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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
As to claims 1, 16, 19:
Step 1: is the claim directed to one of the statutory categories?
Claims 1: Yes. The claims recite a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
Claim 16: Yes. The claim recites a system and, therefore, is a machine.
Claim 19: Yes. The claim recites a product comprising a non-transitory storage medium and a processor and, therefore, is a machine.
Step 2A: Prong 1: judicial exception recited?
The claim include steps for “identifying… a … system and a set of parameters…, wherein the set of parameters correspond to one or more types of changes to the … system; providing… a platform via which a user can configure one or more management of change (MOC) workflows; detecting… at least one change to the … system; determining … at least one type of change corresponding to the detected at least one change to the … system; identifying… at least one MOC workflow corresponding to the at least one type of change; generating… one or more tasks corresponding to the identified at least one MOC workflow; and transmit … instructions … to execute the tasks”.
Yes. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of “certain method of organizing human activity” specifically the process of management of change (MOC).
Step 2A: Prong 2: is the recited judicial exception integrated into a practical application of that exception?
The current application identifies the problems to be solved by the current invention as:
[0037] to “address technical problems associated with customizing alarm management systems. … and to customize management of change and auditing needs for industrial alarm management systems.”
[0044] “The purpose of MOC procedure is to ensure that the following considerations are addressed: the technical basis for the proposed change, the impact of change on health, safety, and the environment, modifications are in accordance with the alarm philosophy, modifications for operating procedures, time period(s) for which the change is valid, authorization requirements for the proposed change, maintenance of a degree of safety if the alarm is implemented for safety reasons, and personnel from appropriate disciplines are included in the review as necessary.”
[0045] “Thus, to address these and/or other issues related to such example solutions, example systems, apparatuses, methods, and computer program products for alarm system management are disclosed herein.”
On its face, the current invention seeks to automate the manual task performed by a system management personnel for implementing standard procedures, as provided in EEMUA 191 guidance, ISA 18.2 standard, IEC 62682 Standard, API RP1167, and the like, [0040]. The claims do not provide any solution to the above identified problems except to implement the same guidelines using a generic computer system.
Further, system of claim 16, and the computer program product of claim 19 comprising a processor configured to execute a program in a memory to perform the steps as detailed in claim 1. This generic computer limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
No. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The recitation of the system and product to simply perform the tasks using a generic computer system do not amount to significantly more. The system and product merely automate a manual process performed by a systems manager that simply implements a standard procedure. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
No. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 2-15, 17-18, 20 add limitations that specify additional steps for the method that do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley et al. [US 20240311664].
As to claim 1. Stanley discloses A method comprising:
identifying, by one or more processors of a computing device, [fig. 2, 0043] digital assistant system 200, [0064] with a computer processor to calculate derived quantities from the received data from IoT cluster 236 of the monitored organization, a management system, [0068] the system monitors internal systems of an organization, and a set of parameters corresponding to the management system, wherein the set of parameters correspond to one or more types of changes to the management system, [0036] identify organizational transformation;
providing, by the one or more processors of the computing device, a platform to configure one or more management of change (MOC) workflows with the management system, [0044];
monitoring, by the one or more processors of the computing device, one or more systems over a communication network, [fig. 2, 0085] monitoring system 260 tracks the activities of the management plan implementation, and [0059] organizational transformation score, [0063] deployment rate of new modules in the organization, [0063] through a collective network of connected devices 236;
detecting, by the one or more processors of the computing device, at least one change to the management system based on the monitoring of the one or more alarm system, [fig. 1, 0039] monitoring planned tasks are completed on time;
determining, by the one or more processors of the computing device, at least one type of change corresponding to the detected at least one change to the management system, [fig. 1, 0039] monitoring determines if planned activities are completed on time;
identifying, by the one or more processors of the computing device, at least one MOC workflow corresponding to the at least one type of change, [fig. 1, 0039] generate plans to realize the transformation including a change management plan;
generating, by the one or more processors of the computing device, one or more tasks corresponding to the identified at least one MOC workflow, [0039] plans generated based on the identified anomaly, [0096] alarm generated, along with recommended remedial actions; and
transmitting, by the one or more processors of the computing device, [fig. 2, 0096] the AI engine 208 as part of the system 200, one or more instructions to the one or more alarm systems, [0096] recommended actions are transmitted, over the communication network, [0088] including using an email communication, to execute the one or more tasks, [0039] wherein the change management plan is implemented, [0040] and checks the implementation of the change plan.
Stanley fails to explicitly disclose wherein the method is implemented for an alarm management system.
Stanley teaches that the system can be implemented in any system that undergo an organizational transformation, including any change that affects systems, environments, software systems, adaptations of new operational processes, change in policies, standards, [0032], and various types of transformations across any industry, [0038].
One of ordinary skill in the art can easily understand that the system of Stanley is inherently designed to manage organizational transformation in an alarm system as the described method is designed to handle changes that can happen in an alarm system as detailed in [0032].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Stanley and implement the system as an alarm management system as the various embodiments of Stanley are designed to handle changes that affect the system as it would not require any changes to the system and minimizes implementation cost.
As to claim 2. Stanley discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising executing, by the one or more processors, the generated one or more tasks corresponding to the at least one MOC workflow, [0039] implement the plan.
As to claim 3. Stanley discloses The method of claim 2, wherein executing the generated one or more tasks comprises assigning, by the one or more processors, one or more reviewers to the at least one MOC workflow corresponding to the detected change to the alarm management system, [fig. 8, 9, 0038, 0084] stakeholders assigned to specific tasks according to responsibilities.
As to claim 4. Stanley discloses The method of claim 2, wherein the set of parameters includes one or more parameters directed towards one or more levels of review required with respect to the identified type of change corresponding to the detected at least one change to the alarm management system, [0040, 0090] experts review the transformation according to their expertise.
As to claim 5. Stanley discloses The method of claim 2, wherein executing the generated one or more tasks comprises assigning, by the one or more processors, one or more approvers to the at least one MOC workflow corresponding to the detected change to the alarm system, [0090, 0091] subject matter experts (SMEs), depending on their rights, vote a score individual activities in the change management plan, and the oversight and governance panel identify best course of action to affect the transformation, [0091] and propose suggestions and interventions, and allow a direct feedback loop to change the future management plan in the next loop, [0031, 0067] to iteratively update the change management plan.
As to claim 6. Stanley discloses The method of claim 2, wherein the set of parameters includes one or more parameters directed towards levels of approval required for the one or more types of changes to the alarm management system, [0090] SMEs categorized and tagged according to their expertise, and allows the SMEs to review ongoing transformations, provide real-time feedback and adaptations to ongoing transformations.
As to claim 7. Stanley discloses The method of claim 2, wherein generating at least one task corresponding to the at least one MOC workflow includes generating, by the one or more processors, a combination of one or more reviewer tasks and one or more approver tasks, [0031, 0067, 0090, 0096] SMEs monitor and update ongoing transformations and change management plans.
As to claim 8. Stanley discloses The method of claim 7, further comprising: receiving a rejection responsive to a threshold number of the one or more reviewer tasks and the one or more approver tasks, [0031, 0067, 0090, 0096] SMEs monitor and update ongoing transformations and change management plans; and canceling one or more additional tasks responsive to receiving a rejection corresponding to the threshold number of the one or more reviewer tasks and the one or more approver tasks, [0090] the system improves the plan based on SMEs feedback, and [0031, 0035, 0039] update ongoing transformations.
As to claim 9. Stanley discloses The method of claim 1, wherein generating one or more tasks includes: assigning the generated at least one task to a user, [fig. 8, 9, 0038, 0084] stakeholders assigned to specific tasks according to responsibilities; and notifying the user that the generated at least one task is available for their interaction, [0095] transmit and display resource to the user according to assigned task.
As to claim 10. Stanley discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising, defining, one or more states of a change to the alarm management system, wherein the one or more states include at least one of a proposed state, an approved state, a rejected state, or an implemented state, [0039] system tracks if planed tasks are completed.
As to claim 11. Stanley discloses The method of claim 10, further comprising, defining, for a given current state of change, one or more next possible states, wherein the next possible states are states which are achievable upon completion of one or more tasks corresponding to the at least one MOC workflow, [0039] plans updated if deadlines are not met.
As to claim 12. Stanley discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, that the detected type of change corresponding to the change to the alarm management system is unknown; and recommending, by the one or more processors, a potential type of change corresponding to the change of alarm management system based, at least in part, on historical change data, [0050] the system proposes a new query if a requested change is not accepted; wherein proposed query is based on past queries.
As to claim 13. Stanley discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising predicting, by one or more processors, a time to completion for the at least one MOC workflow corresponding to the detected change to the alarm management system, [0031] change management plan includes a timeframe for performing the activities based, at least in part, on one or more previously completed MOC workflows, [0066] which is based on historical transformations.
As to claim 14. Stanley discloses The method of claim 1, wherein generating, by the one or more processors, at least one task corresponding to the at least one MOC workflow comprises identifying an appropriate template of tasks corresponding to the at least one MOC workflow, [0067] knowledge database including templates of past transformations, includes manuals and textbooks for various activities, [0065] used to plan current transformation.
As to claim 15. Stanley discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising applying, by one or more processors, one or more tags to the determined at least one MOC workflow, wherein the one or more tags indicate an alarm system measurement for which the determined at least one MOC workflow is appropriate, [0067].
As to claim 16. Stanley discloses A system comprising:
memory and one or more processors of a computing device communicatively coupled to the memory, [fig. 14, 0008, 0105], the one or more processors configured to: perform the steps as claimed in claim 1, which is rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 1.
As to claims 17, 20. are rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 2.
As to claim 18. is rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 15.
As to claim 19. Stanley discloses A computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer program code stored thereon that, in execution with at least one processor, [fig. 14, 0008, 0105], configures the computer program product for: performing the steps as claimed in claim 1, which is rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: The system is inextricably tied to hardware structures, and cannot be equated to abstract idea. Example 42 (claim 1) of USPTO guidelines for subject matter eligibility, the claims were found to eligible because they recited a combination of elements including storing data in network-based systems, converting data formats, automatically generating messages, and transmitting those messages to users in real time, thereby improving how information is shared across systems. Similarly, the present claims recite a specific technological implementation that monitors, analyzes, and controls an alarm management system through network-based operations. The present invention improves the functioning of alarm management systems by ensuring that system changes are detected, classified, and implemented in a controlled, workflow-driven manner.
Response 1: In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., transmitting to users is in real time) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Argument 2: Stanley is directed to a chatbot and change document driven system that derives quantities from user provided change document data and generates a change management plan. That means, Stanley relies on user-provided data through an interactive chatbot. Whereas in the claimed invention, the computing device is coupled to alarm systems via the communication network, and the computing device is configured to monitor one or more alarm systems for changes and detects changes to the alarm management system based on the monitoring of alarm system. Thus, Stanley fails to disclose monitoring one or more alarm systems over a communication network and detecting change to the alarm management system based on the monitoring of the one or more alarm systems.
Response 2: In response to applicant's argument that Stanley’s system requires the user interaction to function, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The cited embodiment of the prior art system performs the claimed functions. The current invention further describes in the originally filed disclosure that the system relies on user inputs to define the type of organizational change.
Argument 3: Stanley fails to disclose that it selects/identifies a corresponding workflow based on a detected system change type.
Response 3: Stanley in [0039] describes that the system “monitoring activities may include tracking that planned deliverables and training programs are completed on time in accordance with the change management plan.”, and based on the monitoring “updating the plan as required due to missed deadlines (as identified through monitoring), changes in the desired transformation”
Argument 4: Stanley fails to disclose the newly added limitation of claim 1.
Response 4: The Office Action has been updated to address the newly added limitation as detailed above.
Conclusion
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 BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights