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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a final rejection. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 02/12/2026. Amending claims 1, 10, and 19.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 is updated in light of the amendments.
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 102/103, will be maintained. The 102/103 is updated in light of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument received 02/12/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues (Pages 8-9 of the remarks): abstract idea
The Applicant respectfully submits that one or more features of amended
independent claim I cannot be performed/executed by human mind. These steps are
inextricably tied to physical warehouse infrastructure, real-time sensor networks, and
processor-driven simulation and correlation engines, and therefore require specialized
computing systems configured to process large volumes of real-time industrial operational data. Specifically, amended claim I requires receiving real-time sensor data from multiple physical sensors throughout a warehouse, a process that relies on machine communication, streaming data pipelines, and time-synchronized processing-tasks that cannot be done mentally by humans. The claim also involves mapping this sensor data to warehouse assets using a process model that defines relationships and attributes among assets, necessitating computational graph traversal and contextual data association across large datasets. Furthermore, the claim requires correlating simulated scenarios with real-time sensor data to identify current operational scenarios, which needs continuous, high-speed data processing and pattern matching that go beyond human capabilities.
Accordingly,
amended independent claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
Independent Claims 1, similar steps likewise reflect in claims 10 and 19, the claims, when “taken as a whole,” are directed to the abstract idea and substantially recite the limitations: A method of managing operations in a warehouse, the method comprising:
receiving, from a plurality sensors installed at one or more locations in the warehouse, sensor information related to events occurring within the warehouse in a real-time, wherein the events are associated with performance of assets responsible for movement of articles at one or more locations in the warehouse, wherein the process model defines upstream and downstream relationships between the one or more assets, and metrics and attributes associated with the one or more assets;
mapping, by a processor, the sensor information with one or more assets present in the warehouse, using a process model of the warehouse;
identifying, by the processor, at least one anomaly in an event, based on violation of predefined limits set for the sensor information related to the event;
simulating, by the processor, a plurality of scenarios, based on the sensor information, to identify effect of the anomaly on the movement of the articles, said plurality of scenarios includes at least an optimal scenario or a bottleneck scenario;
correlation, by the processor, the plurality of scenarios with the current real-time sensor information to identify an occurring scenario;
determining one or more recommendations based on identified occurring scenario for mitigating the effect of the anomaly, wherein the plurality of scenarios is simulated by referring to a knowledge base; and
automatically transmitting, by the processor, a notification to a user device associated with an operator about the one or more recommendations.
The Applicant's Specification titled "SYSTEM AND METHOD OF MANAGING OPERATIONS IN A WAREHOUSE" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for determining one or more recommendation to solve an anomaly/issue and notify an operator about the one or more recommendation" ([005] of the specification).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recites the abstract idea of systems for determining one or more recommendation to solve an anomaly/issue and notify an operator about the one or more recommendation. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business offer for determining one or more recommendation to solve an anomaly/issue and notify an operator about the one or more recommendation. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite systems for determining one or more recommendation to solve an anomaly/issue and notify an operator about the one or more recommendation. which pertain to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligation; behaviors; business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. Also, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claimed invention also pertains to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under mental processes because the claims recite determining one or more recommendation to solve an anomaly/issue based on different information received related to an event and notifying an operator about the one or more recommendation. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant argues (Page 9 of the remarks): prong two
Applicant submits that the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical implementation.
For instance, the subject matter of amended independent claim 1 facilitates a practical application of warehouse operational intelligence technology to monitor, simulate, and dynamically determine operational states associated with the one or more assets across multiple interconnected material handling assets.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims recites the additional limitation of a non-transitory computer-readable medium system, memory, sensors, processor, model, a device are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The use of generic computer component to “generating a notification to a user” does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (step 2A-prong two: NO).
Applicant argues (Pages 9-10 of the remarks): step 2B
The subject matter of amended independent claim 1 provides several technical advantages in view of the operational and technological challenges associated with real-time warehouse management across interconnected material handling assets. … Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully submits that taking all the claim elements of amended independent claim 1, individually, and in combination, amended independent claim 1 as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
The Alice framework, we turn to step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) to determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claims 1, 10 and 19 does not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. Claims 1, 10 and 19 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include a non-transitory computer-readable medium system, memory, sensors, processor, model, a device.
Examiner asserts that the additional elements in the claims are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions.
Further, with data mining (i.e., searching over a network), receiving, processing, storing data, and parsing (i.e. extract, transform data) the courts have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. “receiving, processing, transmitting, storing data”, etc.) are well-understood, routine, etc. (MPEP 2106.059d)).
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-9 are directed to a method (process) and claims 10-18 are directed to a system (machine), claims 19-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (machine). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-20 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Independent claims 10 and 19 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1, thus are abstract ideas for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. A method of managing operations in a warehouse, the method comprising:
receiving, from a plurality sensors installed at one or more locations in the warehouse, sensor information related to events occurring within the warehouse in a real-time, wherein the events are associated with performance of assets responsible for movement of articles at one or more locations in the warehouse, wherein the process model defines upstream and downstream relationships between the one or more assets, and metrics and attributes associated with the one or more assets;
mapping, by a processor, the sensor information with one or more assets present in the warehouse, using a process model of the warehouse;
identifying, by the processor, at least one anomaly in an event, based on violation of predefined limits set for the sensor information related to the event;
simulating, by the processor, a plurality of scenarios, based on the sensor information, to identify effect of the anomaly on the movement of the articles, said plurality of scenarios includes at least an optimal scenario or a bottleneck scenario;
correlation, by the processor, the plurality of scenarios with the current real-time sensor information to identify an occurring scenario;
determining one or more recommendations based on identified occurring scenario for mitigating the effect of the anomaly, wherein the plurality of scenarios is simulated by referring to a knowledge base; and
automatically transmitting, by the processor, a notification to a user device associated with an operator about the one or more recommendations.
The Applicant's Specification titled "SYSTEM AND METHOD OF MANAGING OPERATIONS IN A WAREHOUSE" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for determining one or more recommendation to solve an anomaly/issue and notify an operator about the one or more recommendation" ([005] of the specification).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recites the abstract idea of systems for determining one or more recommendation to solve an anomaly/issue and notify an operator about the one or more recommendation. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business offer for determining one or more recommendation to solve an anomaly/issue and notify an operator about the one or more recommendation. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite systems for determining one or more recommendation to solve an anomaly/issue and notify an operator about the one or more recommendation. which pertain to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligation; behaviors; business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. Also, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claimed invention also pertains to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under mental processes because the claims recite determining one or more recommendation to solve an anomaly/issue based on different information received related to an event and notifying an operator about the one or more recommendation. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 2 (Similarly claim 11) utilizing workforce information for identifying the anomaly in the event, wherein the workforce information includes details of individuals designated for handling all the events in the warehouse, and the anomaly is associated with shortage or lack of skilled individuals designated for handling the event.
claim 3 (Similarly claim 12) identifying the skilled individuals from the workforce information, based on availability and skill set, for performing one or more tasks specified in the one or more recommendations.
claim 4 (Similarly claim 13) obtained as time-series data or as data blobs.
claim 5 (Similarly claim 14) comprising utilizing historical data for simulating the plurality of scenarios.
Claim 6 (Similarly claim 15) triggering scheduled calculations at predefined time intervals upon receipt of a predefined amount of the sensor information.
claim 7 (Similarly claim 16) comprising allowing the operator to define a mode of communication, warehouse site, frequency, severity, and category of the events for receiving notifications related to anomalies and recommendations.
claim 8 (Similarly claim 17) further comprising clustering the sensor information of dependent assets for simulating the plurality of scenarios.
claim 9 (Similarly claim 18) further comprising utilizing an output of computation of a higher level event for performing computation of a lower level event associated with the higher level event, for simulating the plurality of scenarios.
claim 20 utilizing workforce information for identifying the anomaly in the event, wherein the workforce information includes details of individuals designated for handling all the events in the warehouse, and the anomaly is associated with shortage or lack of skilled individuals designated for handling the event; and identifying the skilled individuals from the workforce information, based on availability and skill set, for performing one or more tasks specified in the one or more recommendations.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 10 and 19.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-20 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 10 and 19 include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1 a sensors, processor, model, a device
Claim 10 a system, memory, sensors, processor, model, a device
Claim 13 a non-transitory computer-readable medium sensors, processor, model, a device
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims 1, 10 and 19 pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable medium system, memory, sensors, processor, model, a device which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2). The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, (fig. 1). Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 1, 10, and 19 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps of determining one or more recommendation to solve an anomaly/issue based on different information received related to an event and notifying an operator about the one or more recommendation and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention determine one or more recommendation to solve an anomaly/issue based on different information received related to an event and notifying an operator about the one or more recommendation. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 10 and 19 respectively, but, these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 10 and 19, furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of claims 1, 10, and 19 include a non-transitory computer-readable medium system, memory, sensors, processor, model, a device. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to determining one or more recommendation to solve an anomaly/issue based on different information received related to an event and notifying an operator about the one or more recommendation.
Claims 1-20 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiner Note: Some rejections will be followed/begin by an “EN” that will denote an examiner note. This will be place to further explain a rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 4-10, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnaswamy et al. US 2022/0198565 (hereinafter Krishnaswamy) in view of Muro et al. US 2024/0103505 (hereinafter Muro).
Regarding Claim 1:
A method of managing operations in a warehouse, the method comprising:
receiving, from a plurality sensors installed at one or more locations in the warehouse, sensor information related to events occurring within the warehouse in a real-time, wherein the events are associated with performance of assets responsible for movement of articles at one or more locations in the warehouse, wherein the process model [[defines upstream and downstream relationships]] between the one or more assets, and metrics and attributes associated with the one or more assets; (Krishnaswamy fig. 24 element “2404 vision system” and “2404 udar sensors”. Krishnaswamy [0050-0051], “provides realtime asset analytics associated with sensors (e.g., vibration, power, etc.), control devices (e.g., key performance indicators (KPis ), equipment states, etc.), labor management ( e.g., allocation, utilization, quality, etc.), warehouse execution (e.g., orders, routing, etc.), inventory management (e.g., location, quantity, slotting, etc.), and/or one or more other layers of an enterprise. In various embodiments, the dashboard visualization provides a high-level view of respective layers of an enterprise to facilitate enterprise performance management … features, attributes, and/or relationships associated with real-time data … change set points”. Also, see Krishnaswamy [0077], [0100], [0120], & [0160-0165] EN: sensor data related to the asset(s) and in [0165] movement of the one or more articles . Krishnaswamy [0176], “based sensors that may be installed and/or mounted at various sections (EN: “locations”) of the material handling environment”.)
mapping, by a processor, the sensor information with one or more assets present in the warehouse, using a process model of the warehouse; (Krishnaswamy [0165-0166], “vision system 2402 may utilize a data stream to construct 3D point cloud that may represent a 3D-scan of the target area. As an example, a data stream recorded by these LiDAR sensors may capture various operations of a material handling site e.g. movement of the one or more articles 2414, e.g. from the induction portion 2416 towards the sorter portion 2406 or from the ASRS 2422 to the merge portion 2420, and so on. Further, data streams from various LiDAR sensors 2404 may also capture operations and/or actions performed by various machines of the material handling site. For instance, in an example, the data stream may capture movement of various mechanical components e.g. conveyor belts etc. of the singulation system. Furthermore, the data streams may also capture operations performed by one or more workers in that target area … system correspond to ana asset from a portfolio of assets”. [0084-0085], “EN: different models disclose”.)
identifying, by the processor, at least one anomaly in an event, based on violation of predefined limits set for the sensor information related to the event; (Krishnaswamy 0085], “identify issues or opportunities, and the potential causes or drivers of the issues or opportunities. The IoT platform 125 includes rich hierarchical symptom-fault models to identify abnormal conditions and their potential consequences (EN: anomaly). For example, in one or more embodiments, the IoT platform 125 drill downs from a high-level condition to understand the contributing factors, as well as determining the potential impact a lower level condition may have … an overall assessment of the situation and point to the true root cause”.)
simulating, by the processor, a plurality of scenarios, based on the sensor information, to identify effect of the anomaly on the movement of the articles, said plurality of scenarios includes at least an optimal scenario or a bottleneck scenario; (Krishnaswamy [0085-0091], “determining the potential impact a lower level condition may have. There may be multiple fault models for a given enterprise 160a-160n looking at different aspects such as process, equipment, control, and/or operations. According to various embodiments, each fault model identifies issues and opportunities in their domain, and can also look at the same core problem from a different perspective. According to various embodiments, an overall fault model is layered on top to synthesize the different perspectives from each fault model into an overall assessment of the situation and point to the true root cause … an optimal corrective action to take”. Also, see [0088] [0088], [0139], and [0140], “simulations’)
correlation, by the processor, the plurality of scenarios with the current real-time sensor information to identify an occurring scenario; (Krishnaswamy [0045], “in certain scenarios, multiple assets (e.g., 25 assets) from the large portfolio of assets may have an issue. Furthermore, a limited amount of time is traditionally spent on modeling of data related to assets to, for example, provide insights related to the data”. Krishnaswamy [0085-0091], “identifies issues and opportunities in their domain …. Predict what will occur before it occurs and interpret the status of the installed base. Thus, the IoT platform 125 enables operators to quickly initiate maintenance measures when irregularities occur”. [0050] & [0054, “real-time asset analytics “[0139-0140], “simulation”)
determining one or more recommendations based on identified occurring scenario for mitigating the effect of the anomaly, wherein the plurality of scenarios is simulated by referring to a knowledge base; and (Krishnaswamy [0085-0092], “when a fault or opportunity is identified, the IoT platform 125 provides recommendations about an optimal corrective action to take. Initially, the recommendations are based on expert knowledge that has been pre-programmed into the system by process and equipment experts”. Also, see [0092], [0144], [0188], [0209],
automatically transmitting, by the processor, a notification to a user device associated with an operator about the one or more recommendations. (Krishnaswamy [0092], [0188], [0209], and fig. 18 EN: disclose notifying/alerting an operator about the one or more recommendation”.)
Krishnaswamy disclose the above limitations but, specifically fails to disclose wherein the process model defines upstream and downstream relationships between the one or more assets, and metrics and attributes associated with the one or more assets;
However, Muro teaches the following limitations:
wherein the process model defines upstream and downstream relationships between the one or more assets, and metrics and attributes associated with the one or more assets; (Muro [0046], “a connection relationship between assets …. In this order from an upstream hierarchy to a downstream hierarchy”. [0067], “simulation model ,,, output carriable name corresponds to an upstream asset and the input variable name corresponds to a downstream”. [0076-0080], “an upstream asset and the others are downstream assets in a connection relationship … a sensor value input … predicted that the discharge amount …. in the digital twin, in a case where the connection relationship of assets”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Krishnaswamy, to include the feature as taught by Muro, in order to define upstream and downstream relationships between the one or more assets, and metrics and attributes associated with the one or more assets by the process model (Muro [0076-0080]). This will improve operation and/or maintenance of assets in a portfolio of assets. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Krishnaswamy and Muro, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 4:
Krishnaswamy in view of Muro disclose the method of claim 1,
Krishnaswamy further teach wherein the sensor information is obtained as time-series data or as data blobs. (Krishnaswamy [0180], “response to the request, determines ( e.g., by the metrics engine component 306) metrics for an asset hierarchy associated with the portfolio of assets based on a model related to a time series mapping of attributes for the aggregated data”. Also, see [0057] and [0090], EN: data insight include time-series and data blobs”.)
Regarding Claim 5:
Krishnaswamy in view of Muro disclose the method of claim 1,
Krishnaswamy further teach further comprising utilizing historical data for simulating the plurality of scenarios. (Krishnaswamy [0100], [0195], [0051], [0053], EN: historical data/trends”)
Regarding Claim 6:
Krishnaswamy in view of Muro disclose the method of claim 1,
Krishnaswamy further teach further comprising triggering scheduled calculations at predefined time intervals upon receipt of a predefined amount of the sensor information. (Krishnaswamy [0149], “the time parser 1324 is configured to calculate a start time and an end time based on data provided by the time model 1314. In one
or more embodiments, training data for the time model 1314 is generated using a random time data generator”. Also, see [0083], [0195], [0202] and [0184], “interval of time for the metrics see [0184] and [0055-0056]”.)
Regarding Claim 7:
Krishnaswamy in view of Muro disclose the method of claim 1,
Krishnaswamy further teach further comprising allowing the operator to define a mode of communication, warehouse site, frequency, severity, and category of the events for receiving notifications related to anomalies and recommendations. (Krishnaswamy [0048-0052], “allows a portfolio operator to remotely manage, investigate, and/or resolve issues … portfolio operations to a single location”. [0055], “a plant level, a site level (EN: warehouse location)”. [0061], “the dashboard visualization allows a user to see how one or more assets are performing against one or more metrics ( e.g., one or more KPis). In one or more embodiments, the dashboard visualization allows a user to identify what next steps with respect to assets will provide an optimal return on investment for the action ( e.g., repair device #1 vs. device #2) depending on the metrics ( e.g., fixing device #1 will save X % energy, whereas repairing device #2 will save $Y) (EN: frequency). In one or more embodiments, the dashboard visualization allows a user to view individual assets through the dashboard ( e.g., boiler #1 is operating at 90% efficiency, or will fail in X weeks, Y days, Z hours unless action is taken; and repairing the boiler #1 within a first interval of time will save $X, whereas repairing within a second interval of time will save $Y) (EN: severity). In one or more embodiments, the dashboard visualization allows a user to change individual settings for an asset remotely. In one or more embodiments, the dashboard visualization notifies a user that changing settings for an asset from X to Y will save X % energy or $Y. Also, see [0124], “allows a user … make decisions and/or perform one or more action with respect to the prioritized action …. Control the one or more portions of the assets …. Generate one or more work orders”.)
Regarding Claim 8:
Krishnaswamy in view of Muro disclose the method of claim 1,
Krishnaswamy further teach further comprising clustering the sensor information of dependent assets for simulating the plurality of scenarios. (Krishnaswamy [0106], “the data aggregation component 304 identifies and/or groups data types associated with the asset data 314 based on the one or more intervals of time (e.g., one or more reporting intervals of time) and/or the one or more asset hierarchy levels. In one or more embodiments, the data aggregation component 304 employs batching, concatenation of the asset data 314, identification of data types, merging of the asset data 314, grouping of the asset data 314, reading of the asset data 314 and/or writing of the asset data 314 to facilitate storage of the asset data 314 within the centralized control database 318. In one or more embodiments, the data aggregation component 304 groups data from the asset data 314 based on corresponding features and/or attributes of the data. In one or more embodiments, the data aggregation component 304 groups data from the asset data 314”. Also, see [0117], and [0151])
Regarding Claim 9:
Krishnaswamy in view of Muro disclose the method of claim 1,
Krishnaswamy further teach further comprising utilizing an output of computation of a higher level event for performing computation of a lower level event associated with the higher level event, for simulating the plurality of scenarios. (Krishnaswamy [0049-0054], “asset and/or workforce use is optimized, and highest priority issues related to the portfolio of assets is presented to a user in an optimal manner. Additionally, according to various embodiments, facility operating and/or maintenance costs are reduced while also improving equipment up-time, service operational efficiency, and/or environmental conditions by employing the dashboard visualization. Additionally, by employing the dashboard visualization according to various embodiments, remote triage of faults and/or remote resolution of asset issues is provided. Additionally, according to various embodiments, the dashboard visualization provides centralized capability to review, manage and/or control assets … presented via the dashboard visualization such that the highest priority issues are at the top of the list of alerts. In various embodiments, prioritization of the alerts is determined based on type of asset, type of facility, use and size of area affected by the issues, number of assets, number of issues, types assigned priority of individual alerts, and/or other features associated with the assets. In various embodiments, machine learning is employed to logically grouped and/or present the alerts. In various embodiments, machine learning is employed to identify alerts that optimally reflect use by an operator of the dashboard visualization”.)
Regarding Claim 10:
Claim 10 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 1 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 10 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 4 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected under the same rational as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 14:
Claim 14 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 5 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected under the same rational as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 6 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected under the same rational as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 16:
Claim 16 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 7 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 16 is rejected under the same rational as claim 7.
Regarding Claim 17:
Claim 17 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 8 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 17 is rejected under the same rational as claim 8.
Regarding Claim 18:
Claim 18 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 9 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected under the same rational as claim 9.
Regarding Claim 19:
Claim 20 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 1 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 20 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Claims 2-3, 11-12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnaswamy et al. US 2022/0198565 (hereinafter Krishnaswamy) in view of Muro et al. US 2024/0103505 (hereinafter Muro) in view of Arar et al. US 2020/0364646 (hereinafter Arar).
Regarding Claim 2:
Krishnaswamy in view of Muro disclose the method of claim 1,
Krishnaswamy further teach further comprising utilizing workforce information for identifying the anomaly in the event, wherein the workforce information includes details of individuals designated for handling all the events in the warehouse, and (Krishnaswamy [0109-0113], “includes one or more asset descriptors that describe one or more assets in the portfolio of assets. For instance, in one or more embodiments, the request 320 includes one or more asset descriptors that describe the edge devices 161a-161n. An asset descriptor includes, for example, an asset name, an asset identifier, an asset level and/or other information associated with an asset. Additionally or alternatively, in one or more embodiments, the request 320 includes one or more user identifiers describing a user role for a user associated with access of a dashboard visualization. A user identifier includes, for example, an identifier for a user role name ( e.g., a manager, an executive, a maintenance engineer, a process engineer, etc.)”. Also, see [0137], EN: disclose further information about the individuals based on the event in the warehouse.)
Krishnaswamy disclose the above limitations but, specifically fails to disclose the anomaly is associated with shortage or lack of skilled individuals designated for handling the event.
However, Arar teaches the following limitation:
the anomaly is associated with shortage or lack of skilled individuals designated for handling the event. (Arar [0020], “controlling the quality of the results is a challenging issue, due to the unreliability, volatility or lack of skill of participants … where different specific expertise is involved to complete each corresponding task …. There may be a changing pool of workers, having different availability, and an evolving skill set. Simply assigning a task to the most qualified participant may not provide a result that is consistent with an enterprise policy of the organizing”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Krishnaswamy, to include the feature as taught by Arar, in order to determine a shortage or lack of skilled individual designated for handling the event (Arar [0020]). Also, it will improve the operation and/or maintenance of asset by scheduling the individuals with the skills to handle the event. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Krishnaswamy and Arar, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 3:
Krishnaswamy in view of Muro in view of Arar disclose the method of claim 2,
Arar further teach further comprising identifying the skilled individuals from the workforce information, based on availability and skill set, for performing one or more tasks specified in the one or more recommendations. (Arar [0031-0032], “the profile 119 may include, without limitation, education level, list of skills, length of experience for different skills, peer rating, publications, as well as availability of a participant. In this regard, FIG. 2B illustrates an example participation profile table. By way of example only and not by way of limitation, FIG. 2B characterizes a participant in terms of cost, work quality and expertise for a corresponding skill. Thus, the cost, work quality and expertise may be different for the same participant for different skills”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Krishnaswamy, to include the feature as taught by Arar, in order to identify the skilled individuals from the workforce information, based on availability and skill set, for performing one or more tasks specified in the one or more recommendations (Arar [0031-0032]). Also, it will improve the operation and/or maintenance of asset by scheduling the individuals with the skills to handle the event. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Krishnaswamy and Arar, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 11:
Claim 11 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 2 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 12:
Claim 12 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 3 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected under the same rational as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 20:
Krishnaswamy in view of Muro disclose the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 19,
Krishnaswamy further teach further comprising program instructions to perform the steps of: utilizing workforce information for identifying the anomaly in the event, wherein the workforce information includes details of individuals designated for handling all the events in the warehouse, and (Krishnaswamy [0109-0113], “includes one or more asset descriptors that describe one or more assets in the portfolio of assets. For instance, in one or more embodiments, the request 320 includes one or more asset descriptors that describe the edge devices 161a-161n. An asset descriptor includes, for example, an asset name, an asset identifier, an asset level and/or other information associated with an asset. Additionally or alternatively, in one or more embodiments, the request 320 includes one or more user identifiers describing a user role for a user associated with access of a dashboard visualization. A user identifier includes, for example, an identifier for a user role name ( e.g., a manager, an executive, a maintenance engineer, a process engineer, etc.)”. Also, see [0137], EN: disclose further information about the individuals based on the event in the warehouse.)
Krishnaswamy disclose the above limitations but, specifically fails to disclose
the anomaly is associated with shortage or lack of skilled individuals designated for handling the event; and identifying the skilled individuals from the workforce information, based on availability and skill set, for performing one or more tasks specified in the one or more recommendations.
However, Arar teaches the following limitation:
the anomaly is associated with shortage or lack of skilled individuals designated for handling the event; and (Arar [0020], “controlling the quality of the results is a challenging issue, due to the unreliability, volatility or lack of skill of participants … where different specific expertise is involved to complete each corresponding task …. There may be a changing pool of workers, having different availability, and an evolving skill set. Simply assigning a task to the most qualified participant may not provide a result that is consistent with an enterprise policy of the organizing”)
identifying the skilled individuals from the workforce information, based on availability and skill set, for performing one or more tasks specified in the one or more recommendations. (Arar [0031-0032], “the profile 119 may include, without limitation, education level, list of skills, length of experience for different skills, peer rating, publications, as well as availability of a participant. In this regard, FIG. 2B illustrates an example participation profile table. By way of example only and not by way of limitation, FIG. 2B characterizes a participant in terms of cost, work quality and expertise for a corresponding skill. Thus, the cost, work quality and expertise may be different for the same participant for different skills”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Krishnaswamy, to include the feature as taught by Arar, in order to determine a shortage or lack of skilled individual designated for handling the event (Arar [0020]) and to identify the skilled individuals from the workforce information, based on availability and skill set, for performing one or more tasks specified in the one or more recommendations (Arar [0031-0032]). Also, it will improve the operation and/or maintenance of asset by scheduling the individuals with the skills to handle the event. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Krishnaswamy and Arar, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhan, Xuegang, et al. "Industrial internet of things and unsupervised deep learning enabled real-time occupational safety monitoring in cold storage warehouse." Safety science 152 (2022): 105766.
Einav, Omer EP 3154884: Systems and methods for modular storage and management.
Basanez US 2024/0420064: Productivity management system.
Korablev et al. US 2024/0377808: Systems and methods for autonomous anomaly management of an industrial site.
Cella et al. US 2024/0118702: Systems, methods, kits, and apparatuses for managing control towers in value chain networks.
Khurana et al. US 2021/0103260: Multi-site building management system.
Murakami US 2018/0129192: Job planning device and job planning method.
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 HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
March 11, 2026