examiner is taking the 2nd claim numbered 1 to be numbered as claim 2. Appropriate correction is required.
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 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 1, the claim is directed to a method:
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim 1, specifically claim 1 recites “generating structured utilization data for each support device and each instrument device, wherein the structured utilization data comprises a plurality of fields”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user organizing utilization information for the support devices and instrument devices into labeled fields in a written table, “determining, based on at least one query associated with the structured utilization data, a status for each instrument device, wherein the at least one query is associated with at least one field of the plurality of fields”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user reviewing the organized fields, applying the query criterion to the information, and determining a status for each instrument device. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can using a pen and paper, organize utilization information in labeled fields, review the written fields, apply a query criterion, and determine a status for each instrument device. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example:
receiving, from a plurality of support devices and a plurality of instrument devices, utilization data for each support device and each instrument device, the support devices being communicably coupled to the instrument devices, wherein the utilization data is associated with execution of at least one instrument application on each instrument device and each support device controls the instrument device to which it is communicably coupled via the at least one instrument application is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering/inputting), because the limitation principally acquires information used by the abstract analysis.
outputting, via an information device, an indication of the status for each instrument device is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant extra solution activity (data outputting), because the limitation principally communicates or presents the result of the abstract analysis.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At Step 2B, the claim recites:
“receiving, from a plurality of support devices and a plurality of instrument devices, utilization data for each support device and each instrument device, the support devices being communicably coupled to the instrument devices, wherein the utilization data is associated with execution of at least one instrument application on each instrument device and each support device controls the instrument device to which it is communicably coupled via the at least one instrument application” and
“outputting, via an information device, an indication of the status for each instrument device”
For example, “receiving, from a plurality of support devices and a plurality of instrument devices, utilization data for each support device and each instrument device, the support devices being communicably coupled to the instrument devices, wherein the utilization data is associated with execution of at least one instrument application on each instrument device and each support device controls the instrument device to which it is communicably coupled via the at least one instrument application” MPEP 2106.05(d), category (i) receiving or transmitting data using ordinary electronic/network communication. The limitation uses the recited device principally to acquire or communicate information, analogous to ordinary data reception/transmission functions discussed in Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Technologies, and buySAFE.
For example, “outputting, via an information device, an indication of the status for each instrument device” MPEP 2106.05(d), category (i) receiving or transmitting data using ordinary electronic/network communication. The limitation uses the recited device principally to acquire or communicate information, analogous to ordinary data reception/transmission functions discussed in Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Technologies, and buySAFE.
With respect to Step 1, the claim is directed to a method:
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim 2, specifically claim 2 recites “wherein the status comprises an idle state of a respective support device for each instrument device, a connection status of the respective support device for each instrument device, an operational status for each instrument device, or a status of an operation associated with each instrument device”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user reviewing observed or recorded conditions and categorizing the devices according to an idle state, connection status, operational status, or status of an operation. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can using a pen and paper, review recorded device conditions and write a corresponding idle, connection, operational, or operation status for each device. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 2 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claim is directed to a method:
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim 3, specifically claim 3 recites “generating, by a first support device, the structured utilization data associated with the first support device based on the utilization data associated with the first support device”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user organizing existing utilization information associated with a first support device into a structured written record, “or generating, by a database associated with the plurality of support devices, the structured utilization data based on the utilization data associated with each support device”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user organizing utilization information associated with a plurality of support devices into structured fields in a written table. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can using a pen and paper, organize utilization information associated with one or more support devices into a structured written table. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 3 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claim is directed to a method:
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim 4, specifically claim 4 recites “wherein the at least one field of the plurality of fields is associated with a processor usage for each support device”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user labeling a field in a written table as processor usage for each support device, “wherein the structured utilization data for each support device is indicative of the processor usage for that support device”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user recording and recognizing that the information in the structured field indicates processor usage for the corresponding support device. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can using a pen and paper, create a processor usage field and record information showing the processor usage for each support device. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 4 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 4 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claim is directed to a method:
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim 5, specifically claim 5 recites “determining, based on a configurable threshold value associated with the at least one field, that the processor usage indicated by the structured utilization data meets or exceeds the configurable threshold value”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user comparing a recorded processor usage value with a selected threshold and determining whether the value meets or exceeds the threshold, “determining, based on the processor usage meeting or exceeding the configurable threshold value, the status of the instrument device corresponding to each support device”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user assigning a status to the corresponding instrument device based upon the result of the threshold comparison. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can using a pen and paper, compare a processor usage value with a threshold and assign a device status based upon the comparison. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 5 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claim is directed to a method:
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim 6, specifically claim 6 recites “wherein the configurable threshold value is based on at least one of a processor usage associated with an idle state of the support device, a connection status of the support device, or data contained in an instrument specific log file”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user reviewing recorded processor usage, connection status, or log information and selecting or deriving a threshold from those records. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can using a pen and paper, review processor usage, connection status, or log information and select a threshold based upon the recorded information. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 6 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 6 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claim is directed to a method:
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim 7, specifically claim 7 recites “wherein the at least one field of the plurality of fields is associated with memory usage of each support device”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user labeling a field in a written table as memory usage for each support device, “wherein the structured utilization data for each support device is indicative of the memory usage for that support device”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user recording and recognizing that the information in the structured field indicates memory usage for the corresponding support device. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can using a pen and paper, create a memory usage field and record information showing the memory usage for each support device. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 7 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 7 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claim is directed to a method:
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim 8, specifically claim 8 recites “determining, based on a configurable threshold value associated with the at least one field, that the memory usage indicated by the structured utilization data meets or exceeds the configurable threshold value”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user comparing a recorded memory usage value with a selected threshold and determining whether the value meets or exceeds the threshold, “determining, based on the memory usage meeting or exceeding the configurable threshold value, the status of the instrument device corresponding to each support device”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user assigning a status to the corresponding instrument device based upon the result of the threshold comparison. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can using a pen and paper, compare a memory usage value with a threshold and assign a device status based upon the comparison. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 8 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claim is directed to a method:
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim 9, specifically claim 9 recites “wherein the configurable threshold value is based on a memory usage associated with an idle state of the support device”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user reviewing recorded memory usage associated with an idle state and selecting or calculating a corresponding threshold. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can using a pen and paper, review idle state memory usage and select or calculate a corresponding threshold. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 9 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 9 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claim is directed to a method:
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim 10, specifically claim 10 recites “identifying a location of each instrument device of the plurality of instrument devices”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user identifying the known location of each instrument device and recording the location on a written list or map. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can using a pen and paper, identify the location of each instrument device and record each location on a written list or map. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 10 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 10 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claim is directed to a method:
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim 11, specifically claim 11 recites “calculating, by the support device, a target value for the operational parameter based on the sensor data”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user calculating a target value from recorded sensor values using a written mathematical formula, “calculating, by the support device, a standard deviation threshold based on the sensor data”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user calculating a standard deviation threshold from the recorded sensor values using a written mathematical formula, “identifying, by the support device, one or more data points of real time sensor data exceeding the standard deviation threshold”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user comparing recorded data points with the calculated standard deviation threshold and marking the data points that exceed the threshold. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can using a pen and paper, use recorded sensor values to calculate a target value and a standard deviation threshold and compare the recorded data points with the threshold. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example:
performing, by an instrument device, an operation (MPEP 2106.05(f), example (i), Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017))
monitoring, by a support device communicatively coupled to the instrument device, sensor data corresponding to an operational parameter representing the operation for the instrument device (MPEP 2106.05(g))
performing, by an instrument device, an operation MPEP 2106.05(f), example (i), mere instructions to apply an exception. The limitation recites use of the support device or instrument device to obtain the stated operational result without reciting how the device technically accomplishes that result. This is analogous to Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017), where the claimed result was recited through generic technological components without describing how those components accomplished the result.
monitoring, by a support device communicatively coupled to the instrument device, sensor data corresponding to an operational parameter representing the operation for the instrument device is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering/inputting), because the limitation principally acquires information used by the abstract analysis.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At Step 2B, the claim recites:
“performing, by an instrument device, an operation” and
“monitoring, by a support device communicatively coupled to the instrument device, sensor data corresponding to an operational parameter representing the operation for the instrument device”
For example, “performing, by an instrument device, an operation” MPEP 2106.05(d) none of the six listed conventional computer examples (i) (vi) squarely corresponds to this physical control limitation. Accordingly, this limitation is not deemed well understood, routine, and conventional merely by analogy to those six examples. Its Step 2B significance is evaluated in the ordered combination and in view of whether the claim applies the abstract idea to a concrete physical instrument operation.
For example, “monitoring, by a support device communicatively coupled to the instrument device, sensor data corresponding to an operational parameter representing the operation for the instrument device” MPEP 2106.05(d) none of the six listed conventional computer examples (i) (vi) squarely corresponds to this physical control limitation. Accordingly, this limitation is not deemed well understood, routine, and conventional merely by analogy to those six examples. Its Step 2B significance is evaluated in the ordered combination and in view of whether the claim applies the abstract idea to a concrete physical instrument operation.
With respect to Step 1, the claim is directed to a method:
With respect to Step 2A Prong one, claim 12, specifically claim 12 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 12 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example:
performing, by the support device, an action in response to the one or more data points of real time sensor data exceeding the standard deviation threshold by adjusting the operation MPEP 2106.05(f), example (i), mere instructions to apply an exception. The limitation recites use of the support device or instrument device to obtain the stated operational result without reciting how the device technically accomplishes that result. This is analogous to Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017), where the claimed result was recited through generic technological components without describing how those components accomplished the result.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At Step 2B, the claim recites:
For example, “performing, by the support device, an action in response to the one or more data points of real time sensor data exceeding the standard deviation threshold by adjusting the operation” MPEP 2106.05(d), category (ii) performing repetitive calculations. To the extent the additional element merely causes generic computing hardware to repeatedly perform the recited calculations, it is analogous to the conventional calculation functions discussed in Flook and Bancorp.
With respect to Step 1, the claim is directed to a method:
With respect to Step 2A Prong one, claim 13, specifically claim 13 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 13 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example:
adjusting, by the support device, the operation in response to the one or more data points of real time sensor data exceeding the standard deviation threshold comprises terminating the operation MPEP 2106.05(f), example (i), mere instructions to apply an exception. The limitation recites use of the support device or instrument device to obtain the stated operational result without reciting how the device technically accomplishes that result. This is analogous to Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017), where the claimed result was recited through generic technological components without describing how those components accomplished the result.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At Step 2B, the claim recites:
For example, “adjusting, by the support device, the operation in response to the one or more data points of real time sensor data exceeding the standard deviation threshold comprises terminating the operation” MPEP 2106.05(d), category (ii) performing repetitive calculations. To the extent the additional element merely causes generic computing hardware to repeatedly perform the recited calculations, it is analogous to the conventional calculation functions discussed in Flook and Bancorp.
With respect to Step 1, the claim is directed to a method:
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim 14, specifically claim 14 recites “wherein the standard deviation threshold comprises two standard deviations”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user defining and calculating the threshold as two standard deviations using recorded values and a written mathematical formula. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can using a pen and paper, calculate two standard deviations from recorded values and use the calculated value as a threshold. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 10 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claim is directed to a method:
With respect to Step 2A Prong one, claim 15, specifically claim 15 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 15 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example:
adjusting, by the support device, the operation in response to the one or more data points of real time sensor data exceeding the standard deviation threshold comprises controlling the operation of the instrument device to produce a reversal of the real time sensor data (MPEP 2106.05(f), example (i), Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017))
adjusting, by the support device, the operation in response to the one or more data points of real time sensor data exceeding the standard deviation threshold comprises controlling the operation of the instrument device to produce a reversal of the real time sensor data MPEP 2106.05(f), example (i), mere instructions to apply an exception. The limitation recites use of the support device or instrument device to obtain the stated operational result without reciting how the device technically accomplishes that result. This is analogous to Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017), where the claimed result was recited through generic technological components without describing how those components accomplished the result.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At Step 2B, the claim recites:
“adjusting, by the support device, the operation in response to the one or more data points of real time sensor data exceeding the standard deviation threshold comprises controlling the operation of the instrument device to produce a reversal of the real time sensor data”
For example, “adjusting, by the support device, the operation in response to the one or more data points of real time sensor data exceeding the standard deviation threshold comprises controlling the operation of the instrument device to produce a reversal of the real time sensor data” MPEP 2106.05(d), category (ii) performing repetitive calculations. To the extent the additional element merely causes generic computing hardware to repeatedly perform the recited calculations, it is analogous to the conventional calculation functions discussed in Flook and Bancorp.
With respect to Step 1, the claim is directed to a method:
With respect to Step 2A Prong one, claim 16, specifically claim 16 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 16 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example:
performing, by the support device, an action in response to the one or more data points of real time sensor data exceeding the standard deviation threshold comprises transmitting, by the support device, a notification to one or more persons associated with the operation, the notification indicating that the one or more data points of real time sensor data has exceeded the standard deviation threshold is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering/inputting), because the limitation principally acquires information used by the abstract analysis.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At Step 2B, the claim recites:
“performing, by the support device, an action in response to the one or more data points of real time sensor data exceeding the standard deviation threshold comprises transmitting, by the support device, a notification to one or more persons associated with the operation, the notification indicating that the one or more data points of real time sensor data has exceeded the standard deviation threshold”
For example, “performing, by the support device, an action in response to the one or more data points of real time sensor data exceeding the standard deviation threshold comprises transmitting, by the support device, a notification to one or more persons associated with the operation, the notification indicating that the one or more data points of real time sensor data has exceeded the standard deviation threshold” MPEP 2106.05(d), category (i) receiving or transmitting data using ordinary electronic/network communication. The limitation uses the recited device principally to acquire or communicate information, analogous to ordinary data reception/transmission functions discussed in Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Technologies, and buySAFE.
With respect to Step 1, the claim is directed to a method:
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim 17, specifically claim 17 recites “wherein the standard deviation threshold comprises one standard deviation”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user defining and calculating the threshold as one standard deviation using recorded values and a written mathematical formula. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can using a pen and paper, calculate one standard deviation from recorded values and use the calculated value as a threshold. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 17 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example:
performing, by an instrument device, an operation (MPEP 2106.05(f), example (i), Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017))
monitoring, by a support device communicatively coupled to the instrument device, sensor data corresponding to an operational parameter representing the operation for the instrument device (MPEP 2106.05(g))
performing, by an instrument device, an operation MPEP 2106.05(f), example (i), mere instructions to apply an exception. The limitation recites use of the support device or instrument device to obtain the stated operational result without reciting how the device technically accomplishes that result. This is analogous to Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017), where the claimed result was recited through generic technological components without describing how those components accomplished the result.
monitoring, by a support device communicatively coupled to the instrument device, sensor data corresponding to an operational parameter representing the operation for the instrument device is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering/inputting), because the limitation principally acquires information used by the abstract analysis.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At Step 2B, the claim recites:
“performing, by an instrument device, an operation” and
“monitoring, by a support device communicatively coupled to the instrument device, sensor data corresponding to an operational parameter representing the operation for the instrument device”
For example, “performing, by an instrument device, an operation” MPEP 2106.05(d) none of the six listed conventional computer examples (i) (vi) squarely corresponds to this physical control limitation. Accordingly, this limitation is not deemed well understood, routine, and conventional merely by analogy to those six examples. Its Step 2B significance is evaluated in the ordered combination and in view of whether the claim applies the abstract idea to a concrete physical instrument operation.
For example, “monitoring, by a support device communicatively coupled to the instrument device, sensor data corresponding to an operational parameter representing the operation for the instrument device” MPEP 2106.05(d) none of the six listed conventional computer examples (i) (vi) squarely corresponds to this physical control limitation. Accordingly, this limitation is not deemed well understood, routine, and conventional merely by analogy to those six examples. Its Step 2B significance is evaluated in the ordered combination and in view of whether the claim applies the abstract idea to a concrete physical instrument operation.
With respect to Step 1, the claim is directed to a method:
With respect to Step 2A Prong one, claim 18, specifically claim 18 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 18 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example:
performing, by an instrument device, an operation (MPEP 2106.05(f), example (i), Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017))
monitoring, by a support device communicatively coupled to the instrument device, sensor data corresponding to an operational parameter representing the operation for the instrument device (MPEP 2106.05(g))
wherein the notification comprises a visual indication that the one or more data points of real time sensor data has exceeded the standard deviation threshold (MPEP 2106.05(g))
performing, by an instrument device, an operation MPEP 2106.05(f), example (i), mere instructions to apply an exception. The limitation recites use of the support device or instrument device to obtain the stated operational result without reciting how the device technically accomplishes that result. This is analogous to Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017), where the claimed result was recited through generic technological components without describing how those components accomplished the result.
monitoring, by a support device communicatively coupled to the instrument device, sensor data corresponding to an operational parameter representing the operation for the instrument device is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering/inputting), because the limitation principally acquires information used by the abstract analysis.
wherein the notification comprises a visual indication that the one or more data points of real time sensor data has exceeded the standard deviation threshold is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering/inputting), because the limitation principally acquires information used by the abstract analysis.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At Step 2B, the claim recites:
“performing, by an instrument device, an operation” and
“monitoring, by a support device communicatively coupled to the instrument device, sensor data corresponding to an operational parameter representing the operation for the instrument device” and
“wherein the notification comprises a visual indication that the one or more data points of real time sensor data has exceeded the standard deviation threshold”
For example, “performing, by an instrument device, an operation” MPEP 2106.05(d) none of the six listed conventional computer examples (i) (vi) squarely corresponds to this physical control limitation. Accordingly, this limitation is not deemed well understood, routine, and conventional merely by analogy to those six examples. Its Step 2B significance is evaluated in the ordered combination and in view of whether the claim applies the abstract idea to a concrete physical instrument operation.
For example, “monitoring, by a support device communicatively coupled to the instrument device, sensor data corresponding to an operational parameter representing the operation for the instrument device” MPEP 2106.05(d) none of the six listed conventional computer examples (i) (vi) squarely corresponds to this physical control limitation. Accordingly, this limitation is not deemed well understood, routine, and conventional merely by analogy to those six examples. Its Step 2B significance is evaluated in the ordered combination and in view of whether the claim applies the abstract idea to a concrete physical instrument operation.
For example, “wherein the notification comprises a visual indication that the one or more data points of real time sensor data has exceeded the standard deviation threshold” MPEP 2106.05(d), category (i) receiving or transmitting data using ordinary electronic/network communication. The limitation uses the recited device principally to acquire or communicate information, analogous to ordinary data reception/transmission functions discussed in Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Technologies, and buySAFE.
With respect to Step 1, the claim is directed to a method:
With respect to Step 2A Prong one, claim 19, specifically claim 19 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 19 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example:
performing, by an instrument device, an operation (MPEP 2106.05(f), example (i), Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017))
monitoring, by a support device communicatively coupled to the instrument device, sensor data corresponding to an operational parameter representing the operation for the instrument device (MPEP 2106.05(g))
wherein the notification comprises an auditory indication that the one or more data points of real time sensor data has exceeded the standard deviation threshold (MPEP 2106.05(g))
performing, by an instrument device, an operation MPEP 2106.05(f), example (i), mere instructions to apply an exception. The limitation recites use of the support device or instrument device to obtain the stated operational result without reciting how the device technically accomplishes that result. This is analogous to Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017), where the claimed result was recited through generic technological components without describing how those components accomplished the result.
monitoring, by a support device communicatively coupled to the instrument device, sensor data corresponding to an operational parameter representing the operation for the instrument device is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering/inputting), because the limitation principally acquires information used by the abstract analysis.
wherein the notification comprises an auditory indication that the one or more data points of real time sensor data has exceeded the standard deviation threshold is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering/inputting), because the limitation principally acquires information used by the abstract analysis.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At Step 2B, the claim recites:
“performing, by an instrument device, an operation” and
“monitoring, by a support device communicatively coupled to the instrument device, sensor data corresponding to an operational parameter representing the operation for the instrument device” and
“wherein the notification comprises an auditory indication that the one or more data points of real time sensor data has exceeded the standard deviation threshold”
For example, “performing, by an instrument device, an operation” MPEP 2106.05(d) none of the six listed conventional computer examples (i) (vi) squarely corresponds to this physical control limitation. Accordingly, this limitation is not deemed well understood, routine, and conventional merely by analogy to those six examples. Its Step 2B significance is evaluated in the ordered combination and in view of whether the claim applies the abstract idea to a concrete physical instrument operation.
For example, “monitoring, by a support device communicatively coupled to the instrument device, sensor data corresponding to an operational parameter representing the operation for the instrument device” MPEP 2106.05(d) none of the six listed conventional computer examples (i) (vi) squarely corresponds to this physical control limitation. Accordingly, this limitation is not deemed well understood, routine, and conventional merely by analogy to those six examples. Its Step 2B significance is evaluated in the ordered combination and in view of whether the claim applies the abstract idea to a concrete physical instrument operation.
For example, “wherein the notification comprises an auditory indication that the one or more data points of real time sensor data has exceeded the standard deviation threshold” MPEP 2106.05(d), category (i) receiving or transmitting data using ordinary electronic/network communication. The limitation uses the recited device principally to acquire or communicate information, analogous to ordinary data reception/transmission functions discussed in Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Technologies, and buySAFE.
With respect to Step 1, the claim is directed to a method:
With respect to Step 2A Prong one, claim 20, specifically claim 20 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 20 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example:
performing, by an instrument device, an operation (MPEP 2106.05(f), example (i), Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017))
monitoring, by a support device communicatively coupled to the instrument device, sensor data corresponding to an operational parameter representing the operation for the instrument device (MPEP 2106.05(g))
transmitting, by the support device, a notification to one or more persons associated with the operation comprises outputting, via an information device, an indication of a status for the instrument device with a representation of a location of the instrument device (MPEP 2106.05(g))
performing, by an instrument device, an operation MPEP 2106.05(f), example (i), mere instructions to apply an exception. The limitation recites use of the support device or instrument device to obtain the stated operational result without reciting how the device technically accomplishes that result. This is analogous to Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017), where the claimed result was recited through generic technological components without describing how those components accomplished the result.
monitoring, by a support device communicatively coupled to the instrument device, sensor data corresponding to an operational parameter representing the operation for the instrument device is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering/inputting), because the limitation principally acquires information used by the abstract analysis.
transmitting, by the support device, a notification to one or more persons associated with the operation comprises outputting, via an information device, an indication of a status for the instrument device with a representation of a location of the instrument device is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant extra solution activity (data outputting), because the limitation principally communicates or presents the result of the abstract analysis.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At Step 2B, the claim recites:
“performing, by an instrument device, an operation” and
“monitoring, by a support device communicatively coupled to the instrument device, sensor data corresponding to an operational parameter representing the operation for the instrument device” and
“transmitting, by the support device, a notification to one or more persons associated with the operation comprises outputting, via an information device, an indication of a status for the instrument device with a representation of a location of the instrument device”
For example, “performing, by an instrument device, an operation” MPEP 2106.05(d) none of the six listed conventional computer examples (i) (vi) squarely corresponds to this physical control limitation. Accordingly, this limitation is not deemed well understood, routine, and conventional merely by analogy to those six examples. Its Step 2B significance is evaluated in the ordered combination and in view of whether the claim applies the abstract idea to a concrete physical instrument operation.
For example, “monitoring, by a support device communicatively coupled to the instrument device, sensor data corresponding to an operational parameter representing the operation for the instrument device” MPEP 2106.05(d) none of the six listed conventional computer examples (i) (vi) squarely corresponds to this physical control limitation. Accordingly, this limitation is not deemed well understood, routine, and conventional merely by analogy to those six examples. Its Step 2B significance is evaluated in the ordered combination and in view of whether the claim applies the abstract idea to a concrete physical instrument operation.
For example, “transmitting, by the support device, a notification to one or more persons associated with the operation comprises outputting, via an information device, an indication of a status for the instrument device with a representation of a location of the instrument device” MPEP 2106.05(d), category (i) receiving or transmitting data using ordinary electronic/network communication. The limitation uses the recited device principally to acquire or communicate information, analogous to ordinary data reception/transmission functions discussed in Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Technologies, and buySAFE.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 11, 12, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wegerich et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0078171 A1 (herein as 'Wegerich').
As to claim 11 Wegerich teaches a method for managing an instrument device, the method comprising:
performing, by an instrument device, an operation (Par. 0014 Wegerich discloses that it monitors a physical process/machine through sensors, generates expected sensor values, calculates residual/statistical thresholds from sensor data, and detects sensor behavior outside normal limits);
monitoring, by a support device communicatively coupled to the instrument device, sensor data corresponding to an operational parameter representing the operation for the instrument device (Par. 0007, 0014-0015 Wegerich discloses that it monitors a physical process/machine through sensors, generates expected sensor values, calculates residual/statistical thresholds from sensor data, and detects sensor behavior outside normal limits);
calculating, by the support device, a target value for the operational parameter based on the sensor data (Par. 0007 Wegerich discloses that it monitors a physical process/machine through sensors, generates expected sensor values, calculates residual/statistical thresholds from sensor data, and detects sensor behavior outside normal limits);
calculating, by the support device, a standard deviation threshold based on the sensor data (Par. 0080 Wegerich discloses that it monitors a physical process/machine through sensors, generates expected sensor values, calculates residual/statistical thresholds from sensor data, and detects sensor behavior outside normal limits);
identifying, by the support device, one or more data points of real-time sensor data exceeding the standard deviation threshold (Par. 0080-0084 Wegerich discloses that it monitors a physical process/machine through sensors, generates expected sensor values, calculates residual/statistical thresholds from sensor data, and detects sensor behavior outside normal limits).
As to claim 12 Wegerich teaches each and every limitation of claim 11.
In addition Wegerich teaches: performing, by the support device, an action in response to the one or more data points of real-time sensor data exceeding the standard deviation threshold by adjusting the operation (Par. 0015 Wegerich discloses that it states that diagnostic outputs may be provided to a control system that acts automatically on the diagnosis for process or machine control).
As to claim 16 Wegerich teaches each and every limitation of claim 11.
In addition Wegerich teaches: performing, by the support device, an action in response to the one or more data points of real-time sensor data exceeding the standard deviation threshold comprises transmitting, by the support device, a notification to one or more persons associated with the operation, the notification indicating that the one or more data points of real-time sensor data has exceeded the standard deviation threshold (Par. 0015 Wegerich discloses threshold-based diagnostic outputs that can be displayed or transmitted to remote devices to communicate detected machine/process conditions).
As to claim 17 Wegerich teaches each and every limitation of claim 16.
In addition Wegerich teaches: wherein the standard deviation threshold comprises one standard deviation (Par. 0084-0086 Wegerich discloses positive/negative mean tests using a mean located one standard deviation above or below zero).
As to claim 18 Wegerich teaches each and every limitation of claim 16.
In addition Wegerich teaches: wherein the notification comprises a visual indication that the one or more data points of real-time sensor data has exceeded the standard deviation threshold (Par. 0015 Wegerich discloses displaying diagnostic outputs generated from monitored sensor conditions).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suit et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0096142 A1 (herein as 'Suit') and further in view of Filippi et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0026849 A1 (herein as 'Filippi').
As to claim 1 Suit teaches a method for managing a plurality of instrument devices, the method comprising:
receiving, from a plurality of support devices and a plurality of instrument devices, utilization data for each support device and each instrument device, the support devices being communicably coupled to the instrument devices, wherein the utilization data is associated with execution of at least one instrument application on each instrument device and each support device controls the instrument device to which it is communicably coupled via the at least one instrument application (Par. 0026-0028 Suit discloses that it receives messages from data-collection agents containing state, configuration, performance/utilization, and application/network information and determines entity state from those messages);
Suit does not teach the structured utilization data and field based query limitations. Filippi teaches:
generating structured utilization data for each support device and each instrument device, wherein the structured utilization data comprises a plurality of fields (Par. 0033-0035 Filippi discloses that it starts with raw machine/performance/sensor data, transforms it into timestamped events, and defines/extracts values for fields using a schema);
determining, based on at least one query associated with the structured utilization data, a status for each instrument device, wherein the at least one query is associated with at least one field of the plurality of fields (Par. 0052-0053 Filippi discloses that it executes queries against stored event data using specified field values and returns matching events or query results/visualizations);
outputting, via an information device, an indication of the status for each instrument device (Par. 0035, 0049-0053 Suit discloses that it determines node/component states from thresholds and displays component operating states and warning levels in a graphical user interface).
Suit and Filippi are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, monitoring, structuring, querying, and reporting operational utilization data for computer controlled devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the monitored performance and utilization data and state determination of Suit to include the structured event fields and field based querying of Filippi, to make heterogeneous operational data searchable and usable for determining and outputting device status (Par. 0033-0035 and 0052-0053 Filippi disclose structuring heterogeneous operational data into defined fields and searching the resulting data using field based queries).
As to claim 2 Suit and Filippi teach each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Suit teaches:
wherein the status comprises an idle state of a respective support device for each instrument device, a connection status of the respective support device for each instrument device, an operational status for each instrument device, or a status of an operation associated with each instrument device (Par. 0028, 0049-0053, 0083-0084 Suit discloses that it expressly defines state/status alternatives including threshold state, communication relationship status, alerts, application/process/device state, and graphical warning status).
As to claim 3 Suit and Filippi teach each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Filippi teaches:
generating, by a first support device, the structured utilization data associated with the first support device based on the utilization data associated with the first support device (Par. 0033-0035 Filippi discloses that it starts with raw machine/performance/sensor data, transforms it into timestamped events, and defines/extracts values for fields using a schema);
or generating, by a database associated with the plurality of support devices, the structured utilization data based on the utilization data associated with each support device (Par. 0033-0035, 0052-0053 Filippi discloses that it starts with raw machine/performance/sensor data, transforms it into timestamped events, and defines/extracts values for fields using a schema).
As to claim 4 Suit and Filippi teach each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Suit teaches:
wherein the at least one field of the plurality of fields is associated with a processor usage for each support device (Par. 0026, 0059-0060 Suit discloses that it identifies CPU utilization as a monitored resource/performance metric);
wherein the structured utilization data for each support device is indicative of the processor usage for that support device (Par. 0026, 0059-0060 Suit discloses that it identifies CPU utilization as a monitored resource/performance metric).
As to claim 5 Suit and Filippi teach each and every limitation of claim 4.
In addition Suit teaches:
determining, based on a configurable threshold value associated with the at least one field, that the processor usage indicated by the structured utilization data meets or exceeds the configurable threshold value (Par. 0028, 0051-0053, 0060 Suit discloses that it compares monitored CPU/memory metrics with configurable thresholds and determines a component state such as high warning when the threshold is exceeded);
determining, based on the processor usage meeting or exceeding the configurable threshold value, the status of the instrument device corresponding to each support device (Par. 0028, 0049-0053 Suit discloses that it compares monitored CPU/memory metrics with configurable thresholds and determines a component state such as high warning when the threshold is exceeded).
As to claim 6 Suit and Filippi teach each and every limitation of claim 5.
In addition Suit teaches:
wherein the configurable threshold value is based on at least one of a processor usage associated with an idle state of the support device, a connection status of the support device, or data contained in an instrument-specific log file (Par. 0037-0039, 0072-0073 Suit discloses that it establishes a normal/steady-state baseline and tracks thresholds identified as normal, using normal-range resource data to set or adjust performance criteria).
As to claim 7 Suit and Filippi teach each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Suit teaches:
wherein the at least one field of the plurality of fields is associated with memory usage of each support device (Par. 0026, 0059 Suit discloses that it identifies occupied memory/memory utilization as a monitored performance metric);
wherein the structured utilization data for each support device is indicative of the memory usage for that support device (Par. 0026, 0059 Suit discloses that it identifies occupied memory/memory utilization as a monitored performance metric).
As to claim 8 Suit and Filippi teach each and every limitation of claim 7.
In addition Suit teaches:
determining, based on a configurable threshold value associated with the at least one field, that the memory usage indicated by the structured utilization data meets or exceeds the configurable threshold value (Par. 0028, 0051-0053 Suit discloses that it compares memory/resource performance to thresholds and determines warning/component state based on the comparison);
determining, based on the memory usage meeting or exceeding the configurable threshold value, the status of the instrument device corresponding to each support device (Par. 0028, 0049-0053 Suit discloses that it compares memory/resource performance to thresholds and determines warning/component state based on the comparison).
As to claim 9 Suit and Filippi teach each and every limitation of claim 8.
In addition Suit teaches:
wherein the configurable threshold value is based on a memory usage associated with an idle state of the support device (Par. 0038-0039, 0072-0073 Suit discloses that it tracks normal/steady-state operation and derives threshold behavior from metrics observed in the normal operating range).
9. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suit et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0096142 A1 (herein as 'Suit') and further in view of Filippi et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0026849 A1 (herein as 'Filippi') and Aninye et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0088437 A1 (herein as 'Aninye').
As to claim 10 Suit and Filippi teach each and every limitation of claim 1.
Suit and Filippi do not teach but Aninye teaches:
identifying a location of each instrument device of the plurality of instrument devices (Par. 0031, 0071 Aninye discloses that it generates graphical location-history maps and status/device reports and provides location/mapping services for monitored devices);
wherein outputting, via an information device, an indication of the status for each instrument device comprises displaying an indication of the status for each instrument device with a representation of the location of each instrument device (Par. 0035, 0038, 0050, 0071 Aninye discloses that it generates graphical location-history maps and status/device reports and provides location/mapping services for monitored devices).
Suit, Filippi, and Aninye are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, monitoring devices, presenting device status information, and organizing information used to identify monitored equipment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the status display produced from the Suit and Filippi monitoring system to include the location mapping and device reporting of Aninye, to identify the physical monitored device associated with the displayed status and where that device is located (Par. 0031, 0035, 0038, 0050, and 0071 Aninye disclose graphical location maps together with monitored device status and reports).
10. Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegerich et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0078171 A1 (herein as 'Wegerich') and further in view of Daniel U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0207979 A1 (herein as 'Daniel').
As to claim 13 Wegerich teaches each and every limitation of claim 12.
Wegerich does not teach but Daniel teaches:
adjusting, by the support device, the operation in response to the one or more data points of real-time sensor data exceeding the standard deviation threshold comprises terminating the operation (Par. 0009-0010, 0035-0036 Daniel discloses that it receives sensor signals, detects a fault condition, and selectively shuts down the physical arc-processing system after fault detection).
Wegerich and Daniel are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, monitoring physical equipment with sensors and controlling the equipment in response to detected abnormal or fault conditions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the automatic machine or process control of Wegerich to include the fault responsive shutdown of Daniel, to terminate operation when the detected condition indicates a fault and thereby reduce damage to the operating system or workpiece (Par. 0009-0010 and 0035-0036 Daniel disclose receiving sensor signals, detecting a fault condition, and selectively shutting down the physical processing system after fault detection).
As to claim 14 Wegerich and Daniel teach each and every limitation of claim 13.
In addition Wegerich teaches:
wherein the standard deviation threshold comprises two standard deviations (Par. 0080 Wegerich discloses that it expressly sets a residual threshold at two times the standard deviation calculated over normal-operation data and also permits moving-window calculation).
11. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegerich et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0078171 A1 (herein as 'Wegerich') and further in view of Swensgard et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0007341 A1 (herein as 'Swensgard').
As to claim 15 Wegerich teaches each and every limitation of claim 12.
Wegerich does not teach but Swensgard teaches:
adjusting, by the support device, the operation in response to the one or more data points of real-time sensor data exceeding the standard deviation threshold comprises controlling the operation of the instrument device to produce a reversal of the real-time sensor data (Par. 0180 Swensgard discloses that it describes a reverse-motor sensor condition causing a motor of an instrument to reverse rotational direction).
Wegerich and Swensgard are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, sensor based monitoring and control of operating instruments or machines. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the automatic corrective machine control of Wegerich to include the sensor responsive motor reversal of Swensgard, to reverse the controlled operation when reversal is the corrective response to the sensed operating condition (Par. 0180 Swensgard discloses a reverse motor sensor condition causing a motor of an instrument to reverse rotational direction).
12. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegerich et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0078171 A1 (herein as 'Wegerich') and further in view of Kim et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0330427 A1 (herein as 'Kim').
As to claim 19 Wegerich teaches each and every limitation of claim 16.
Wegerich does not teach but Kim teaches:
wherein the notification comprises an auditory indication that the one or more data points of real-time sensor data has exceeded the standard deviation threshold (Par. 0001-0004 Kim discloses converting device/system status states into an audible signal and transmitting sound representative of the monitored status).
Wegerich and Kim are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, monitoring equipment status and communicating a detected condition to a user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the diagnostic notification of Wegerich to include the audible status indication of Kim, to communicate equipment status without requiring the operator to maintain visual attention on a display (Par. 0001-0004 Kim disclose converting device or system status states into an audible signal and transmitting sound representative of the monitored status).
13. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegerich et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0078171 A1 (herein as 'Wegerich') and further in view of Aninye et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0088437 A1 (herein as 'Aninye').
As to claim 20 Wegerich teaches each and every limitation of claim 16.
Wegerich does not teach but Aninye teaches:
transmitting, by the support device, a notification to one or more persons associated with the operation comprises outputting, via an information device, an indication of a status for the instrument device with a representation of a location of the instrument device (Par. 0031, 0035, 0038, 0050, 0071 Aninye discloses location maps together with status and device reports for monitored devices, including mapping services that render monitored locations).
Wegerich and Aninye are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, monitoring devices and communicating device condition information to a user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the threshold notification of Wegerich to include the location mapping and device reporting of Aninye, to identify which physical monitored instrument generated the notification and where the instrument can be found (Par. 0031, 0035, 0038, 0050, and 0071 Aninye disclose location maps together with status and device reports for monitored devices).
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMAINE A MINCEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5010. The examiner can normally be reached 8am EST until 5pm EST.
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 J 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.
/JERMAINE A MINCEY/ September 05, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights