DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “replicate the rationalized settings” that has typos, should be “replicate the rationalized alarm settings”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 11 recites:
An alarm management system for rationalizing alarms in a control environment, comprising:
a memory;
a processor configured to be operatively associated with the memory, wherein the memory is configured to:
identify one or more alarms associated with tags in the control system that require rationalization;
create an alarm template from existing alarm settings or select a predefined alarm template that includes standardized properties and values;
apply the created or selected alarm template to the identified one or more alarms;
select a source tag with rationalized alarm settings and copy the source tag properties, including at least one of alarm properties, boundary properties, and operational mode-specific settings;
apply the copied source tag properties to one or more target tags, wherein each tag is associated with one or more alarms; and
validate the applied target tags being consistent with the requirements of the control system.
Step 1:
The claim recites a system. Thus, the claim is directed to a product, which belongs to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong one:
Claim 11 recites the limitations of “identify one or more alarms associated with tags in the control system that require rationalization; create an alarm template from existing alarm settings or select a predefined alarm template that includes standardized properties and values; apply the created or selected alarm template to the identified one or more alarms; select a source tag with rationalized alarm settings and copy the source tag properties, including at least one of alarm properties, boundary properties, and operational mode-specific settings; apply the copied source tag properties to one or more target tags, wherein each tag is associated with one or more alarms; and validate the applied target tags being consistent with the requirements of the control system”.
The recited “identify …, create …, apply …, select … and copy …, apply …, and validate …” steps, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, identifying alarms that require rationalization, creating an alarm template for existing alarm settings and applying the created template to the identifies alarms can be done in the mind or with pen and paper by selecting the alarms, determining an alarm signal and threshold value, and assigning the alarm signal and threshold value the selected alarms. Selecting a source tag, copying the source tag properties, applying the copied source tag properties to target tags can be done in the mind or using pen and pager by picking a source tag, remembering the priority level of the source tag, and assigning the priority level to the target tags. Validating the applied target tags can be done in the mind or with pen and paper by comparing the applied target tags to other rationalized target tags. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two:
Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional elements of 1) “alarm management system for rationalizing alarms in a control environment” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional limitations of 2) “processors” and “memory” are additional elements which are to implement the system. But the “processors” and “memory” are recited at high level of generality (no details whatsoever are provided other than it is “processors” or “memory”) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See also MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional limitations and additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception. The claim has the following additional limitations and elements:
1) “alarm management system for rationalizing alarms in a control environment”;
2) “processors” and “memory”.
Regarding 1), as explained previously, merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept.
Regarding 2) “processors” and “memory” are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 depends on claim 11, and recites additional limitation of “audit the changes made to each tag or alarm, capture details of the applied template or copied properties and the source of the changes” that merely specifies some details of the “validate …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 12 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 depends on claim 11, recites additional elements of “the standardized properties and values include one or more of alarm response details, priority levels, and operational modes” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 depends on claim 11, and recites additional limitation of “select the alarms or tags to which the template is to be applied; search the template to ensure it meets the required threshold; and apply the template with a minimal number of user interactions to standardize the alarm settings across the selected alarms or tags” that merely specifies some details of the “apply …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 14 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 depends on claim 11, and recites additional limitation of “select the target tags for applying the copied properties; provide flexibility to choose specific properties from the copied properties to be applied to the target tags; and execute the paste operation to replicate the rationalized settings from the source tag to the target tags” that merely specifies some details of the “apply …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 15 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 15 is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 depends on claim 11, and recites additional limitations of “display the alarms and mode of operation to be copied for individual tags” is recited at high level of generality (no details what so ever are provided other than causing to act), it is a general field of use and mere instruction to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) or mere field of use and technological environment (MPEP 2016.05(h)), does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not add an inventive concept. Therefore claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 depends on claim 11, recites additional limitation of “check if variable tags belong to the same alarm system” that merely specifies some details of the “validate …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 17 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 depends on claim 12, recites additional limitation of “audit the created or selected alarm template” that merely specifies some details of the “validate …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 18 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 18 is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 depends on claim 11, recites additional elements of “the created template is flexible to include only specific modes of operations and specific alarm types” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 19 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20,
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Thus, the claim is directed to a product, which belongs to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A and Step 2B: Similarly, as recited in the rejection of claim 11, claim 20 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The additional elements "non-transitory computer-readable medium” are recited at high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions, and they do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical applicant and do not add an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 20 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1: The claim recites a method. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which belongs to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A and Step 2B: Similarly, as recited in the rejection of claim 11, claim 1 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore, claim 20 is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-9 depend on claim 1, recite similar additional limitations to that of claims 12-19, respectively, therefore are not patent eligible.
Claim 10 depends on claim 1, recites additional elements of “the template may be created from released copy of a variable” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites wherein “the memory is configured to: identify …; create …; …”. It is not clear how the memory can identify one or more alarms and create an alarm template, etc.
Regarding dependent Claims 12-19, dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent(s).
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, 3, 7, 9-11, 13,17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollifield US 20070194920 A in view of JIANG CN 112306813 A and DI CN 115441584 A.
Regarding claim 1, Hollifield teaches a method for rationalizing alarms and tags in a control system ([0009] [0012] alarm rationalization for DCS), comprising the steps of:
identifying one or more alarms associated with tags in the control system that require rationalization (Fig. 1a [0006] [0007] [0025] Step 1a, analyzing alarm event data to be rationalized, the alarm event data associated with alarms assigned to type of tags);
selecting a source tag with rationalized alarm settings and copying the source tag properties, including at least one of alarm properties, and boundary properties (Claim 6, alarm threshold with different operating modes); applying the copied source tag properties to one or more target tags, wherein each tag is associated with one or more alarms (Fig. 1a [0006] [0007] types of tags including properties such as different “alarm properties” and “high value” “low value” i.e. “boundary properties”; [0030] [0031] Step 3, for any tags that are not currently configured as the highest priority i.e. “select a source tag with rationalized alarm settings and copying the source tag properties” but should be, and applied the highest priority i.e. “source tag properties” to the target alarm tags, and is added to the list of alarm tags to be subjected to rationalization); and
validating the applied target tags being consistent with the requirements of the control system (Fig. 1a [0031] [0033] performing alarm rationalization on the accumulated alarm tag list).
Hollifield does not explicitly teaches:
creating an alarm template from existing alarm settings or selecting a predefined alarm template that includes standardized properties and values; applying the created or selected alarm template to the identified one or more alarms; and
the tag properties include operational mode-specific settings.
JIANG explicitly teaches in an analogous art that creating an alarm template from existing alarm settings or selecting a predefined alarm template that includes standardized properties and values; applying the created or selected alarm template to the identified one or more alarms (page 2 paragraphs 2-5, the generated alarm template comprising alarm threshold value of alarm item is applied to the alarm item); and
DI explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the tag properties include operational mode-specific settings (page 2 S5, according to the type of operation mode, determining abnormal threshold of different operation modes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hollifield to incorporate the teachings of JIANG and DI, because they are all directed to industrial system monitoring, to make the method wherein creating an alarm template from existing alarm settings or selecting a predefined alarm template that includes standardized properties and values; applying the created or selected alarm template to the identified one or more alarms; and the tag properties include operational mode-specific settings. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to reduce the processing number of the alarm task, as JIANG teaches in page 2 paragraph 2 from the bottom; and to provide alarm for the corresponding operation mode, as DI teaches in page 2 S5.
Regarding claim 3, Hollifield further teaches the standardized properties and values include one or more of alarm response details ([0011] corrective actions) and priority levels ([0030] highest priority); and
Hollifield in view of DI further teaches the standardized properties and values include one or more of operational modes (page 2 S5 operation modes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hollifield to incorporate the teachings of DI, because they are all directed to industrial system monitoring, to make the method wherein the standardized properties and values include one or more of operational modes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to provide alarm for the corresponding operation mode, as DI teaches in page 2 S5.
Regarding claim 7, Hollifield in view of JIANG further teaches checking if variable tags belong to the same alarm system (page 4 paragraph 4 from the bottom, checking the alarm data is associated with corresponding resource group).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hollifield to incorporate the teachings of JIANG, because they are all directed to industrial system monitoring, to make the method wherein checking if variable tags belong to the same alarm system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to reduce the processing number of the alarm task, as JIANG teaches in page 2 paragraph 2 from the bottom.
Regarding claim 9, Hollifield in view of DI further teaches the created template is flexible to include only specific modes of operations and specific alarm types (page 2 S5, according to the type of operation mode, determining abnormal threshold of different operation modes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hollifield to incorporate the teachings of DI, because they are all directed to industrial system monitoring, to make the method wherein the created template is flexible to include only specific modes of operations and specific alarm types. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to provide alarm for the corresponding operation mode, as DI teaches in page 2 S5.
Regarding claim 10, Hollifield in view of JIANG further teaches the template may be created from released copy of a variable (page 2 paragraph 6 the template is generated when system is initialized) or newly created or modified release copy of the variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hollifield to incorporate the teachings of JIANG, because they are all directed to industrial system monitoring, to make the method wherein the template may be created from released copy of a variable or newly created or modified release copy of the variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to reduce the processing number of the alarm task, as JIANG teaches in page 2 paragraph 2 from the bottom.
Regarding claim 11, it is directed to a system of carrying out the method with similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. Since Hollifield, JIANG and DI teach the claimed method, they teach the system for implementing the method steps.
In addition, Hollifield further teaches a memory;
a processor configured to be operatively associated with the memory ([0005] computers for control).
Regarding claims 13, 17 and 19, they are directed to a system of carrying out the method with similar limitations as set forth in claims 3, 7 and 9, respectively. Since Hollifield, JIANG and DI teach the claimed method, they teach the system for implementing the method steps, respectively.
Regarding claim 20, it is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-readable instructions of carrying out the system with similar limitations as set forth in claim 11. Since Hollifield, JIANG and DI teach the claimed system, they teach the instructions for implementing the system.
Claims 2, 5-6, 8, 12, 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollifield in view of JIANG and DI as applied to claims 1, 3, 7, 9-11, 13,17 and 19-20 above, further in view of DEY US 20230112875 A1.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the combination of Hollifield, JIANG and DI does not explicitly further teach comprising auditing the changes made to each tag or alarm, capturing details of the applied template or copied properties and the source of the changes.
DEY explicitly teaches in an analogous art that auditing the changes made to each tag or alarm, capturing details of the applied template or copied properties and the source of the changes ([0026] [0044] [0045] alarm manage reviewing the adjusted alarm configuration setting including a note from engineer who made the change indicating the reason for the change).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hollifield, JIANG and DI to incorporate the teachings of DEY, because they are all directed to industrial system monitoring, to make the method/system wherein auditing the changes made to each tag or alarm, capturing details of the applied template or copied properties and the source of the changes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to approve, disapprove or change the alarm setting, as DEY teaches in [0026].
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Hollifield, JIANG and DI in view of DEY further teach selecting the target tags for applying the copied properties; providing flexibility to choose specific properties from the copied properties to be applied to the target tags; and executing the paste operation to replicate the rationalized settings from the source tag to the target tags ([0062] alarm manager copies selected alarm configuration settings for other similar assets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hollifield, JIANG and DI to incorporate the teachings of DEY, because they are all directed to industrial system monitoring, to make the method/system wherein selecting the target tags for applying the copied properties; providing flexibility to choose specific properties from the copied properties to be applied to the target tags; and executing the paste operation to replicate the rationalized settings from the source tag to the target tags. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to allow editing multiple alarms across different facilities at the same time, as DEY teaches in [0062].
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Hollifield, JIANG and DI in view of DEY further teach displaying the alarms and mode of operation to be copied for individual tags ([0026] displaying alarm settings changes through user interface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hollifield, JIANG and DI to incorporate the teachings of DEY, because they are all directed to industrial system monitoring, to make the method/system wherein displaying the alarms and mode of operation to be copied for individual tags. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to approve, disapprove or change the alarm setting, as DEY teaches in [0026].
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Hollifield, JIANG and DI in view of DEY further teach auditing the created or selected alarm template ([0026] [0044] [0045] alarm manage reviewing the adjusted alarm configuration setting including a note from engineer who made the change indicating the reason for the change, tag status indicating the tag or alarm been reviewed modified or confirmed through the user interface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hollifield, JIANG and DI to incorporate the teachings of DEY, because they are all directed to industrial system monitoring, to make the method/system wherein auditing the created or selected alarm template. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to approve, disapprove or change the alarm setting, as DEY teaches in [0026].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 4 and 14 depend on claims 1 and 11, respectively, Hollifield, JIANG and DI together teach the claim limitations of claims 1 and 11, respectively. Hollifield and JIANG further teaches selecting the alarms or tags to which the template is to be applied (Hollifield: Fig. 1a [0006] [0007] [0025] Step 1a, analyzing alarm event data to be rationalized, the alarm event data associated with alarms assigned to type of tags; JIANG: page 2 paragraphs 2-5, the generated alarm template comprising alarm threshold value of alarm item is applied to the alarm item).
However, Hollifield, JIANG and DI do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
searching the template to ensure it meets a required threshold; and
applying the template with a minimal number of user interactions to standardize the alarm settings across the selected alarms or tags.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Almaz US 20250155864 A1 teaches displaying generated alarm settings.
Kumar US 6416471 B1 teaches auditing alarm setting changes.
Sitzman US 20090275807 A1 teaches displaying information of alarm level and type.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tang whose telephone number is (571)272-7437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4 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, Kamini Shah can be reached on (571)272-2279. 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.
/M.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights