DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 have been submitted for examination and are pending further prosecution by the United States Patent & Trademark Office.
Allowable Subject Matter
With respect to independent claim 1, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, either solely or in combination, the limitations "generating a configuration data file for process safety analysis by populating the attribute values from the first data file and the relationships from the second data file." when considered in combination with the other limitations of claim 1.
With respect to independent claim 12, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, either solely or in combination, the limitations "generate a configuration data file for process safety analysis by populating the relationships from the first data file and the attribute values from the second data file." when considered in combination with the other limitations of claim 12.
With respect to independent claim 18, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, either solely or in combination, the limitations "generating a configuration data file for process safety analysis by populating the relationships from the first data file and the attribute values from the second data file." when considered in combination with the other limitations of claim 18.
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of informalities and antecedence issues. It is suggested Applicants amend these claims as follows:
Claim 4
-- determining causes for the determined effects from a master data file having data pertaining to causes for [[all]] the plurality of assets operating in the industrial environment; --
-- populating the determined causes and the determined effects for the determined causes in the second data file. --
Claim 5
-- The method as claimed in claim 4, further comprising validating the second data file to determine that all the determined effects corresponding to the determined causes are filled in the second data file. --
Claim 12
-- generate a second data file utilizing the received cause and effect data, wherein the second data file includes [[the]] asset and attribute data corresponding to each of the plurality of assets, wherein the asset and attribute data include attribute values for each of the plurality of assets, and wherein the second data file has a second preset format; and --
Claim 13
-- analyze the first data file to determine [[the]] assets actuated based on [[the]] effects indicated in the first data file; and --
-- determine attributes for the determined assets from a master data file having data pertaining to attributes for [[all]] the plurality of assets operating in the industrial environment; and --
-- populate the determined assets and the determined attributes for the determined assets in the second data file. --
Claim 14
-- determine an [[the]] asset based on the position of the initiator and the final element; --
Claim 17
-- The system as claimed in claim 12, wherein the first preset format has a cause and effect template and the second preset format has an asset and attribute template. --
Claim 18
-- generating a second data file utilizing the received cause and effect data, wherein the second data file includes [[the]] asset and attribute data corresponding to each of the plurality of assets, wherein the asset and attribute data include attribute values for each of the plurality of assets, and wherein the second data file has a second preset format; and --
Claim 19
-- analyzing the first data file to determine [[the]] assets actuated based on [[the]] effects indicated in the first data file; and --
-- determining attributes for the determined assets from a master data file having data pertaining to attributes for [[all]] the plurality of assets operating in the industrial environment; and --
-- populating the determined assets and the determined attributes for the determined assets in the second data file. --
Claims 13-17 and 19-20 are additionally objected to due to their dependence on objected parent claim(s).
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 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites a method for generating a configuration data file for process safety analysis. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 would fall under the category of mental processes as the claim features limitations performable as mental steps, with the assistance of pen & paper, but without additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. An analysis of claim 1 according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility test follows:
Step 1: Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 1 is directed to a method and, therefore, a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes, claim 1 recites an abstract idea as the following limitations are performable as mental processes with the assistance of pen & paper: receiving asset and attribute data corresponding to each of a plurality of assets operating in an industrial environment in a first data file of a first preset format, wherein the asset and attribute data include attribute values for each of the plurality of assets; - A user can receive a first columnar ledger listing asset and attribute data corresponding to a plurality of assets, such as factory equipment, where the first columnar ledger records attribute values for each of the assets; generating a second data file utilizing the received asset and attribute data, wherein the second data file includes cause and effect data corresponding to each of the plurality of assets, wherein the cause and effect data include relation data corresponding to relationships between cause and effect for each of the plurality of assets, and wherein the second data file has a second preset format; and -- The user can manually record, in a second columnar ledger, cause and effect data corresponding to the plurality of assets based upon the asset and attribute data recorded in the first columnar ledger, where the second columnar ledger describes relationships between cause and effect for each of the plurality of assets; generating a configuration data file for process safety analysis by populating the attribute values from the first data file and the relationships from the second data file. -- The user can manually record, in a third columnar ledger for process safety analysis, attribute values from the first columnar ledger and the relationships from the second columnar ledger.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application?
No. Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the claim lacks additional element(s), per se.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount To Significantly More Than The Judicial Exception?
No. Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as the claim lacks additional element(s), per se.
Claim 2 recites the additional element of downloading an empty data file in the first preset format. However, simply downloading an empty data file amounts to an insignificant pre-solution activity in the form of data gathering and, therefore, would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Downloading a data file is also a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see [0062] in Applicant's specification) and, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 2 is also directed to the abstract idea as the limitation populating the cause and effect data in the empty data file from a master data file to generate the first data file can be performed by the user populating an empty columnar ledger with cause and effect data obtained from a master columnar ledger to generate the first columnar ledger.
Claim 3 is also directed to the abstract idea as the first columnar ledger can contain predefined fields corresponding to the cause and effect data of each of the plurality of assets. Claim 3 does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as the claim lacks additional element(s), per se.
Claim 4 is also directed to the abstract idea as the analyzing and determining limitations can be performed by the user manually examining the first columnar ledger and a master columnar ledger to determine effects and causes, respectively. The user can also manually record the determined causes and effects in the second columnar ledger. Claim 4 does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as the claim lacks additional element(s), per se.
Claim 5 is also directed to the abstract idea as the user can manually validate the second columnar ledger to determine that all the effects corresponding to the determined causes
Claim 6 is also directed to the abstract idea as the limitation merely elaborates upon limitations found abstract in claim 1 without incorporating additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 is also directed to the abstract idea as the user can manually generate unique default values and populate the unique default values in the third columnar ledger. Claim 8 does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as the claim lacks additional element(s), per se.
Claim 9 is also directed to the abstract idea as the user can manually store the third columnar ledger in a cabinet along with one or more dictionaries. Furthermore, the user can manually monitor one or more of modified properties and non-modified properties of each of the plurality of assets operating in the industrial environment by referring to the dictionaries. Claim 9 does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as the claim lacks additional element(s), per se.
Claim 10 is also directed to the abstract idea as the user can manually validate the first columnar ledger and the second columnar ledger to determine compatibility of the first columnar ledger and the second columnar ledger for generation of the third columnar ledger. Claim 10 does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as the claim lacks additional element(s), per se.
Claim 11 is also directed to the abstract idea as the user can manually generate a written diagnostic report indicating missing predefined parameters upon determining that the first columnar ledger and the second columnar ledger do not include the minimum predefined parameters. Claim 11 does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as the claim lacks additional element(s), per se.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 12 recites a system for generating a configuration data file for process safety analysis. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 12 would fall under the category of mental processes as the claim features limitations performable as mental steps, with the assistance of pen & paper, but without additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. An analysis of claim 12 according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility test follows:
Step 1: Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 1 is directed to a system and, therefore, a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes, claim 1 recites an abstract idea as the following limitations are performable as mental processes with the assistance of pen & paper: receive cause and effect data corresponding to each of a plurality of assets operating in an industrial environment in a first data file of a first preset format, wherein the cause and effect data include relationships between cause and effect of each of the plurality of assets; - A user can receive a first columnar ledger listing cause and effect data corresponding to a plurality of assets, such as factory equipment, wherein the cause and effect data include relationships between cause and effect of each of the plurality of assets; generate a second data file utilizing the received cause and effect data, wherein the second data file includes asset and attribute data corresponding to each of the plurality of assets, wherein the asset and attribute data include attribute values for each of the plurality of assets, and wherein the second data file has a second preset format; - The user can manually record, in a second columnar ledger, asset and attribute data corresponding to the plurality of assets based upon the cause and effect data recorded in the first columnar ledger, wherein the asset and attribute data include attribute values for each of the plurality of assets; generate a configuration data file for process safety analysis by populating the relationships from the first data file and the attribute values from the second data file. - The user can manually record, in a third columnar ledger for process safety analysis, the relationships from the first columnar ledger and the attribute values from the second columnar ledger.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application?
No. Claim 12 recites the additional element of a file generation engine for performing the receive and two generate operations. However, as recited, a file generation engine amounts to a generic software component for performing the abstract idea and, therefore, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount To Significantly More Than The Judicial Exception?
No. Claim 12 recites the additional element of a file generation engine for performing the receive and two generate operations. However, as recited, a file generation engine amounts to a generic software component for performing the abstract idea and, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13 is also directed to the abstract idea as the analyzing and determining limitations can be performed by the user manually examining the first columnar ledger and a master columnar ledger to determine assets and attributes, respectively. The user can also manually record the determined assets and attributes in the second columnar ledger. Claim 13 does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as the claim lacks additional element(s), per se.
Claim 14 is also directed to the abstract idea as the following limitations are performable as mental processes with the assistance of pen & paper: determine position of an initiator designating cause tags and a final element designating effect tags from the first data file; - The user can manually determine the location of cause and effects tags in the first columnar ledger; determine the asset based on the position of the initiator and the final element; - The user can manually determine an asset based on the location of the cause and effects tags; populate data corresponding to attribute value of the determined asset in the second data file. - The user can manually record an attribute value for the determined asset in the second columnar ledger. Claim 14 does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as the claim lacks additional element(s), per se.
Claim 15 is also directed to the abstract idea as the user can manually validate that essential attribute values are filled in the second data file by ensuring the second columnar ledger includes essential attribute values. While claim 15 recites the additional element of a validation engine for performing the validating, a validation engine represents mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 16 is also directed to the abstract idea as the user can update the second data file by populating attribute values not filled in the second data file by manually populating attribute values missing from the second columnar ledger. While claim 16 recites the additional element of a validation engine for performing the update, a validation engine represents mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 17 is also directed to the abstract idea as the columnar ledger formats can include a cause and effect template and an attribute template, respectively. Claim 17 does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as the claim lacks additional element(s), per se.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons given for analogous claim 12. While claim 18 recites the additional elements of a computer readable medium, instructions and a processor for performing operations of the claim, said additional elements amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and, therefore, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 19 is also directed to the abstract idea as the analyzing and determining limitations can be performed by the user manually examining the first columnar ledger and a master columnar ledger to determine assets and attributes, respectively. The user can also manually record the determined assets and attributes in the second columnar ledger. Claim 19 does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as the claim lacks additional element(s), per se.
Claim 20 is also directed to the abstract idea as the user can manually perform the step of validating that essential attribute values are filled in the second data file by ensuring the second columnar ledger includes essential attribute values. Claim 20 does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as the claim lacks additional element(s), per se.
Claim 12-17 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 12 recites "A system comprising: a file generation engine" for performing the receive and generate operations of the claim. However, the file generation engine is not implemented by hardware and, therefore, may be considered software per-se, which is non-statutory. See MPEP 2106. It is suggested Applicants amend this claim by reciting that hardware elements, such as a processor and memory, are used to implement the file generation engine.
Dependent claims 13-17 inherit the deficiency of claim 12 and, therefore, are also rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 2013225317 A discloses a data collection device that collects data from each facility on a production line and adds the collected data to a database without missing information. WO 2012098727 A1 discloses a plant safety design support device and a plant monitoring maintenance support device. US 20170075333 A1 discloses techniques for performing planning processes to generate plans for a manufacturing environment using block-based workflows. US 20220100851 A1 discloses an industrial automation network that includes an asset management system to remotely monitor, control, support, and maintain operations of a variety of assets. US 20220075330 A1 discloses an industrial programming development platform featuring an asset recovery component. The NPL document "Framework for Life Cycle Management of Safety Instrumented System (SIS) in Manufacturing Facilities of Large Corporation" presents a methodology for life cycle management of Safety Instrumented System (SIS) assets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY R ST LEGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7720. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (IFP) ~9:00-5:00 pm.
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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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.
/GEOFFREY R ST LEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights