Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
Status
2. This communication is in response to the Application filed on 06.27.2024. Claims 1-14 will be subject to further examination and evaluation in due course, and will be presented for examination, as detailed below.
Oath/Declaration
3. The Applicant's oath/declaration has been reviewed by the Examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the Applicant' s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) dated 06.27.2024 is acknowledged by the Examiner. The cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C (2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed, signed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action.
Priority / Filing Date
5. Applicant's claim for priority of Foreign Application filed on 06.28.2023 is acknowledged. The Examiner takes the FA date of 06.28.2023 into consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thewes et al., Pub. No.: US 2023/0325640 in view of Krishnamurthy et al., Pub., No.: US 2019/0384267.
As per claims 1 and 7-14, Thewes discloses an explainer system for explaining an alarm raised by a machine learned model of an industrial automation system [see at least the abstract (e.g., system for rendering an explanation output for users regarding an anomaly predicted by an anomaly detection module on the basis of high frequency sensor data or values derived therefrom in an industrial production process, wherein the anomaly detection module predicts the anomalies when the anomaly detection module classifies sensor data or ranges of sensor data that describe a state of a machine, a component, and/or a product of the production process as different from the data that are normally expected), and ¶0006 (e.g., Machine learning algorithms can be used as the basis for the anomaly detection analysis models), and as illustrated in FIG. 2 below]:
FIG. 2 shows a first exemplary embodiment of an anomaly detection module.
PNG
media_image1.png
439
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the explainer system configured to:
receive model output from the machine learned model trained to predict anomalous behavior in the industrial automation system and to raise the alarm [see at least ¶0060 (e.g., processing the spectrograms with an artificial neural network that is trained to predict anomalies in the spectrogram)];
process the model output using at least one prediction explanation technique to identify at least one influential feature which contributed to the model output [see at least ¶0051 (e.g., generating an explanation output for the predicted anomaly)];
Thewes discloses all elements per claimed invention as explained above. Thewes does not expressly disclose: use the identified at least one influential feature to extract contextual information from at least one machine-readable information source pertaining to the industrial automation system; and prepare the extracted contextual information for display to an operator of the industrial automation system. However, Krishnamurthy discloses: use the identified at least one influential feature to extract contextual information from at least one machine-readable information source pertaining to the industrial automation system [see at least ¶0032-¶0037 (e.g., information 415 extracted from the events data includes determining operators availability to respond, or operational constraints based on alarm priority, alarm grouping, and alarm-operator action linkage), see ¶0037 (e.g., the information extracted from the graphics data includes improving computational efficiency, providing process relationships, improving accuracy of control relationship, and improving the process context accuracy and enables “process context-alarm-operator action” linkage), and as illustrated in FIG. 4 below]:
FIG. 4 illustrates example data sources.
PNG
media_image2.png
447
689
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and prepare the extracted contextual information for display to an operator of the industrial automation system [see at least ¶0023, via operator console 110 (e.g., operator console 110 includes any suitable structure for displaying information to and interacting with an operator), and as illustrated in FIG. 1 below]:
FIG. 1 illustrates an example of industrial process control and automation system.
PNG
media_image3.png
576
322
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Krishnamurthy in order to provide systems and methods for accurate automatic determination of “alarm-operator action” linkage for operator assessment and alarm guidance [Krishnamurthy: ¶0001].
As per claims 2 and 6, Thewes discloses: configured to extract, as part of the contextual information, information pertaining to at least one past event which is similar to the event that is associated with the alarm to be explained, wherein the event that is associated with the alarm to be explained comprises a current event [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Thewes, and Krishnamurthy, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 2 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 2. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claims 3-5, Thewes discloses: configured to employ a search algorithm [¶005 (e.g., Machine learning algorithms)] to locate the at least one similar past event in a database [¶0089 (e.g., similarities are found between basic measurements, as well as between error patterns, and lastly between actual similar products/components), and ¶0113 (e.g., anomaly detection on the basis of historical data Data1)], and to formulate a search query for the search algorithm based on data characterizing the current event [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Thewes, and Krishnamurthy, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 3 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 3. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The PTO-1449 forms have been reviewed and considered.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Garcia Ade whose telephone number is (571)272-5586. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday.
11. 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, Florian Zeender can be reached on 517-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
12. 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.
/Garcia Ade/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/GA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
GARCIA ADE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights