DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “obtaining operating parameter characteristics of the first asset and the second asset, the operating parameter characteristics being corresponding to the operating parameters of the first asset and the second asset” should read “obtaining operating parameter characteristics of the first asset and the second asset, the operating parameter characteristics being corresponding to [[the]] operating parameters of the first asset and the second asset”; the limitation “associating the operating parameters characteristics of the first asset with operating parameter characteristics of the second asset to establish a causative correlation between the alarm event and the operation of the second asset” should read “associating the operating parameters characteristics of the first asset with the operating parameter characteristics of the second asset to establish a causative correlation between the alarm event and [[the]] operation of the second asset”, and the limitation “modifying operating parameters of at least one of the first asset and the second asset for mitigating the alarm event” should read “modifying the operating parameters of at least one of the first asset and the second asset for mitigating the alarm event” in order to provide the appropriate antecedent basis.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “the instantaneous parameter values of the operational parameters” should read “[[the]] instantaneous parameter values of the operational parameters” in order to provide the appropriate antecedent basis.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “the indication for performing root cause analysis is a user input” should read “the indication for performing the root cause analysis is a user input” in order to provide the appropriate antecedent basis.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “the indication for performing root cause analysis is the alarm event for the first asset” should read “the indication for performing the root cause analysis is a user input” in order to provide the appropriate antecedent basis.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “receiving operating parameter characteristics of a plurality of assets within the industrial facility, the plurality of assets comprising the first asset and the second asset” should read “receiving the operating parameter characteristics of [[a]] the plurality of assets within the industrial facility, the plurality of assets comprising the first asset and the second asset” in order to provide the appropriate antecedent basis.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “transmitting historical alarm events and actions initiated in response to the alarm events to the versioned database instance” should read “transmitting the historical alarm events and the actions initiated in response to the alarm events to the versioned database instance” in order to provide the appropriate antecedent basis.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “obtain operating parameter characteristics of the first asset and the second asset, the operating parameter characteristics being corresponding to the operating parameters of the first asset and the second asset” should read “obtain operating parameter characteristics of the first asset and the second asset, the operating parameter characteristics being corresponding to [[the]] operating parameters of the first asset and the second asset”; the limitation “associate the operating parameters characteristics of the first asset with operating parameter characteristics of the second asset to establish a causative correlation between the alarm event and the operation of the second asset” should read “associate the operating parameters characteristics of the first asset with the operating parameter characteristics of the second asset to establish a causative correlation between the alarm event and [[the]] operation of the second asset”; and limitation “initiate a corrective action for the alarm event by modifying operating parameters of at least one of the first asset and the second asset” should read “initiate a corrective action for the alarm event by modifying the operating parameters of at least one of the first asset and the second asset” in order to provide the appropriate antecedent basis.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “the operating parameter characteristics comprises historical alarm events, actions initiated in response to the alarm events, and the instantaneous parameter values of the operational parameters” should read “the operating parameter characteristics comprises historical alarm events, the actions initiated in response to the alarm events, and [[the]] instantaneous parameter values of the operational parameters” in order to provide the appropriate antecedent basis.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “receive operating parameter characteristics of a plurality of assets within the industrial facility, the plurality of assets comprising the first asset and the second asset” should read “receive the operating parameter characteristics of [[a]] the plurality of assets within the industrial facility, the plurality of assets comprising the first asset and the second asset” in order to provide the appropriate antecedent basis.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “transmit historical alarm events and actions initiated in response to the alarm events to the versioned database” should read “transmit the historical alarm events and the actions initiated in response to the alarm events to the versioned database” in order to provide the appropriate antecedent basis.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “obtain operating parameter characteristics of the first asset and the second asset, the operating parameter characteristics being corresponding to the operating parameters of the first asset and the second asset” should read “obtain operating parameter characteristics of the first asset and the second asset, the operating parameter characteristics being corresponding to [[the]] operating parameters of the first asset and the second asset”; the limitation “associate the operating parameters characteristics of the first asset with operating parameter characteristics of the second asset to establish a causative correlation between the alarm event and the operation of the second asset” should read “associate the operating parameters characteristics of the first asset with the operating parameter characteristics of the second asset to establish a causative correlation between the alarm event and [[the]] operation of the second asset”; the limitation “perform root cause analysis using the associated operating parameter characteristics” should read “perform the root cause analysis using the associated operating parameter characteristics”; and the limitation “modify operating parameters of at least one of the first asset and the second asset for mitigating the alarm event” should read “modify the operating parameters of at least one of the first asset and the second asset for mitigating the alarm event” in order to provide the appropriate antecedent basis.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “receive operating parameter characteristics of a plurality of assets within the industrial facility, the plurality of assets comprising the first asset and the second asset” should read “receive the operating parameter characteristics of a plurality of assets within the industrial facility, the plurality of assets comprising the first asset and the second asset” in order to provide the appropriate antecedent basis.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “transmit historical alarm events and actions initiated in response to the alarm events to the versioned database” should read “transmit the historical alarm events and the actions initiated in response to the alarm events to the versioned database” in order to provide the appropriate antecedent basis.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the
four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the
examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that
the abstract idea belongs to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical
concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Independent Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an
abstract idea highlighted in bold; the remaining limitations are ''additional elements''.
A method comprising:
receiving an indication for performing root cause analysis corresponding to an alarm event for a first asset within an industrial facility;
identifying a second asset related to the first asset within the industrial facility based on a hierarchical relationship amongst a plurality of assets within the industrial facility, the hierarchical relationship being indicative of operational inter-dependability amongst the plurality of assets within the industrial facility, and the hierarchical relationship being stored in a first database instance;
obtaining operating parameter characteristics of the first asset and the second asset, the operating parameter characteristics being corresponding to the operating parameters of the first asset and the second asset, the operating parameters of the first asset and the second asset being indicative of operation of the first asset and the second asset, and the operating parameters characteristics being obtained from a plurality of second database instances communicatively coupled to the first database instance;
associating the operating parameters characteristics of the first asset with operating parameter characteristics of the second asset to establish a causative correlation between the alarm event and the operation of the second asset;
performing the root cause analysis using the associated operating parameter characteristics; and
modifying operating parameters of at least one of the first asset and the second asset for mitigating the alarm event.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion).
The steps “identifying a second asset related to the first asset within the industrial facility based on a hierarchical relationship amongst a plurality of assets within the industrial facility, the hierarchical relationship being indicative of operational inter-dependability amongst the plurality of assets within the industrial facility, and the hierarchical relationship being stored in a first database instance” and “obtaining operating parameter characteristics of the first asset and the second asset, the operating parameter characteristics being corresponding to the operating parameters of the first asset and the second asset, the operating parameters of the first asset and the second asset being indicative of operation of the first asset and the second asset, and the operating parameters characteristics being obtained from a plurality of second database instances communicatively coupled to the first database instance” are treated by the examiner as belonging to mental concept grouping, the step “associating the operating parameters characteristics of the first asset with operating parameter characteristics of the second asset to establish a causative correlation between the alarm event and the operation of the second asset” is treated by the examiner as belonging to mathematical concept grouping, and the step, and the steps “performing the root cause analysis using the associated operating parameter characteristics” and “modifying operating parameters of at least one of the first asset and the second asset for mitigating the alarm event” are treated as a combination of mathematical and mental concepts.
With regards to the mental steps, according to the 2019 PEG: “If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for ‘‘anonymous loan shopping” was an abstract idea because it could be ‘‘performed by humans without a computer”); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (‘‘Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person's mind.”).”
Prong 2 of Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite additional elements or a combination of additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This requires additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
In Claim 1, the additional elements “an alarm event”, “asset”, and “industrial facility” are generally recited and used for extra-solution activities (e.g., signal transmission/reception) and do not qualify as a particular machine or a particular transformation.
The preamble of Claim 1: “A method comprising” is a generically recited preamble.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, when considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2A, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Essentially, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because they are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art of US20230394950 to Menzel et al. (hereinafter Menzel) and US20150293516A1 to Akiyama et al. (hereinafter Akiyama).
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claim 1, therefore, is not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-8 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (Step 2A, Prong One), recite no additional elements reflecting a practical application (Step2A, Prong Two), and fail a “significantly more” test under the step 2B for the same reasons as discussed with regards to the independent claims.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also ineligible.
Same considerations were applied to independent Claim 9 and its dependent claims 10-14.
With regards to independent Claim 9: under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
In Claim 9, the additional elements “a monitoring engine”, “an analysis engine”, “an alarm mitigation engine”, and “a corrective action” are generally recited and do not qualify as a particular machine.
The preamble of Claim 9: “An alarm event mitigation system comprising” is a generically recited preamble.
Same considerations were applied to independent Claim 15 and its dependent claims 16-20.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, when considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2A, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Essentially, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because they are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art of
Therefore, claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 9 and 15, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 10-14 and 16-20 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (Step 2A, Prong One), recite no additional elements reflecting a practical application (Step2A, Prong Two), and fail a “significantly more” test under the step 2B for the same reasons as discussed with regards to the independent claims.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 11-12, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20230394950 to Menzel et al. (hereinafter Menzel) in view of US20150293516A1 to Akiyama et al. (hereinafter Akiyama).
Regarding Claim 1: Menzel discloses:
“A method comprising: receiving an indication for performing root cause analysis corresponding to an alarm event for a first asset within an industrial facility” (para 0163 – “The notification (interpreted as indication, added by examiner) could also signal another process to take a more detailed look at the system data stream overall and apply analytics or machine learning to determine a root cause. The resulting action can also include signaling other analytics components of the system which could search for anything that correlates with the state change”; para 0009 – “systems and methods related to managing smart alarms in an electrical or power system… a method for managing smart alarms in an electrical system includes processing electrical measurement data from or derived from energy-related signals captured or derived by at least one intelligent electronic device (IED) (i.e. asset, added by examiner) of a monitoring and control system (MCS) to identify power events in the electrical system, and to identify alarms triggered in response to the identified power events”);
“identifying a second asset related to the first asset within the industrial facility based on a hierarchical relationship amongst a plurality of assets within the industrial facility, the hierarchical relationship being indicative of operational inter-dependability amongst the plurality of assets within the industrial facility” (para 0081 – “in an electrical system including a plurality of IEDs (i.e. plurality of assets, added by examiner), one or more IEDs may be positioned (or installed) at an electrical location that is upstream relative to one or more other IEDs (i.e. hierarchical relationship, added by examiner) in the electrical system, and the one or more IEDs may be positioned (or installed) at an electrical location that is downstream relative to one or more further IEDs in the electrical system. A first IED or load that is positioned on an electrical circuit upstream from a second IED or load may, for example, be positioned electrically closer to an input or source of the electrical system (e.g., a utility feed) than the second IED or load (i.e. inter-dependability, added by examiner). Conversely, a first IED or load that is positioned on an electrical circuit downstream from a second IED or load may be positioned electrically closer to an end or terminus of the electrical system than the other IED”), and
“the hierarchical relationship being stored in a first database instance” (para 0066 – “since the diagnostic computing system 125 is connected to the cloud, it may access additional cloud-connected devices or databases (not shown) via the cloud. For example, the diagnostic computing system 125 may access historical measurement data previously received from the at least one IED, historical power event and/or alarm data, or other data that may be useful in analyzing current measurement data received from the at least one IED”);
“obtaining operating parameter characteristics of the first asset and the second asset, the operating parameter characteristics being corresponding to the operating parameters of the first asset and the second asset, the operating parameters of the first asset and the second asset being indicative of operation of the first asset and the second asset” (para 0123 – “the dimensions are extracted by observing differences between one phase and another phase for measurements (e.g., voltage sag magnitude measurements) obtained or derived from measurements by each meter or IED in the electrical/power system.”; para 0031 – “where the IED is an electrical power monitoring device, it may be coupled to (or be installed in) an electrical power distribution system and configured to sense and store data as electrical parameters representing operating characteristics (e.g., voltage, current, waveform distortion, power, etc.) of the power distribution system”; see also paras 0116 and 0137), and
“the operating parameters characteristics being obtained from a plurality of second database instances communicatively coupled to the first database instance” (para 0066 – “it may access additional cloud-connected devices or databases (not shown) via the cloud. For example, the diagnostic computing system 125 may access historical measurement data previously received from the at least one IED, historical power event and/or alarm data, or other data that may be useful in analyzing current measurement data received from the at least one IED. In embodiments, the cloud-connected devices or databases may correspond to a device or database associated with one or more external data sources (i.e. communicatively coupled databases, added by examiner)”; see also paras 0124 and 0181);
“performing the root cause analysis using the associated operating parameter characteristics” (para 0007 – “maintenance engineers may use power quality data (i.e. associated operating parameter characteristics, added by examiner) to properly diagnose equipment issues and improve root cause analysis and reduce equipment downtime”); and
“modifying operating parameters of at least one of the first asset and the second asset for mitigating the alarm event” (para 0022 – “the actions that are triggered or postponed in response to the identified event management groups or event and/or alarm periods include at least one of: shutting down or turning on at least one component in the electrical system, adjusting one or more parameters associated with the at least one component, selectively interrupting power at one or more locations in the electrical system, and generating an alarm or report”; see also paras 0092 and 0101).
Menzel does not explicitly disclose:
“associating the operating parameters characteristics of the first asset with operating parameter characteristics of the second asset to establish a causative correlation between the alarm event and the operation of the second asset”.
However, Akiyama discloses:
“associating the operating parameters characteristics of the first asset with operating parameter characteristics of the second asset to establish a causative correlation between the alarm event and the operation of the second asset” (para 0006 – “a first analysis device (i.e. first asset, added by examiner) among the plurality of analysis devices determines whether an event occurring in the associated control system is to be indicated to a second analysis device (i.e. second asset, added by examiner) among the plurality of analysis devices; and the second analysis device determines that there is an anomaly (interpreted as the alarm event, added by examiner) on condition that the event indicated by the first analysis device has correlation with an event indicated by an analysis device other than the first analysis device”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Menzel, as taught by Akiyama, in order to establish the root cause for the alarm event with greater accuracy.
Regarding Claim 3: Menzel/Akiyama combination discloses the method of Claim 1.
Menzel further discloses:
“wherein the operating parameter characteristics comprises historical alarm events” (para 0066 – “the diagnostic computing system 125 may access historical measurement data previously received from the at least one IED, historical power event and/or alarm data, or other data that may be useful in analyzing current measurement data received from the at least one IED”),
“actions initiated in response to the alarm events” (para 0009 – “the event management groups include groups and/or sequences of the identified power events, and/or groups and/or sequences of alarm events triggered in response to the identified alarms. One or more actions may be triggered, avoided or postponed in response to the identified event management groups and/or event and/or alarm periods in some embodiments”), and
“the instantaneous parameter values of the operational parameters” (para 0076 – “the IED output data or signals may be received by a diagnostic computing system, for example, for further processing (e.g., to identify power events, as briefly discussed above in connection with FIG. 1 ), and/or by equipment (e.g., loads) to which the IED is coupled (e.g., for controlling one or more parameters associated with the equipment”).
Regarding Claim 4: Menzel/Akiyama combination discloses the method of Claim 1.
Menzel further discloses:
“wherein the indication for performing root cause analysis is a user input” (para 0191 – “the confidence factor may additionally or alternatively be developed from input provided by an end-user to validate the trigger(s) or combination of actionable triggers. … In accordance with some embodiments of this disclosure, the communicated confidence factor may be updated (interpreted as the indication for performing the root cause analysis, added by examine), for example, in response to user input. The user input may include, for example, a user selection of the identified trigger(s) or combination of actionable triggers from a list of a plurality of possible trigger(s) or combination types and/or user validation of the identified trigger(s) or combination of actionable triggers, as a few examples”).
Regarding Claim 5: Menzel/Akiyama combination discloses the method of Claim 1.
Menzel further discloses:
“wherein the indication for performing root cause analysis is the alarm event for the first asset” (para 0163 – “The notification (interpreted as indication, added by examiner) could also signal another process to take a more detailed look at the system data stream overall and apply analytics or machine learning to determine a root cause. The resulting action can also include signaling other analytics components of the system which could search for anything that correlates with the state change”; para 0009 – “systems and methods related to managing smart alarms in an electrical or power system… a method for managing smart alarms in an electrical system includes processing electrical measurement data from or derived from energy-related signals captured or derived by at least one intelligent electronic device (IED) (i.e. asset, added by examiner) of a monitoring and control system (MCS) to identify power events in the electrical system, and to identify alarms triggered in response to the identified power events”).
Regarding Claim 6: Menzel/Akiyama combination discloses the method of Claim 1.
Menzel further discloses:
“wherein the hierarchical relationship is received from a user” (para 0025 – “the at least one IED includes a plurality of IEDs arrange in a hierarchical configuration in the electrical system. In some embodiments, each IED of the plurality of IEDs is communicatively coupled to other IEDs of the plurality of IEDs, and each IED is configured to share electrical measurement data from or derived from energy-related signals derived or captured by the IED with the other IEDs. The shared electrical measurement data may be processed, for example, to identify the power events in the electrical system, and to identify the alarms triggered in response to the identified power events”).
Regarding Claim 9: Menzel discloses:
“An alarm event mitigation system comprising: a monitoring engine to monitor a first asset within an industrial facility to detect an alarm event for the first asset; an analysis engine coupled to the monitoring engine to” (para 0009 – “Described herein are systems and methods related to managing smart alarms in an electrical or power system”; para 0062 – “Each network node 126 can include a computer system, such as an intelligent electronic device (IED), to sense, monitor, capture and analyze energy-related data on the electrical system… The architecture can include a plurality of IEDs arranged at different upstream and downstream positions in a hierarchical level or layer relationship on the electrical system (e.g., as shown in FIG. 1B, as will be discussed below) to monitor, derive or calculate, analyze and share energy-related information (e.g., measurement data, derived data, event data and additional information, results of event analysis, event profiles, etc.) at any desired position along the electrical system, including positions along the grid, between the utility and a facility, and within the facility”)
“identify a second asset operationally related to the first asset within the industrial facility upon detection of the alarm event, the second asset being identified based on a hierarchical relationship amongst a plurality of assets within the industrial facility, the hierarchical relationship being indicative of operational inter-dependability amongst the plurality of assets within the industrial facility” (para 0081 – “in an electrical system including a plurality of IEDs (i.e. plurality of assets, added by examiner), one or more IEDs may be positioned (or installed) at an electrical location that is upstream relative to one or more other IEDs (i.e. hierarchical relationship, added by examiner) in the electrical system, and the one or more IEDs may be positioned (or installed) at an electrical location that is downstream relative to one or more further IEDs in the electrical system. A first IED or load that is positioned on an electrical circuit upstream from a second IED or load may, for example, be positioned electrically closer to an input or source of the electrical system (e.g., a utility feed) than the second IED or load (i.e. inter-dependability, added by examiner). Conversely, a first IED or load that is positioned on an electrical circuit downstream from a second IED or load may be positioned electrically closer to an end or terminus of the electrical system than the other IED”), and
“the hierarchical relationship being stored in a first database instance” (para 0066 – “since the diagnostic computing system 125 is connected to the cloud, it may access additional cloud-connected devices or databases (not shown) via the cloud. For example, the diagnostic computing system 125 may access historical measurement data previously received from the at least one IED, historical power event and/or alarm data, or other data that may be useful in analyzing current measurement data received from the at least one IED”);
“obtain operating parameter characteristics of the first asset and the second asset, the operating parameter characteristics being corresponding to the operating parameters of the first asset and the second asset, the operating parameters of the first asset and the second asset being indicative of operation of the first asset and the second asset” (para 0123 – “the dimensions are extracted by observing differences between one phase and another phase for measurements (e.g., voltage sag magnitude measurements) obtained or derived from measurements by each meter or IED in the electrical/power system.”; para 0031 – “where the IED is an electrical power monitoring device, it may be coupled to (or be installed in) an electrical power distribution system and configured to sense and store data as electrical parameters representing operating characteristics (e.g., voltage, current, waveform distortion, power, etc.) of the power distribution system”; see also paras 0116 and 0137), and
“the operating parameters characteristics being obtained from a plurality of second database instances communicatively coupled to the first database instance” (para 0066 – “it may access additional cloud-connected devices or databases (not shown) via the cloud. For example, the diagnostic computing system 125 may access historical measurement data previously received from the at least one IED, historical power event and/or alarm data, or other data that may be useful in analyzing current measurement data received from the at least one IED. In embodiments, the cloud-connected devices or databases may correspond to a device or database associated with one or more external data sources (i.e. communicatively coupled databases, added by examiner)”; see also paras 0124 and 0181); and
“an alarm mitigation engine coupled to the analysis engine to: perform the root cause analysis for the alarm event using the associated operating parameter characteristics” (para 0007 – “maintenance engineers may use power quality data (i.e. associated operating parameter characteristics, added by examiner) to properly diagnose equipment issues and improve root cause analysis and reduce equipment downtime”; para 0092 – “An alarm trigger may result in one or more portions (e.g., loads) of the electrical/power system being controlled, e.g., automatically by the IED, diagnostic computing device, (i.e. alarm mitigation engine, added by examiner) and/or other system(s) or device(s) on which the method 200 is implemented. For example, an alarm trigger may result in a load monitored by the IED being adjusted (e.g., turned off, or having one or more parameters adjusted”); and
“initiate a corrective action for the alarm event by modifying operating parameters of at least one of the first asset and the second asset” (para 0022 – “the actions that are triggered or postponed in response to the identified event management groups or event and/or alarm periods include at least one of: shutting down or turning on at least one component in the electrical system, adjusting one or more parameters associated with the at least one component, selectively interrupting power at one or more locations in the electrical system, and generating an alarm or report”; para 0092 – “An alarm trigger may result in one or more portions (e.g., loads) of the electrical/power system being controlled, e.g., automatically by the IED, diagnostic computing device, and/or other system(s) or device(s) on which the method 200 is implemented. For example, an alarm trigger may result in a load monitored by the IED being adjusted (e.g., turned off, or having one or more parameters adjusted).”; see also paras 0092 and 0101).
Menzel does not explicitly disclose:
“associate the operating parameters characteristics of the first asset with operating parameter characteristics of the second asset to establish a causative correlation between the alarm event and the operation of the second asset”.
However, Akiyama discloses:
“associate the operating parameters characteristics of the first asset with operating parameter characteristics of the second asset to establish a causative correlation between the alarm event and the operation of the second asset” (para 0006 – “a first analysis device (i.e. first asset, added by examiner) among the plurality of analysis devices determines whether an event occurring in the associated control system is to be indicated to a second analysis device (i.e. second asset, added by examiner) among the plurality of analysis devices; and the second analysis device determines that there is an anomaly (interpreted as the alarm event, added by examiner) on condition that the event indicated by the first analysis device has correlation with an event indicated by an analysis device other than the first analysis device”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Menzel, as taught by Akiyama, in order to establish the root cause for the alarm event with greater accuracy.
Regarding Claim 11: Menzel/Akiyama combination discloses the alarm mitigation system of Claim 9.
Menzel further discloses:
“wherein the operating parameter characteristics comprises historical alarm events” (para 0066 – “the diagnostic computing system 125 may access historical measurement data previously received from the at least one IED, historical power event and/or alarm data, or other data that may be useful in analyzing current measurement data received from the at least one IED”),
“actions initiated in response to the alarm events” (para 0009 – “the event management groups include groups and/or sequences of the identified power events, and/or groups and/or sequences of alarm events triggered in response to the identified alarms. One or more actions may be triggered, avoided or postponed in response to the identified event management groups and/or event and/or alarm periods in some embodiments”), and
“the instantaneous parameter values of the operational parameters” (para 0076 – “the IED output data or signals may be received by a diagnostic computing system, for example, for further processing (e.g., to identify power events, as briefly discussed above in connection with FIG. 1 ), and/or by equipment (e.g., loads) to which the IED is coupled (e.g., for controlling one or more parameters associated with the equipment”).
Regarding Claim 12: Menzel/Akiyama combination discloses the method of Claim 9.
Menzel further discloses:
“wherein the analysis engine is to receive the hierarchical relationship from a user” (para 0025 – “the at least one IED includes a plurality of IEDs arrange in a hierarchical configuration in the electrical system. In some embodiments, each IED of the plurality of IEDs is communicatively coupled to other IEDs of the plurality of IEDs, and each IED is configured to share electrical measurement data from or derived from energy-related signals derived or captured by the IED with the other IEDs. The shared electrical measurement data may be processed, for example, to identify the power events in the electrical system, and to identify the alarms triggered in response to the identified power events”).
Regarding Claim 15: Menzel discloses:
“A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer-readable instructions that when executed cause a processing resource of a computing device to: (para 0072 – “The storage system 144 may include a computer readable and writeable nonvolatile recording medium, such as a disk or flash memory, in which signals are stored that define a program to be executed by the controller 141 or information to be processed by the program. The controller 141 may control transfer of data between the storage system 144 and the memory device 142 in accordance with known computing and data transfer mechanisms. In embodiments, the electrical parameters monitored or measured by the IED 140 may be stored in the storage system 144.”);
“receive a user input for performing root cause analysis corresponding to an alarm event for a first asset within an industrial facility” (para 0191 – “the confidence factor may additionally or alternatively be developed from input provided by an end-user to validate the trigger(s) or combination of actionable triggers. … In accordance with some embodiments of this disclosure, the communicated confidence factor may be updated, for example, in response to user input. The user input may include, for example, a user selection of the identified trigger(s) or combination of actionable triggers from a list of a plurality of possible trigger(s) or combination types and/or user validation of the identified trigger(s) or combination of actionable triggers, as a few examples”);
“identify a second asset related to the first asset within the industrial facility
based on a hierarchical relationship amongst a plurality of assets within the industrial facility, the hierarchical relationship being indicative of operational inter-dependability amongst the plurality of assets within the industrial facility, ” (para 0081 – “in an electrical system including a plurality of IEDs (i.e. plurality of assets, added by examiner), one or more IEDs may be positioned (or installed) at an electrical location that is upstream relative to one or more other IEDs (i.e. hierarchical relationship, added by examiner) in the electrical system, and the one or more IEDs may be positioned (or installed) at an electrical location that is downstream relative to one or more further IEDs in the electrical system. A first IED or load that is positioned on an electrical circuit upstream from a second IED or load may, for example, be positioned electrically closer to an input or source of the electrical system (e.g., a utility feed) than the second IED or load (i.e. inter-dependability, added by examiner). Conversely, a first IED or load that is positioned on an electrical circuit downstream from a second IED or load may be positioned electrically closer to an end or terminus of the electrical system than the other IED”), and
“the hierarchical relationship being stored in a first database instance” (para 0066 – “since the diagnostic computing system 125 is connected to the cloud, it may access additional cloud-connected devices or databases (not shown) via the cloud. For example, the diagnostic computing system 125 may access historical measurement data previously received from the at least one IED, historical power event and/or alarm data, or other data that may be useful in analyzing current measurement data received from the at least one IED”);
“obtain operating parameter characteristics of the first asset and the second asset, the operating parameter characteristics being corresponding to the operating parameters of the first asset and the second asset, the operating parameters of the first asset and the second asset being indicative of operation of the first asset and the second asset” (para 0123 – “the dimensions are extracted by observing differences between one phase and another phase for measurements (e.g., voltage sag magnitude measurements) obtained or derived from measurements by each meter or IED in the electrical/power system.”; para 0031 – “where the IED is an electrical power monitoring device, it may be coupled to (or be installed in) an electrical power distribution system and configured to sense and store data as electrical parameters representing operating characteristics (e.g., voltage, current, waveform distortion, power, etc.) of the power distribution system”; see also paras 0116 and 0137), and
“the operating parameters characteristics being obtained from a plurality of second database instances communicatively coupled to the first database instance” (para 0066 – “it may access additional cloud-connected devices or databases (not shown) via the cloud. For example, the diagnostic computing system 125 may access historical measurement data previously received from the at least one IED, historical power event and/or alarm data, or other data that may be useful in analyzing current measurement data received from the at least one IED. In embodiments, the cloud-connected devices or databases may correspond to a device or database associated with one or more external data sources (i.e. communicatively coupled databases, added by examiner)”; see also paras 0124 and 0181); and
“perform the root cause analysis for the alarm event using the associated operating parameter characteristics” (para 0007 – “maintenance engineers may use power quality data (i.e. associated operating parameter characteristics, added by examiner) to properly diagnose equipment issues and improve root cause analysis and reduce equipment downtime”; para 0092 – “An alarm trigger may result in one or more portions (e.g., loads) of the electrical/power system being controlled, e.g., automatically by the IED, diagnostic computing device, (i.e. alarm mitigation engine, added by examiner) and/or other system(s) or device(s) on which the method 200 is implemented. For example, an alarm trigger may result in a load monitored by the IED being adjusted (e.g., turned off, or having one or more parameters adjusted”); and
“modify operating parameters of at least one of the first asset and the second asset for mitigating the alarm event” (para 0022 – “the actions that are triggered or postponed in response to the identified event management groups or event and/or alarm periods include at least one of: shutting down or turning on at least one component in the electrical system, adjusting one or more parameters associated with the at least one component, selectively interrupting power at one or more locations in the electrical system, and generating an alarm or report”; para 0092 – “An alarm trigger may result in one or more portions (e.g., loads) of the electrical/power system being controlled, e.g., automatically by the IED, diagnostic computing device, and/or other system(s) or device(s) on which the method 200 is implemented. For example, an alarm trigger may result in a load monitored by the IED being adjusted (e.g., turned off, or having one or more parameters adjusted).”; see also paras 0092 and 0101).
Menzel does not explicitly disclose:
“associate the operating parameters characteristics of the first asset with operating parameter characteristics of the second asset to establish a causative correlation between the alarm event and the operation of the second asset”.
However, Akiyama discloses:
“associate the operating parameters characteristics of the first asset with operating parameter characteristics of the second asset to establish a causative correlation between the alarm event and the operation of the second asset” (para 0006 – “a first analysis device (i.e. first asset, added by examiner) among the plurality of analysis devices determines whether an event occurring in the associated control system is to be indicated to a second analysis device (i.e. second asset, added by examiner) among the plurality of analysis devices; and the second analysis device determines that there is an anomaly (interpreted as the alarm event, added by examiner) on condition that the event indicated by the first analysis device has correlation with an event indicated by an analysis device other than the first analysis device”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Menzel, as taught by Akiyama, in order to establish the root cause for the alarm event with greater accuracy.
Regarding Claim 17: Menzel/Akiyama combination discloses the method of Claim 15.
Menzel further discloses:
“wherein the operating parameter characteristics comprises historical alarm events” (para 0066 – “the diagnostic computing system 125 may access historical measurement data previously received from the at least one IED, historical power event and/or alarm data, or other data that may be useful in analyzing current measurement data received from the at least one IED”),
“actions initiated in response to the alarm events” (para 0009 – “the event management groups include groups and/or sequences of the identified power events, and/or groups and/or sequences of alarm events triggered in response to the identified alarms. One or more actions may be triggered, avoided or postponed in response to the identified event management groups and/or event and/or alarm periods in some embodiments”), and
“the instantaneous parameter values of the operational parameters” (para 0076 – “the IED output data or signals may be received by a diagnostic computing system, for example, for further processing (e.g., to identify power events, as briefly discussed above in connection with FIG. 1 ), and/or by equipment (e.g., loads) to which the IED is coupled (e.g., for controlling one or more parameters associated with the equipment”).
Regarding Claim 18: Menzel/Akiyama combination discloses the method of Claim 15.
Menzel further discloses:
“wherein the analysis engine is to receive the hierarchical relationship from a user” (para 0025 – “the at least one IED includes a plurality of IEDs arrange in a hierarchical configuration in the electrical system. In some embodiments, each IED of the plurality of IEDs is communicatively coupled to other IEDs of the plurality of IEDs, and each IED is configured to share electrical measurement data from or derived from energy-related signals derived or captured by the IED with the other IEDs. The shared electrical measurement data may be processed, for example, to identify the power events in the electrical system, and to identify the alarms triggered in response to the identified power events”).
Claims 2, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menzel, in view of Akiyama and in further view of US20240160550A1 to Prakash et al. (hereinafter Prakash).
Regarding Claim 2: Menzel/Akiyama combination discloses the method of Claim 1.
Menzel does not explicitly disclose:
“wherein the first database instance comprises a graph database instance, the plurality of second database instances comprises at least one of a versioned database instance and time series database instance”.
However, Prakash discloses:
“wherein the first database instance comprises a graph database instance” (para 0008 – “the instructions are configured and arranged to read asset data from a database. In some embodiments, assets can include industrial system assets such as sensors and quality assurance measurement equipment. In some embodiments, asset data can also include any other asset parameter that can be reported using a picture, graph, table, and/or link form”),
“the plurality of second database instances comprises at least one of a versioned database instance and time series database instance” (para 0080 – “the historian I11 can include a time-series database 133 and a relational database 136. In at least one embodiment, the time-series database 133 and the relational database 136 can each derive data from various sources during data acquisition 130, including, but not limited to, one or more servers 131 a, one or more human-machine-interface (HMI) applications 131 b, at least one application server 131 c, and/or manually entered and/or external data 131 d. In some embodiments, time-series data can be provided in part by process control data stored in the time-series database 133”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Menzel/Akiyama combination, as taught by Prakash, in order to establish the root cause for the alarm event with greater accuracy.
Regarding Claim 7: Menzel/Akiyama/Prakash combination discloses the method of Claim 2.
Menzel further discloses:
“Receiving operating parameter characteristics of a plurality of assets within the industrial facility, the plurality of assets comprising the first asset and the second asset” (para 0123 – “the dimensions are extracted by observing differences between one phase and another phase for measurements (e.g., voltage sag magnitude measurements) obtained or derived from measurements by each meter or IED in the electrical/power system.”; para 0031 – “where the IED is an electrical power monitoring device, it may be coupled to (or be installed in) an electrical power distribution system and configured to sense and store data as electrical parameters representing operating characteristics (e.g., voltage, current, waveform distortion, power, etc.) of the power distribution system”; see also paras 0116 and 0137);
“transforming the operating parameter characteristics of the plurality of assets in accordance with a transformation standard” (para 0181 – “A data quality issue may also arise with contradictory data, such as where different state validity (STATE_VALIDITY) is associated with measurements or time stamps. For example, historical data resent after transformation or export issues stemming from a master data management (e.g., updating the Data Model) or from the DB management (e.g., data base) such as DB migration projects… Alternatively, the system can allow for an erase of all previously received historical values, so that the migrated data matches the live system data transformation (interpreted as in accordance with a transformation standard, added by examiner). Alternatively, the system may be set up to always consider the latest version as valid, yet also sending an alert report per day of all characteristics which have different values for a given source and time stamp”); and
“transmitting the operating parameter characteristics to the plurality of second database instances in accordance with a type of the operating parameter characteristics” (para 0081 – “The above-described first and second IEDs can record an electrical event's voltage and current phase information (i.e. operating parameter characteristics, added by examiner) (e.g., by sampling the respective signals) and communicatively transmit this information to a diagnostic computing system (interpreted as having a database, added by examiner) (e.g., 125, shown in FIG. 1 ). The diagnostic computing system may then analyze the voltage and current phase information (e.g., instantaneous, root-mean-square (rms), waveforms and/or other electrical characteristics) to determine if the source of the voltage event was electrically upstream or downstream (i.e. in accordance with a type of the operating parameter characteristics, added by examiner) from where the first and/or second IEDs are electrically coupled to the electrical system (or network), for example, to determine a direction of a power event (i.e., upstream or downstream)”).
Regarding Claim 10: Menzel/Akiyama combination discloses the alarm event mitigation system of Claim 9.
Menzel does not explicitly disclose:
“wherein the first database instance comprises a graph database instance and the plurality of second database instances comprises at least one of a versioned database instance and time series database instance”.
However, Prakash discloses:
“wherein the first database instance comprises a graph database instance” (para 0008 – “the instructions are configured and arranged to read asset data from a database. In some embodiments, assets can include industrial system assets such as sensors and quality assurance measurement equipment. In some embodiments, asset data can also include any other asset parameter that can be reported using a picture, graph, table, and/or link form”), and
“the plurality of second database instances comprises at least one of a versioned database instance and time series database instance” (para 0080 – “the historian I11 can include a time-series database 133 and a relational database 136. In at least one embodiment, the time-series database 133 and the relational database 136 can each derive data from various sources during data acquisition 130, including, but not limited to, one or more servers 131 a, one or more human-machine-interface (HMI) applications 131 b, at least one application server 131 c, and/or manually entered and/or external data 131 d. In some embodiments, time-series data can be provided in part by process control data stored in the time-series database 133”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Menzel/Akiyama combination, as taught by Prakash, in order to establish the root cause for the alarm event with greater accuracy.
Regarding Claim 13: Menzel/Akiyama/Prakash combination discloses the method of Claim 10.
Menzel further discloses:
“further comprising a data ingestion engine to:” (para 0009 – “a method for managing smart alarms in an electrical system includes processing electrical measurement data from or derived from energy-related signals captured or derived by at least one intelligent electronic device (IED) of a monitoring and control system (MCS) (i.e. data ingestion engine, added by examiner)”)
“receive operating parameter characteristics of a plurality of assets within the industrial facility, the plurality of assets comprising the first asset and the second asset” (para 0123 – “the dimensions are extracted by observing differences between one phase and another phase for measurements (e.g., voltage sag magnitude measurements) obtained or derived from measurements by each meter or IED in the electrical/power system.”; para 0031 – “where the IED is an electrical power monitoring device, it may be coupled to (or be installed in) an electrical power distribution system and configured to sense and store data as electrical parameters representing operating characteristics (e.g., voltage, current, waveform distortion, power, etc.) of the power distribution system”; see also paras 0116 and 0137);
“transform the operating parameter characteristics of the plurality of assets in accordance with a transformation standard” (para 0181 – “A data quality issue may also arise with contradictory data, such as where different state validity (STATE_VALIDITY) is associated with measurements or time stamps. For example, historical data resent after transformation or export issues stemming from a master data management (e.g., updating the Data Model) or from the DB management (e.g., data base) such as DB migration projects… Alternatively, the system can allow for an erase of all previously received historical values, so that the migrated data matches the live system data transformation (interpreted as in accordance with a transformation standard, added by examiner). Alternatively, the system may be set up to always consider the latest version as valid, yet also sending an alert report per day of all characteristics which have different values for a given source and time stamp”); and
“transmit the operating parameter characteristics to the plurality of second database instances in accordance with a type of the operating parameter characteristics” (para 0081 – “The above-described first and second IEDs can record an electrical event's voltage and current phase information (i.e. operating parameter characteristics, added by examiner) (e.g., by sampling the respective signals) and communicatively transmit this information to a diagnostic computing system (interpreted as having a database, added by examiner) (e.g., 125, shown in FIG. 1 ). The diagnostic computing system may then analyze the voltage and current phase information (e.g., instantaneous, root-mean-square (rms), waveforms and/or other electrical characteristics) to determine if the source of the voltage event was electrically upstream or downstream (i.e. in accordance with a type of the operating parameter characteristics, added by examiner) from where the first and/or second IEDs are electrically coupled to the electrical system (or network), for example, to determine a direction of a power event (i.e., upstream or downstream)”).
Regarding Claim 16: Menzel/Akiyama combination discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of Claim 15.
Menzel does not explicitly disclose:
“wherein the first database instance comprises a graph database instance, the plurality of second database instances comprises at least one of a versioned database instance and time series database instance”.
However, Prakash discloses:
“wherein the first database instance comprises a graph database instance” (para 0008 – “the instructions are configured and arranged to read asset data from a database. In some embodiments, assets can include industrial system assets such as sensors and quality assurance measurement equipment. In some embodiments, asset data can also include any other asset parameter that can be reported using a picture, graph, table, and/or link form”),
“the plurality of second database instances comprises at least one of a versioned database instance and time series database instance” (para 0080 – “the historian I11 can include a time-series database 133 and a relational database 136. In at least one embodiment, the time-series database 133 and the relational database 136 can each derive data from various sources during data acquisition 130, including, but not limited to, one or more servers 131 a, one or more human-machine-interface (HMI) applications 131 b, at least one application server 131 c, and/or manually entered and/or external data 131 d. In some embodiments, time-series data can be provided in part by process control data stored in the time-series database 133”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Menzel/Akiyama combination, as taught by Prakash, in order to establish the root cause for the alarm event with greater accuracy.
Regarding Claim 19: Menzel/Akiyama/Prakash combination discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of Claim 16.
Menzel further discloses:
“further comprising the instructions to:” (para 0065 – “The diagnostic computing system 125 can be configured to implement a variety of analysis techniques to identify patterns in received measurement data from the IEDs, as discussed further below. The various analysis techniques discussed herein further involve the execution of one or more software functions, algorithms, instructions, applications, and parameters, which are stored on one or more sources of memory communicatively coupled to the diagnostic computing system 125”;
“receive operating parameter characteristics of a plurality of assets within the industrial facility, the plurality of assets comprising the first asset and the second asset” (para 0123 – “the dimensions are extracted by observing differences between one phase and another phase for measurements (e.g., voltage sag magnitude measurements) obtained or derived from measurements by each meter or IED in the electrical/power system.”; para 0031 – “where the IED is an electrical power monitoring device, it may be coupled to (or be installed in) an electrical power distribution system and configured to sense and store data as electrical parameters representing operating characteristics (e.g., voltage, current, waveform distortion, power, etc.) of the power distribution system”; see also paras 0116 and 0137);
“transform the operating parameter characteristics of the plurality of assets in accordance with a transformation standard” (para 0181 – “A data quality issue may also arise with contradictory data, such as where different state validity (STATE_VALIDITY) is associated with measurements or time stamps. For example, historical data resent after transformation or export issues stemming from a master data management (e.g., updating the Data Model) or from the DB management (e.g., data base) such as DB migration projects… Alternatively, the system can allow for an erase of all previously received historical values, so that the migrated data matches the live system data transformation (interpreted as in accordance with a transformation standard, added by examiner). Alternatively, the system may be set up to always consider the latest version as valid, yet also sending an alert report per day of all characteristics which have different values for a given source and time stamp”); and
“transfer the operating parameter characteristics to the plurality of second database instances in accordance with a type of the operating parameter characteristics” (para 0072 - The controller 141 may control transfer of data between the storage system 144 and the memory device 142 in accordance with known computing and data transfer mechanisms. In embodiments, the electrical parameters monitored or measured by the IED 140 may be stored in the storage system 144”;
para 0081 – “The above-described first and second IEDs can record an electrical event's voltage and current phase information (i.e. operating parameter characteristics, added by examiner) (e.g., by sampling the respective signals) and communicatively transmit (i.e. transfer, added by examiner) this information to a diagnostic computing system (interpreted as having a database, added by examiner) (e.g., 125, shown in FIG. 1 ). The diagnostic computing system may then analyze the voltage and current phase information (e.g., instantaneous, root-mean-square (rms), waveforms and/or other electrical characteristics) to determine if the source of the voltage event was electrically upstream or downstream (i.e. in accordance with a type of the operating parameter characteristics, added by examiner) from where the first and/or second IEDs are electrically coupled to the electrical system (or network), for example, to determine a direction of a power event (i.e., upstream or downstream)”).
Claims 8, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menzel ) in view of Akiyama in further view of Prakash and in further view of US2013029577 to Brown (hereinafter Brown).
Regarding Claim 8: Menzel/Akiyama/Prakash combination discloses the method of Claim 7.
Menzel further discloses:
“wherein transferring the operating parameter characteristics comprises transmitting historical alarm events and actions initiated in response to the alarm events to the database instance” (para 0066 – “since the diagnostic computing system 125 is connected to the cloud, it may access additional cloud-connected devices or databases (not shown) via the cloud. For example, the diagnostic computing system 125 may access historical measurement data previously received from the at least one IED, historical power event and/or alarm data, or other data that may be useful in analyzing current measurement data received from the at least one IED. In embodiments, the cloud-connected devices or databases may correspond to a device or database associated with one or more external data sources”; para 0081 – “The above-described first and second IEDs can record an electrical event's voltage and current phase information (i.e. operating parameter characteristics, added by examiner) (e.g., by sampling the respective signals) and communicatively transmit this information to a diagnostic computing system (interpreted as having a database, added by examiner) (e.g., 125, shown in FIG. 1 )); and
“transmitting the instantaneous parameter values of the operational parameters to the database instance” para 0081 – “The above-described first and second IEDs can record an electrical event's voltage and current phase information (i.e. operating parameter characteristics, added by examiner) (e.g., by sampling the respective signals) and communicatively transmit this information to a diagnostic computing system (interpreted as having a database, added by examiner) (e.g., 125, shown in FIG. 1 ). The diagnostic computing system may then analyze the voltage and current phase information (e.g., instantaneous, root-mean-square (rms), waveforms and/or other electrical characteristics) to determine if the source of the voltage event was electrically upstream or downstream (i.e. in accordance with a type of the operating parameter characteristics, added by examiner) from where the first and/or second IEDs are electrically coupled to the electrical system (or network), for example, to determine a direction of a power event (i.e., upstream or downstream)”).
Menzel does not explicitly disclose:
“the versioned database instance; the time series database instance”.
However, Brown discloses:
“the versioned database instance” (para 0036 – “Version controlled database process 12 may provide database services that include version control of elements within the database. … database storage 202 may contain any number of elements. Element A and element B may be any artifact stored in a database. For example, element A and element B may be single elements of data, rows of data, columns of data, column definitions, row definitions, tables, data relations (interpreted as historical alarm events, added by examiner), or any other type of element that may be stored in a database.”; see also para 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Menzel/Akiyama/Prakash combination, as taught by Brown, in order to follow the history of the alarms happening in the system.
Menzel/Akiyama/Prakash/Brown combination does not explicitly disclose:
“the time series database instance”.
However, Prakash discloses:
“the time series database instance” (para 0080 – “the historian I11 can include a time-series database 133 and a relational database 136. In at least one embodiment, the time-series database 133 and the relational database 136 can each derive data from various sources during data acquisition 130, including, but not limited to, one or more servers 131 a, one or more human-machine-interface (HMI) applications 131 b, at least one application server 131 c, and/or manually entered and/or external data 131 d. In some embodiments, time-series data can be provided in part by process control data stored in the time-series database 133”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Menzel/Akiyama/Brown/Prakash combination, as taught by Prakash, in order to establish the root cause for the alarm event with greater accuracy.
.
Regarding Claim 14: Menzel/Akiyama/Prakash combination discloses the alarm event mitigation system of Claim 13.
Menzel further discloses:
“wherein to transfer the operating parameter characteristics the data ingestion engine is to:” para 0009 – “a method for managing smart alarms in an electrical system includes processing electrical measurement data from or derived from energy-related signals captured or derived by at least one intelligent electronic device (IED) of a monitoring and control system (MCS) (i.e. data ingestion engine, added by examiner)”)
“transmit historical alarm events and actions initiated in response to the alarm events to the database instance” (para 0066 – “since the diagnostic computing system 125 is connected to the cloud, it may access additional cloud-connected devices or databases (not shown) via the cloud. For example, the diagnostic computing system 125 may access historical measurement data previously received from the at least one IED, historical power event and/or alarm data, or other data that may be useful in analyzing current measurement data received from the at least one IED. In embodiments, the cloud-connected devices or databases may correspond to a device or database associated with one or more external data sources”; para 0081 – “The above-described first and second IEDs can record an electrical event's voltage and current phase information (i.e. operating parameter characteristics, added by examiner) (e.g., by sampling the respective signals) and communicatively transmit this information to a diagnostic computing system (interpreted as having a database, added by examiner) (e.g., 125, shown in FIG. 1 )); and
“transmit the instantaneous parameter values of the operational parameters to the database instance” para 0081 – “The above-described first and second IEDs can record an electrical event's voltage and current phase information (i.e. operating parameter characteristics, added by examiner) (e.g., by sampling the respective signals) and communicatively transmit this information to a diagnostic computing system (interpreted as having a database, added by examiner) (e.g., 125, shown in FIG. 1 ). The diagnostic computing system may then analyze the voltage and current phase information (e.g., instantaneous, root-mean-square (rms), waveforms and/or other electrical characteristics) to determine if the source of the voltage event was electrically upstream or downstream (i.e. in accordance with a type of the operating parameter characteristics, added by examiner) from where the first and/or second IEDs are electrically coupled to the electrical system (or network), for example, to determine a direction of a power event (i.e., upstream or downstream)”).
Menzel does not explicitly disclose:
“the versioned database instance; the time series database instance”.
However, Brown discloses:
“the versioned database instance” (para 0036 – “Version controlled database process 12 may provide database services that include version control of elements within the database. … database storage 202 may contain any number of elements. Element A and element B may be any artifact stored in a database. For example, element A and element B may be single elements of data, rows of data, columns of data, column definitions, row definitions, tables, data relations (interpreted as historical alarm events, added by examiner), or any other type of element that may be stored in a database.”; see also para 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Menzel/Akiyama/Prakash combination, as taught by Brown, in order to follow the history of the alarms happening in the system.
Menzel/Akiyama/Prakash/Brown combination does not explicitly disclose:
“the time series database instance”.
However, Prakash discloses:
“the time series database instance” (para 0080 – “the historian I11 can include a time-series database 133 and a relational database 136. In at least one embodiment, the time-series database 133 and the relational database 136 can each derive data from various sources during data acquisition 130, including, but not limited to, one or more servers 131 a, one or more human-machine-interface (HMI) applications 131 b, at least one application server 131 c, and/or manually entered and/or external data 131 d. In some embodiments, time-series data can be provided in part by process control data stored in the time-series database 133”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Menzel/Akiyama/Brown/Prakash combination, as taught by Prakash, in order to establish the root cause for the alarm event with greater accuracy.
Regarding Claim 20: Menzel/Akiyama/Prakash combination discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of Claim 19.
Menzel further discloses:
“further comprising the instructions to:” (para 0065 – “The diagnostic computing system 125 can be configured to implement a variety of analysis techniques to identify patterns in received measurement data from the IEDs, as discussed further below. The various analysis techniques discussed herein further involve the execution of one or more software functions, algorithms, instructions, applications, and parameters, which are stored on one or more sources of memory communicatively coupled to the diagnostic computing system 125”;
“transmit historical alarm events and actions initiated in response to the alarm events to the database instance” (para 0066 – “since the diagnostic computing system 125 is connected to the cloud, it may access additional cloud-connected devices or databases (not shown) via the cloud. For example, the diagnostic computing system 125 may access historical measurement data previously received from the at least one IED, historical power event and/or alarm data, or other data that may be useful in analyzing current measurement data received from the at least one IED. In embodiments, the cloud-connected devices or databases may correspond to a device or database associated with one or more external data sources”; para 0081 – “The above-described first and second IEDs can record an electrical event's voltage and current phase information (i.e. operating parameter characteristics, added by examiner) (e.g., by sampling the respective signals) and communicatively transmit this information to a diagnostic computing system (interpreted as having a database, added by examiner) (e.g., 125, shown in FIG. 1 )); and
“transmit the instantaneous parameter values of the operational parameters to the database instance” para 0081 – “The above-described first and second IEDs can record an electrical event's voltage and current phase information (i.e. operating parameter characteristics, added by examiner) (e.g., by sampling the respective signals) and communicatively transmit this information to a diagnostic computing system (interpreted as having a database, added by examiner) (e.g., 125, shown in FIG. 1 ). The diagnostic computing system may then analyze the voltage and current phase information (e.g., instantaneous, root-mean-square (rms), waveforms and/or other electrical characteristics) to determine if the source of the voltage event was electrically upstream or downstream (i.e. in accordance with a type of the operating parameter characteristics, added by examiner) from where the first and/or second IEDs are electrically coupled to the electrical system (or network), for example, to determine a direction of a power event (i.e., upstream or downstream)”).
Menzel does not explicitly disclose:
“the versioned database instance; the time series database instance”.
However, Brown discloses:
“the versioned database instance” (para 0036 – “Version controlled database process 12 may provide database services that include version control of elements within the database. … database storage 202 may contain any number of elements. Element A and element B may be any artifact stored in a database. For example, element A and element B may be single elements of data, rows of data, columns of data, column definitions, row definitions, tables, data relations (interpreted as historical alarm events, added by examiner), or any other type of element that may be stored in a database.”; see also para 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Menzel/Akiyama/Prakash combination, as taught by Brown, in order to follow the history of the alarms happening in the system.
Menzel/Akiyama/Prakash/Brown combination does not explicitly disclose:
“the time series database instance”.
However, Prakash discloses:
“the time series database instance” (para 0080 – “the historian I11 can include a time-series database 133 and a relational database 136. In at least one embodiment, the time-series database 133 and the relational database 136 can each derive data from various sources during data acquisition 130, including, but not limited to, one or more servers 131 a, one or more human-machine-interface (HMI) applications 131 b, at least one application server 131 c, and/or manually entered and/or external data 131 d. In some embodiments, time-series data can be provided in part by process control data stored in the time-series database 133”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, disclosed by Menzel/Akiyama/Brown/Prakash combination, as taught by Prakash, in order to establish the root cause for the alarm event with greater accuracy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20210382470A1 to Priyadarsini et al. (hereinafter Priyadarsini) discloses identification of facility status and operating mode in specific event scenarios.
US20160281479 to Rendusara et al. (hereinafter Rendusara) discloses well Alarms And Event Detection.
US20250209903 to Agrawal et al. (hereinafter Agrawal) discloses device event state alarm for an event conflict condition.
US20180322770 to Srinivasan et al. (hereinafter Srinivasan) discloses methods for analytics-driven alarm rationalization, assessment of operator response, and incident diagnosis and related systems.
US20180315300A1 to Subramanian (hereinafter Subramanian) discloses building security system with event data analysis for generating false alarm rules for false alarm reduction.
US20190155268 to Cohen et al. (hereinafter Cohen) discloses system and Method for Providing Optimization or Improvement Measures for One or More Buildings.
US20040153437 to Buchan (hereinafter Buchan) discloses support apparatus, method and system for real time operations and maintenance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lyudmila Zaykova-Feldman whose telephone number is (469)295-9269. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:30pm, Monday through Friday.
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, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. 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.
/LYUDMILA ZAYKOVA-FELDMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights