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 .
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-13 are directed to a method. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 1:
A method for determining a state of health of an industrial process, wherein the process is executed by at least one industrial plant comprising an arrangement of entities and the state of each such entity is characterized by a set of entity state variables, the method comprising:
obtaining values of entity state variables;
for each entity, providing the values to a model corresponding to the respective entity thereby obtaining a prediction of the state of health of the respective entity;
determining propagation paths for anomalies between said entities based at least in part on the layout of the industrial plant executing the process;
determining importances of the states of health of the individual entities for the overall state of health of the process based at least in part on said propagation paths; and
aggregating the individual states of health of the entities to obtain the overall state of health of the process based at least in part on said importances.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“obtaining values of entity state variables” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“for each entity, providing the values to a model corresponding to the respective entity thereby obtaining a prediction of the state of health of the respective entity” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“determining propagation paths for anomalies between said entities based at least in part on the layout of the industrial plant executing the process” is directed to math because the determining of at least one propagation path from a first entity to a second entity specifically comprises: computing a statistical impact of a first time series of a first entity state variable of the first entity onto a second time series of a second entity state variable of the second entity; and quantifying the strength of propagation of anomalies between the first and second entities based at least in part on this statistical impact (see specification paragraph [0030]), the computing a statistical impact using mathematical concepts like correlation, covariance, or regression analysis to determine how much the movement of one variable influences another.
“determining importances of the states of health of the individual entities for the overall state of health of the process based at least in part on said propagation paths” is directed to math because the individual entities are represented as “nodes” (vertices) and propagation paths are “edges” connecting them. Math concepts like Network Centrality and degree distribution determine which nodes are most critical to the overall process.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of "determining propagation paths for anomalies between said entities based at least in part on the layout of the industrial plant executing the process; determining importances of the states of health of the individual entities for the overall state of health of the process based at least in part on said propagation paths” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“A method for determining a state of health of an industrial process, wherein the process is executed by at least one industrial plant comprising an arrangement of entities and the state of each such entity is characterized by a set of entity state variables” recited in the preamble does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“obtaining values of entity state variables” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“for each entity, providing the values to a model corresponding to the respective entity thereby obtaining a prediction of the state of health of the respective entity” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining propagation paths for anomalies between said entities based at least in part on the layout of the industrial plant executing the process” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining importances of the states of health of the individual entities for the overall state of health of the process based at least in part on said propagation paths” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“aggregating the individual states of health of the entities to obtain the overall state of health of the process based at least in part on said importances” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim is merely gathering data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and outputting the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“A method for determining a state of health of an industrial process, wherein the process is executed by at least one industrial plant comprising an arrangement of entities and the state of each such entity is characterized by a set of entity state variables” recited in the preamble does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“obtaining values of entity state variables” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“for each entity, providing the values to a model corresponding to the respective entity thereby obtaining a prediction of the state of health of the respective entity” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining propagation paths for anomalies between said entities based at least in part on the layout of the industrial plant executing the process” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining importances of the states of health of the individual entities for the overall state of health of the process based at least in part on said propagation paths” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“aggregating the individual states of health of the entities to obtain the overall state of health of the process based at least in part on said importances” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 2, “wherein obtaining values includes obtaining time series of values” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
Regarding claim 3, “wherein the propagation paths of anomalies are determined based at least in part on a topology of material and/or energy flows between entities” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 4, “wherein at least one known directional interaction path from a first entity to a second entity during normal operation of the plant is expanded to a bidirectional propagation path for anomalies between the first entity and the second entity” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 5, “wherein at least one propagation path specifically comprises a cause-effect relationship between a first entity state variable of a first entity and a second entity state variable of a second entity” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 6, “wherein at least one propagation path specifically comprises a cause-effect relationship between occurrence of a first event in a first entity and occurrence of a second event in a second entity” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 7, “wherein determining of at least one propagation path from a first entity to a second entity includes: computing a statistical impact of a first time series of a first entity state variable of the first entity onto a second time series of a second entity state variable of the second entity; and quantifying the strength of propagation of anomalies between the first and second entities based at least in part on this statistical impact” is directed to math because computing a statistical impact using mathematical concepts like correlation, covariance, or regression analysis to determine how much the movement of one variable influences another. Time series analysis applies mathematical function to data points indexed in chronological order. Quantifying the “strength of propagation” uses mathematical tools like Granger Causality or a Transfer Entropy to mathematically prove whether an anomaly in one entity reliably predicts and causes an anomaly in a separate entity.
Regarding claim 8, “wherein computing of a statistical impact includes computing at least one of a Granger Causality and a Transfer Entropy between the first and second time series” is directed to math.
Regarding claim 9, “wherein determining propagation paths comprises: verifying a feasibility of each propagation path from a set of candidate propagation paths; and in response to a propagation path not being feasible, removing the propagation path that is not feasible from the set of candidate propagation paths” is directed to math because verifying a feasibility involves mathematical constraints. The action of removing unfeasible paths is a mathematical/logical technique call pruning.
Regarding claim 10, “wherein the importance of the state of health of a particular entity increases with a number of, and/or a strengths of, the propagation paths that comprise the particular entity” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 11, “wherein the model corresponding to at least one entity comprises at least one of a machine learning model, a simulation model, and a surrogate approximation of this simulation model” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 12, “wherein aggregating individual states of health comprises computing a weighted sum of the individual states of health, wherein the weights are determined based on the importances of the respective individual states of health” is directed to math.
Regarding claim 13, “wherein the industrial process is a chemical production process that converts one or more educts into one or more products, and at least one entity in the arrangement of entities is a pipe, a pump, or a tank” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Hence the claims 1-13 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (EP3379357) in view of Suzuki et al. (An online anomaly detection system supporting batch-process operator decision-making”, IDS record).
Regarding claim 1, Martin et al. disclose a method for determining a state of health of an industrial process, wherein the process is executed by at least one industrial plant comprising an arrangement of entities and the state of each such entity is characterized by a set of entity state variables, the method comprising:
obtaining values of entity state variables (Martin et al. disclose monitoring the technical state of an industrial process system executed by plant, wherein signals are grouped into signal groups based on physical location or correlations, and the time series of technical status data are obtained and assigned to groups for analysis (para. [0014]: “..the received technical status data is assigned to one or more signals groups..grouping based on physical location of the respective signals within the industrial process system..Using signal groups with dedicated Machine Learning Models allows to identify potential orgins of an anomaly at the level of signal groups”, para. [0038]: “.. the received technical status data is assigned to a plurality of signal groups SG1 to SG3..”);
for each entity, providing the values to a model corresponding to the respective entity thereby obtaining a prediction of the state of health of the respective entity (Martin et al. disclose providing values or time series to a dedicated Machine Learning Models per signal group to generate an anomaly indicator for that group (para. [0014]: “.. applying a respective group specific Machine Learning Models to the received technical status data… each Machine Learning Model only knows about the signal dependencies within the respective group”, para. [0038]: Machine Learning Model 1 is applied to the technical status data of SG1 and can detect an anomaly indicator AA1…”).
Martin et al. fail to disclose determining propagation paths for anomalies between said entities based at least in part on the layout of the industrial plant executing the process; determining importances of the states of health of the individual entities for the overall state of health of the process based at least in part on said propagation paths; and aggregating the individual states of health of the entities to obtain the overall state of health of the process based at least in part on said importances.
Suzuki et al. disclose determining propagation paths for anomalies between said entities based at least in part on the layout of the industrial plant executing the process; determining importances of the states of health of the individual entities for the overall state of health of the process based at least in part on said propagation paths; and aggregating the individual states of health of the entities to obtain the overall state of health of the process based at least in part on said importances (Suzuki et al. disclose using a sparse correlation structure to narrow down the propagation paths and combining “knowledge obtained from the data” with process understanding to predict how abnormalities in one device will “ultimately propagate” to another. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Suzuki with the teaching of Martin in order to provide an online anomaly detection system supporting batch-process operator decision-making.
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki et al. disclose “wherein obtaining values includes obtaining time series of values” (para. [0014]).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki et al. disclose “wherein the propagation paths of anomalies are determined based at least in part on a topology of material.
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki et al. disclose “wherein determining propagation paths comprises: verifying a feasibility of each propagation path from a set of candidate propagation paths; and in response to a propagation path not being feasible, removing the propagation path that is not feasible from the set of candidate propagation paths”.
Regarding claim 11, Martin and Suzuki disclose “wherein the model corresponding to at least one entity comprises at least one of a machine learning model, a simulation model, and a surrogate approximation of this simulation model”.
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki disclose “wherein aggregating individual states of health comprises computing a weighted sum of the individual states of health, wherein the weights are determined based on the importances of the respective individual states of health”.
Claim(s) 4-8, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (EP3379357) in view of Suzuki et al. (An online anomaly detection system supporting batch-process operator decision-making”, IDS record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Luo et al (A novel approach to alarm…, IDS record).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Martin et al. and Suzuki et al. fail to disclose “wherein at least one known directional interaction path from a first entity to a second entity during normal operation of the plant is expanded to a bidirectional propagation path for anomalies between the first entity and the second entity”.
Luo et al teach “wherein at least one known directional interaction path from a first entity to a second entity during normal operation of the plant is expanded to a bidirectional propagation path for anomalies between the first entity and the second entity”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Luo et al. with the teaching of Martin in view of Suzuki in order to provide a approach to alarm causality analysis.
Regarding claim 5, Luo et al disclose “wherein at least one propagation path specifically comprises a cause-effect relationship between a first entity state variable of a first entity and a second entity state variable of a second entity”.
Regarding claim 6, Luo et al disclose “wherein at least one propagation path specifically comprises a cause-effect relationship between occurrence of a first event in a first entity and occurrence of a second event in a second entity”.
Regarding claim 7, Martin and Suzuki discloses “wherein determining of at least one propagation path from a first entity to a second entity includes: computing a statistical impact of a first time series of a first entity state variable of the first entity onto a second time series of a second entity state variable of the second entity”.
The combination of Martine and Suzuki fail to disclose quantifying the strength of propagation of anomalies between the first and second entities based at least in part on this statistical impact.
Luo et al. teach quantifying the strength of propagation of anomalies between the first and second entities based at least in part on this statistical impact. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Luo et al. with the teaching of Martin in view of Suzuki in order to provide a approach to alarm causality analysis.
Regarding claim 8, Luo et al disclose “wherein computing of a statistical impact includes computing at least one of a Granger Causality and a Transfer Entropy between the first and second time series”.
Regarding claim 10, Luo et al. disclose “wherein the importance of the state of health of a particular entity increases with a number of, and/or a strengths of the propagation paths that comprise the particular entity”.
Regarding claim 13, combination of Martin et al. and Suzuki disclose at least one entity in the arrangement of entities is a pipe, a pump, or a tank” (Martine, para. [0005]).
Martin et al. fail to disclose wherein the industrial process is a chemical production process that converts one or more educts into one or more products.
Lue et al. teach “wherein the industrial process is a chemical production process that converts one or more educts into one or more products”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Luo et al. with the teaching of Martin in view of Suzuki in order to provide a approach to alarm causality analysis.
Other Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yutaka et al. (WO 2020/261875 A1) disclose a method for determining a state of health of an industrial process (see paragraphs [0001], [0002], [0012]the target device is an oil or chemical plant 20 executing an industrial process), wherein the process is executed by at least one industrial plant comprising an arrangement of entities (paragraph [0002] referring to parts of target device 20) and the state of each such entity is characterized by a set of entity state variables (paragraph [0026] where the operating state history is based on sensor data , the method comprising: obtaining values of entity state variables (see paragraph [0026]); for each entity, providing the values to a model corresponding to the respective entity thereby obtaining a prediction of the state of health of the respective entity ( see paragraph [0032]).
Qi et al. (CN 110174883 A) disclose a system health state evaluation method and device, the method comprises: a hierarchy of task system by function hierarchy into the equipment system, determining the to-be-evaluated the equipment in the system, performing fault analysis processing to the task system. the fault node determining each level structure of the task system according to the task system of each substructure of the failure node, and test point data of each layer structure of the task system, determining the health index parameter of each layer structure of the task system; The health index parameter of each layer structure of the task system, evaluating determination of the health status of the task system. Adopting the above technique scheme, it can realize the health state evaluation with complex task system of the multi-layer structure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights