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
2. Claims 1-20 are present for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 01/24/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
5. Claims 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending Application No. 18/787,560. Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention of the instant application is a similar version of the claimed invention of the above identified copending application with the similar intended scope.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application
Application No. 18/787,560
Claim 1. A computer monitoring device for grouping like equipment in a computer database managed by an automated and industrial control system (AIC), wherein each equipment is defined by a plurality of points, and has a textual label, in the computer database, comprising: one or more memory devices configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
identify a container in the database as a reference equipment, for grouping similar equipment in the computer database;
identify at least one reference point associated with the reference equipment in the computer database;
embed, using an algorithmic technique, a textual label of the reference equipment in a first numeral value, and embed in at least one second numerical value textual attributes associated with the at least one reference point in the database associated with the reference equipment;
embed, using an algorithmic technique, a textual label of at least one candidate equipment container (candidate equipment) in a third numeral value, and embed in at least one fourth numerical value textual attributes associated with each designated point in the database associated with the at least one candidate equipment;
compare the first and third numerical values to one another to determine if there is a sufficient level of similarity;
compare, responsive to determining there is a sufficient level of similarity between the first and third numerical values, the second and fourth numerical values to one another to determine if there is a sufficient level of similarity;
group, in the computer database, the reference equipment with the at least one candidate equipment, responsive to determining a sufficient level of similarity between the third and fourth numerical values; and
assign, based upon a labelling technique, a semantic tag to each of the equipment grouping.
Claim 1. A computer monitoring device for grouping like points in a computer database managed by an automated and industrial control system (AIC), comprising: one or more memory devices configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
identify a point as a reference for grouping one or more points, that are similar to the identified point, from a plurality of other points managed by the AIC;
capture, from the computer database, one or more textual attributes associated with the identified point;
embed the captured textual attributes into at least one numeral value using an algorithmic technique;
capture, from the computer database, one or more textual attributes associated with each point in at least a subset of the plurality of other points;
embed the captured textual attributes for each other point into at least one respective numerical value using the algorithmic technique;
[Claim 10. The computer monitoring device as recited in claim 1, wherein the subset of the plurality of other points is defined according to certain criteria numerical and/or textual attributes contained in the BMS database associated with each of the plurality of other points.
compare the numerical value of the identified point with each numerical value of the other points;
[Claim 11. The computer monitoring device as recited in claim 10, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to identify the subset of the plurality of other points responsive to determining one or more similar descriptives common to both a subset of the plurality of other points and the identified reference point.]
group certain of the other points with the identified point determined to have a similar embedded numerical value to that of the identified point based on a similarity threshold; and
assign, based upon a labelling technique, a semantic tag to each of the grouped points.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-29 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.
Regarding claims 1, 16 and 27, claim 1 recites the limitation of “a container in the database as a reference equipment” in line 6. It is noted that the specification discloses in paragraph 0072 that “… It is to be further appreciated, each equipment defined in the BMS computer database 905 is preferably contained in a virtual directory/container path having a plurality of textual attributes which may include: a name, type, unit, descriptive notes, etc., associated with the equipment (and as similar to a point, as mentioned above).” [emphasis added]. In view of this disclosure, it appears that the claimed container refers to a virtual container, instead of a physical entity. Since the claimed reference equipment refers to hardware, it is unclear what exactly constitutes the recited limitation of “a container.” Clarification is required.
In addition, claim 1 recites the limitation of “at least one reference point” in line 8. It is noted that the specification discloses in paragraph 0065 that “Starting at step 610, a point 702 is identified, preferably by a user via an interactive GUI, as a reference point for grouping one or more points, that are similar to the identified/reference point…Once the reference point 702 is identified (step 610), next at step 620, the computer monitoring system 103 captures from the BMS computer database, one or more textual attributes 704 associated with the identified point (e.g., a textual attribute contained in a virtual directory/container path of the BMS database 700 for the reference point, such as: a name, type, unit, descriptive notes, etc.)…” It is unclear what exactly constitutes the recited limitation of a “reference point.” Clarification is required.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the limitation of “one candidate equipment container (candidate equipment)” in lines 14-15. Since the specification does not clearly disclose feature of the claimed “candidate equipment container”, it is unclear what exactly constitutes the “candidate equipment container.” Clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “each designated point” in line 16. Though a claim is read in view of the specification, the specification does not shed any light as to the meaning of these phrases. Therefore, the examiner finds it unclear as to what the language of claim 1 is directed.
Clarification is required.
It appears that claims 16 and 27 recite the similar claim limitations as explained above. These claims are also rejected due to the similar reasons set forth above. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 2, this claim recites the limitation of “wherein a point is a software identifier” in lines 1-2. Since the specification does not clearly disclose feature of the claimed “software identifier”, it is unclear what exactly “a point is a software identifier” refers to. Clarification is required.
It appears that claim 17 recites the similar claim limitations as explained above. This claim is also rejected due to the similar reasons set forth above. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 3, this claim recites the limitation of “a container providing a grouping of points logical related to the equipment.” In view of the specification disclosure in paragraph 0072, it appears that the claimed container refers to a virtual container, instead of a physical entity. Since the claimed reference equipment refers to hardware, it is unclear what exactly constitutes the recited limitation of “a container.” Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, claims 13 recites the limitation of “wherein, the point in the database that define an equipment are user designated” and claim 14 recites the limitation of “wherein a designated point in the database… the database of a container associated with a candidate equipment.” Claims 13 and 14 are also rejected due to the similar set forth regarding claim 1.
Claims not specifically mentioned above are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-9, 12-22 and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over non-patent literature “Trust Management Techniques for the Internet of Things: A survey”, IEEE Access, vol. 7, 03/20/2019, 25 pages (hereinafter Din) in view of U.S. 2024/0403343 (hereinafter Ramanasankaran).
Regarding claims 1, 16 and 27, as far as the claim is understood, Din discloses a computer monitoring device for grouping like equipment in a computer database managed by an automated and industrial control system (AIC), wherein each equipment is defined by a plurality of points, and has a textual label, in the computer database, comprising:
one or more memory devices configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors (B. GTRS, “…The existing central CF recommender lacks two key performance measures. First, it saves the rating matrix in memory to predict the best service from the memory. Second, it leads to data sparsity issues…”) cause the one or more processors to:
identify a container in the database as a reference equipment, for grouping similar equipment in the computer database; identify at least one reference point associated with the reference equipment in the computer database (S. DTRM, “…This model classifies stronger devices as “Alpha” nodes, which are declared and configured during the model setup… The proposed model is classified into seven different phases to perform smooth computations in the IoT environment. The first phase is data collection where a detailed collection of information is stored by alpha nodes…”);
embed, using an algorithmic technique, a textual label of the reference equipment in a [first] numeral value, and embed in at least one [second] numerical value textual attributes associated with the at least one reference point in the database associated with the reference equipment; embed, using an algorithmic technique, a textual label of at least one candidate equipment container (candidate equipment) in a [third] numeral value, and embed in at least one [fourth] numerical value textual attributes associated with each designated point in the database associated with the at least one candidate equipment (fig. 5; I. SMA, “…The trust score and the class of the IoT device (calculated by middleware) help users to decide whether the IoT device is trustworthy to communicate with or not. For the trust evaluation, semantic discovery is the most important part of the SMA, which uses text and numerical information provided by the communicating device to execute the semantic discovery…”);
compare the [first and third] numerical values to one another to determine if there is a sufficient level of similarity (I. SMA, “…The middleware architecture (see Figure 5) takes text attributes and data from IoT objects to calculate their semantic attributes and trustworthiness. After processing text attributes and data in the middleware, an output string is generated that contains the original text, classification of its attributes, and the calculated trust score of that particular device… For the trust evaluation, semantic discovery is the most important part of the SMA, which uses text and numerical information provided by the communicating device to execute the semantic discovery…”);
compare, responsive to determining there is a sufficient level of similarity between the [first and third] numerical values, the [second and fourth] numerical values to one another to determine if there is a sufficient level of similarity (S. DTRM, “…In the second phase, virtual clustering, similar devices are identified based on collected information and are placed in a virtual cluster…”);
group, in the computer database, the reference equipment with the at least one candidate equipment, responsive to determining a sufficient level of similarity between the third and fourth numerical values (S. DTRM, “…In the third phase, weight calculation, virtual clustering is exercised to find device recommendations so that to calculate the trust values of particular devices. The quality of recommendations helps the system to give trust score to IoT nodes. The fourth phase is transaction, wherein the flag is set to either 0 or 1 on the basis of data collection in the first phase…”).
The reference does not explicitly disclose the features of utilizing the first, second, third and fourth numerical values; assigning, based upon a labelling technique, a semantic tag to each of the equipment grouping. However, Ramanasankaran discloses that “A building node 404 represents a particular building that includes two floors… Various pieces of equipment are included within the room 2023. A light represented by light node 416, a bedside lamp node 414, a bedside lamp node 412, and a hallway light node 410 are related to room 2023 node 408 via edge 466, edge 472, edge 470, and edge 468.” ([0114]; fig. 4). Ramanasankaran additionally discloses that “…In some embodiments, the digital twin manager 308 may be configured to modify the digital twin generated by adding either a second new relationship or a second new entity for the digital twin which was not previously in the data relating to the building equipment of the building…” ([0233]) and it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Ramanasankaran in the system of Din in view of the desire to enhance the information sharing process by utilizing the various equipment information resulting in improving the efficiency of managing the social device relationship. Regarding the features of utilizing the first, second, third and/or fourth numerical values, the specific input utilized for comparing and embedding the various numerical values would have been an obvious design choice to one with ordinary skill in the art depending on the needs of a particular application and involving only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 2 and 17, as far as the claim is understood, Din in view of Ramanasankaran discloses the computer monitoring device wherein a point is a software identifier that the AIC uses to read and write data to a building controlled and/or monitored by the AIC (Din: [B. GTRS]).
Regarding claims 3 and 18, as far as the claim is understood, Din in view of Ramanasankaran discloses the computer monitoring device wherein each equipment is defined in the computer database by a container providing a grouping of points logical related to the equipment (Ramanasankaran: [0248 and 0296-0297]). Therefore, the limitations of claims 3 and 18 are also rejected in the analysis of claims 1 or 16, and the claims are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Din in view of Ramanasankaran discloses the computer monitoring device wherein the AIC is one of either a building management system (BMS) or a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system (Ramanasankaran: [0007]). Therefore, the limitations of claims 4 and 19 are also rejected in the analysis of claims 1 or 16, and the claims are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 5, Din in view of Ramanasankaran discloses the computer monitoring device wherein each textual label consists of a variable name (Ramanasankaran: [0113-0114]; fig. 4). Therefore, the limitations of claim 5 are also rejected in the analysis of claim 1, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 6, Din in view of Ramanasankaran discloses the computer monitoring device wherein a textual attribute consists of a variable name for a point (Din: [I. SMA]) and (Ramanasankaran: [0113-0114 and 0233]; fig. 4). Therefore, the limitations of claim 6 are also rejected in the analysis of claim 1, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Din in view of Ramanasankaran discloses the computer monitoring device wherein a textual attribute further consists of at least a portion of a container path of an AIC system tree location associated with a point (Ramanasankaran: [0113-0114]; fig. 4). Therefore, the limitations of claims 7 and 20 are also rejected in the analysis of claims 1 or 16, and the claims are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claims 8 and 21, Din in view of Ramanasankaran discloses the computer monitoring device wherein each textual label and textual attribute are embedded into a numerical value using one or more artificial intelligence (AI) techniques (Din: [M. DCTEPF] and [T. ANTs]) and (Ramanasankaran: [0051 and 0113]). Therefore, the limitations of claims 8 and 21 are also rejected in the analysis of claims 1 or 16, and the claims are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claims 9 and 22, Din in view of Ramanasankaran discloses the computer monitoring device wherein the one or more AI techniques includes a large language model (LLM) (Din: [T. ANTs]) and (Ramanasankaran: [0051, 0098 and 0113]). Therefore, the limitations of claims 9 and 22 are also rejected in the analysis of claims 1 or 16, and the claims are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 12, Din in view of Ramanasankaran discloses the computer monitoring device wherein the one or more processors use an application programming interface (API) for capturing data associated with each point from the AIC computer database (Din: [M. DCTEPF]).
Regarding claim 13, as far as the claim is understood, Din in view of Ramanasankaran discloses the computer monitoring device wherein the points in the database that define an equipment are user designated (Din: I. SMA) and (Ramanasankaran: [0284-0285]; fig. 21). Therefore, the limitations of claim 13 are also rejected in the analysis of claim 1, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claims 14, 25 and 28, as far as the claim is understood, Din in view of Ramanasankaran discloses the computer monitoring device wherein a designated point in the database is a descendent point in a system tree of the database of a container associated with a candidate equipment (Din: I. SMA) and (Ramanasankaran: fig. 4). Therefore, the limitations of claims 14, 25 and 28 are also rejected in the analysis of claims 1, 16 or 27, and the claims are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claims 15, 26 and 29, Din in view of Ramanasankaran discloses the computer monitoring device wherein a textual attribute further consists of descriptive text in the database associated with a point (Din: [I. SMA]) and (Ramanasankaran: [0113-0114]; fig. 4). Therefore, the limitations of claims 15, 26 and 29 are also rejected in the analysis of claims 1, 16 or 27, and the claims are rejected on that basis.
11. Claims 10-11 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Din in view of Ramanasankaran, and further in view of U.S. 2024/0086249 (hereinafter Kulandai).
Regarding claims 10 and 23, Din in view of Ramanasankaran discloses the computer monitoring device wherein the one or more processors utilize a [cosine] similarity algorithm to compare the first numerical value to each [third] numerical value. Din in view of Ramanasankaran do not explicitly disclose the feature of utilizing a cosine similarity algorithm. However, Kulandai discloses that “…The comparison technique can be or include a cosine, a Euclidean distance, a dot product. The comparison technique can generate a value that is based, at least in part, on an angle formed between the two vectors.” ([0078]) and it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Kulandai in the modified system of Din in view of the desire to enhance the information sharing process by utilizing the specific distance measuring scheme resulting in improving the efficiency of managing data tags in the device relationship. Regarding the features of utilizing the third numerical values, the specific input utilized for comparing and embedding the various numerical values would have been an obvious design choice to one with ordinary skill in the art depending on the needs of a particular application and involving only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 11 and 24, Din in view of Ramanasankaran discloses the computer monitoring device wherein the one or more processors utilize a [cosine] similarity algorithm to compare the [second] numerical value of each point associated with the reference equipment to each [fourth] numerical value of the other points associated with each at least another equipment (Ramanasankaran: [0112 and 0167]). Din in view of Ramanasankaran do not explicitly disclose the feature of utilizing a cosine similarity algorithm. However, Kulandai discloses that “…The comparison technique can be or include a cosine, a Euclidean distance, a dot product. The comparison technique can generate a value that is based, at least in part, on an angle formed between the two vectors.” ([0078]) and it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Kulandai in the modified system of Din in view of the desire to enhance the information sharing process by utilizing the specific distance measuring scheme resulting in improving the efficiency of managing data tags in the device relationship. Regarding the features of utilizing the second and the fourth numerical values, the specific input utilized for comparing and embedding the various numerical value would have been an obvious design choice to one with ordinary skill in the art depending on the needs of a particular application and involving only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA M PYO whose telephone number is (571)272-8192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, APU MOFIZ can be reached at 571-272-4080. 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.
/MONICA M PYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
