DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-13 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 currently depends upon cancelled claim 11, making it an improper dependent claim. As best understood by the examiner, claim 12 should be amended to be dependent upon independent claim 1.
Claim 25 currently depends upon cancelled claim 24, making it an improper dependent claim. As best understood by the examiner, claim 24 should be amended to be dependent upon independent claim 14.
Claims 13 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 because they incorporate the lack of clarity present in parent claims 12 and 25.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12-13, and 27-28 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.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process or product as a computer implemented method or a computer system/product.
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 belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A method of detecting interruptions in operations of a facility, the facility having a process domain and an electrical domain, the method comprising:
receiving first time-series data from a plurality of intelligent electronic devices, wherein the first time-series data comprise one or more operating characteristics from the process domain, and wherein the first time-series data have a first resolution based on a first frequency at which the one or more operating characteristics from the process domain are sampled;
receiving second time-series data, wherein the second time-series data comprise one or more electrical parameters from the electrical domain, and wherein the second time-series data have a second resolution different than the first resolution based on a second frequency different than the first frequency at which the one or more electrical parameters from the electrical domain are sampled;
performing a wavelet transformation on the first and second time-series data extract features therefrom indicating when frequency changes occur in the first and second time-series data;
converting the extracted features of at least one of the first time-series data or the second time-series data to form a combined data set having a common resolution;
identifying, from the combined data set, one or more dominant frequency changes over time in at least one of the first time-series data from the process domain or the second time-series data from the electrical domain or both;
detecting one or more instances of deviation from predefined conditions in the process domain or the electrical domain or both based on the identified one or more dominant frequency changes over time and the first and second time-series data, each of the detected one or more instances of deviation indicating an onset of a facility interruption; and
in response to detecting the one or more instances of deviation from the predefined conditions indicating the onset of the facility interruption, performing at least one automated action configured to mitigate the facility interruption.
The limitations underlined can be considered to describe a mathematical concept, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, obtained by a sequence of mathematical operations on numbers and/or mental steps. The lack of a specific equation in the claim merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible appropriate equations for accomplishing this purpose in all possible systems. These steps recited by the claim therefore amount to a series of mental and/or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
In summary, the highlighted steps in the claim above therefore recite an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
The additional elements in the claim have been left in normal font.
The additional limitations in relation to the data analysis processor and memory, i.e. a computer system, does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)). The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea.
The additional limitations of receiving the recited first and second time-series data equates to extrasolution data activity, i.e. data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional limitation of performing at least one automated action equates to extrasolution data activity as the action can be an alert/notification, i.e. data reporting (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. (Manipulating data from one form to another or obtaining a mathematical answer using input data does not qualify as a transformation in the sense of Prong 2.)
The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite carrying out any comparable particular technological process.) In all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself, rather than integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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.
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10, 12-13, and 27-28 are similarly ineligible. The dependent claims merely add limitations which further detail the abstract idea, namely further mathematical/mental steps detailing how the data processing algorithm is implemented, i.e. additional software limitations, further describe the type of data being collected/analyzed or output, i.e. add insignificant extrasolution data activity, and/or add insignificant computer limitations, i.e. a controller. These do not help to integrate the claim into a practical application or make it significantly more than the abstract idea (which is recited in slightly more detail, but not in enough detail to be considered to narrow the claim to a particular practical application itself).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-21, 23, and 29-30 allowed.
As per claim 14, the prior art Neti (US 20180246506) discloses a system for detecting interruptions in operations of a facility, the facility having a process domain and an electrical domain (see Abstract and paragraphs 0003, 0005-0006, 0022, and 0033: system and method for monitoring a machine for faults/failure, data being monitored included electrical data, i.e. data in the electrical domain, and non-electrical data, i.e. process domain), the system comprising:
one or more electrical domain sensors associated with the electrical domain of the facility, the second time-series data comprising one or more electrical parameters from the electrical domain (see paragraph 0026 and 0028: current transform and voltage transformer; see paragraphs 0014 and 0032-0033: acquires/receives electrical data in the time domain, includes voltage data, current data, among other parameters);
a data analysis processor receiving and responsive to first data and the second time-series data (see Fig. 6 and paragraph 0057-0058: controller/processor 650 receiving and processing operational data; see paragraphs 0029 and 0033: receives vibration data/process domain data; and see paragraphs 0014 and 0033: acquires/receives electrical data in the time domain);
a memory coupled to the data analysis processor, the memory storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed, configure the data analysis processor (see paragraph 0057-0058 and 0060: processor 650 executing program logic stored on memory 610) for:
performing a transformation on the second time-series data to obtain transformed data (see paragraphs 0013 and 0033: transform the data from time domain to the frequency domain);
analyzing the transformed time-series data to identify one or more dominant frequency changes over time in at least one of the first time-series data from the process domain or the second time-series data from the electrical domain or both (see Abstract and paragraphs 0033 and 0043: analyzing data to see if change in a fault frequency with respect to current data, also identifies change in harmonic frequencies associated with voltage or current data, meets limitation of wherein the dominant frequency changes over time are identified in at least one the recited time-series data, i.e. the second time-series data from the electrical domain);
detecting one or more instances of deviation from predefined conditions in the process domain or the electrical domain or both based on the identified one or more dominant frequency changes over time and the first and second time-series data, each of the detected one or more instances of deviation indicating an onset of a facility interruption (see Abstract and paragraphs 0006 and 0033: determines change associated with the fault frequency based on a different between baseline data, i.e. predefined conditions determined form the second-time series data, deviation also detected using electrical current and vibrational frequencies);
in response to detecting the one or more instances of deviation from the predefined conditions indicating the onset of the facility interruption, preforming at least one automated action configured to mitigate the facility interruption (see Abstract and paragraphs 0022, 0030, 0033, and 0051: generate alarm/alert to prevent failures, as indicated in the specification, the claimed action can be an alert, alert is generated via equipment controller, i.e. automated).
Kode (US 20240203767) disclose one or more process domain sensors associated with the process domain of the facility for providing first time-series data, the first-time series data comprising one or more operating characteristics from the process domain (see Abstract, Fig. 4, and paragraph 0042: discloses time series vibration data transformed into the frequency domain, also discloses vibration sensor/accelerometer, i.e. sensor associated with process domain of the machine/facility as the machine is a location that can be considered a facility); and
analyzing the transformed first time-series data to identify one or more dominant frequency changes over time in at least the first time-series data from the process domain, i.e. wherein the transformation is a wavelet transformation, and wherein the transformation is performed on the on the first time-series data/vibration data (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0042: determines if vibration at a natural frequency/harmonic frequency exceeds a critical threshold, and undesired condition/change from a normal condition).
Ryu (US 20230162484) discloses wherein transformed first and second time-series data are simultaneously analyzed (see paragraphs 0046-0047 and 0079: discloses simultaneously analyzing features of multiple variables, including vibration and voltage, i.e. data in the process and electrical domain, features may be extracted using frequency domain analysis).
Gopalnarayanan (US 20220282897) discloses wherein the process domain sensors configured to acquire samples at a first frequency, sampled at the first frequency, the first time-series data having a first resolution (see paragraph 0045: vibration sensors with 4Hz sampling rate).
Vinken (US 20120236471) discloses wherein the electrical domain sensors are configured to acquire samples at a second frequency different than the first frequency for providing second time-series data, sampled at the second frequency, the second time-series data having a second resolution different than the first resolution (see paragraph 0056: sampling rate of 50 Hz, which is different from 4Hz previously discussed); and
wherein the transformation is a wavelet transformation (see paragraph 0031 and 0058: wavelet transform).
However, the prior art of record fails to disclose the claimed combination of performing a wavelet transformation on the first and second time-series data to extract features therefrom indicating when frequency changes occur in the first and second time-series data;
converting the extracted features of at least one of the first time-series data or the second time-series data to form a combined data set having a common resolution;
identifying, from the combined data set, one or more dominant frequency changes over time in at least one of the first time-series data from the process domain or the second time-series data from the electrical domain or both;
detecting one or more instances of deviation from predefined conditions in the process domain or the electrical domain or both based on the identified one or more dominant frequency changes over time and the first and second time-series data, each of the detected one or more instances of deviation indicating an onset of a facility interruption, in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Dependent claims 15-21, 23, and 29-30 are allowable due to their dependency upon independent claim 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the claims, as currently amended, are directed to patent eligible subject matter.
With respect to claims 14-21, 23, 25-26, and 29-30 the examiner agrees. The claims recite physical sensors for monitoring a facility that are utilized in combination with the disclosed analysis to detect an onset of facility interruption. Thus, encompassing a practical application of the recited abstract idea/data analysis.
Applicant argues that the remaining claims are patent eligible as the claims recite performing a wavelet transformation on the first and second time-series data to extract features therefrom indicating when frequency changes occur in the first and second time-series data. This argument is not persuasive as the performance of the wavelet transform is part of the abstract idea itself as it is a well-known mathematical concept.
Applicant argues that the remaining claims are patent eligible as the claims recite converting the extracted features of at least one of the first time-series data or the second time-series data to form a combined data set having a common resolution. This argument is not persuasive as the recited conversion is part of the abstract idea itself as it is a mathematical transformation of the measured data.
Applicant argues that the remaining claims are patent eligible as the claims recite identifying, from the combined data set, one or more dominant frequency changes over time in at least one of the first time-series data from the process domain or the second time-series data from the electrical domain or both. This argument is not persuasive as the recited identification is part of the abstract idea itself as it could be implemented both as a mathematical algorithm or mental step.
Applicant further argues that the process avoids costly interruptions by taking corrective actions and/or improve industrial control technology. The argument is not persuasive as the claim does not recite any physical corrective actions. The claimed corrective action can be equated to issuing an alert as disclosed in the applicant’s specification, i.e. extra solution data activity. Furthermore, the claims do not expressly recite any physical controls in relation to the claimed facility or corrective action. Merely generation of commands can be considered part of the abstract idea and generation of the commands itself does not expressly equate to actually implementing the corrective actions.
Applicant further argues that the claims improve the functioning of a computer. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the pending claims only utilize a computer/processor to implement the recited abstract idea. Furthermore, the recited computer is not used to generate an animated product as the claims of McRO. The argued practical application is not expressly recited in the claims currently recited under 101.
Applicant further argues that claims recite technical components, such as IEDs/sensors. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the recited sensors are not expressly claimed in the claims currently recited under 101.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior 103 Claim Rejections have been considered and are persuasive. The prior 103 Claim Rejections have been withdrawn.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee (US 20100023307) discloses sampling data using a sampling rate to obtain time-series data and transforming data to the frequency domain using a wavelet transform.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J DALBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/MICHAEL J DALBO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857