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
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 1-20 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.
With regards to Claim 1 (11) the limitation “monitor the monitored equipment of the group based on the operational data and geolocation data” is indefinite as it is unclear and not disclosed in the Specification how the monitoring process would be based on (conditioned on) operational and geolocation data. It seems that the monitoring happens regardless of the data and this feature is examined accordingly.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“A system comprising: one or more monitoring devices configured to provide operational data and geolocation data of monitored equipment; and a network device configured to: receive monitoring data, from the monitoring devices, via different device-specific application programming interfaces (APIs), perform a data transformation to standardize the monitoring data into standardized data, store the standardized data in a database, provide, to a user device, a user interface to select a group of the monitored equipment, receive, from the user device via the user interface, a definition of the group, monitor the monitored equipment of the group based on the operational data and geolocation data, and provide a status update to the user device based on the monitoring.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, the step of “perform a data transformation to standardize the monitoring data into standardized data” is treated as belonging to the mathematical concepts grouping while the steps of “select a group of the monitored equipment, receive… a definition of the group, monitor the monitored equipment of the group based on the operational data and geolocation data, and provide a status update to the user device based on the monitoring” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping.
The mathematical step, under the BRI, alternatively/additionally is treated as mental process step (MPEP 2106.04.II: “construing the claims in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation”).
The mental steps represent a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and includes observation, evaluation, and judgement steps.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 11 and 18.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the above claims that recites a judicial exception are integrated into a practical application.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: A system comprising: one or more monitoring devices configured to provide operational data and geolocation data of monitored equipment; and a network device configured to: receive monitoring data, from the monitoring devices, via different device-specific application programming interfaces (APIs); store the standardized data in a database, provide, to a user device, a user interface; receive, from the user device via the user interface, a definition of the group, monitor the monitored equipment of the group, and provide a status update to the user device;
In Claim 11: A method performed by a network device, comprising: establishing a wireless connection with monitoring devices configured to collect operational data and geolocation data of monitored equipment; receiving, from the monitoring devices, monitoring data via device-specific APIs; storing the standardized data in a database; providing, to a user device, a user interface; receiving, from the user device via the user interface, information; monitoring the monitored equipment of the asset group; and providing a status update to the user device;
In Claim 18: A non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions executable by at least one processor of a network device, the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising one or more instructions for: establishing a wireless connection with monitoring devices configured to collect operational data and geolocation data of monitored equipment; receiving, from the monitoring devices, monitoring data via device-specific APIs; populating the standardized data in a database; providing, to a user device, a user interface; receiving, from the user device via the user interface, a definition of the asset group; monitoring the monitored equipment of the group; and providing information to the user device.
The additional elements in the preambles are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claims such as a network device, a user device, device-specific APIs, and user interfaces (all independent claims); a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions executable by at least one processor of a network device, the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising one or more instructions (Claim 18), wireless connection (Claims 11 and 17), sending/receiving data via a user interface, and a step of storing data in a database are examples of generic computer/electronic equipment (components) that are generally recited and not meaningful and, therefore, are not qualified as particular machines to indicate a practical application. The limitations that generically recite collecting monitored data (operation and geolocation data) (all independent claims) represent insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising abstract idea steps) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without meaningful additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or additional elements that qualify for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
For example, additional elements in Claims 10 (operational data include vibration and temperature data) are all recited in generality and not meaningful to indicate a practical application and/or qualify for significantly more.
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 7-11, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark Reinhart et al. (US 20100324955), hereinafter ‘Reinhart’ in view of Steven Gregory Matthews et al (US 20180159756), hereinafter ‘Matthews’.
With regards to Claim 1, Reinhart discloses
A system comprising: one or more monitoring devices configured to provide operational data and geolocation data of monitored equipment (FIG. 1A illustrates an example environment 100, within which asset information reporting can be implemented. As shown in FIG. 1A, the example environment 100 comprises an asset 120, which can, in turn, include an installed monitoring system 200. The monitoring system 200 can collects, stores, receives, (and possibly processes) and transmits various information related to the positional and operational data of the asset 120 [0039]); and
a network device configured to: receive monitoring data, from the monitoring devices, via different device-specific application programming interfaces (APIs) [The data received by the communication module 302 can include the positional and operational data associated with the asset 120. The positional data can be obtained using the position navigation system, e.g., Global Positioning System (GPS), or a cellular triangulation system by the monitoring system 200 installed on the asset 120 and transmitted to the monitoring system provider 150. The positional and the operational data can be made available over a network from the monitoring system service provider 150 using an appropriate protocol (e.g., Web Services) [0068]: The monitoring system service provider 150 can include dedicated circuitry or a general purpose computer configurable to make the information collected at the monitoring system 200 available through an open architecture interface, such as an Application Programming Interface (API). The environment 100 can also include a computer network 110. The network 110 can be a network of data processing nodes that are interconnected for the purpose of data communication (e.g., a global computer network, such as the Internet) [0040]),
store the data in a database (The monitoring system processor 300 can be communicatively coupled to a database 310, in which the monitoring system processor 300 may periodically store results after processing of the information received from the monitoring system provider 150 [0043]),
provide, to a user device, a user interface to select a group of the monitored equipment, receive, from the user device via the user interface, a definition of the group (The monitoring system processor 300 is optionally associated with an operator 170 operating the monitoring system processor 300 via a computer 160. The computer 160 can include a Graphical User Interface (GUI) facilitating display and manipulation of the monitoring system processor 300. The computer 160 can also enable the operator 170 to view and manipulate reports 182 that can be used to manage and monitor one or more of the assets associated with the authorized user. The monitor can be remote and the graphics being displayed can be over a computer network [0044]),
monitor the monitored equipment of the group based on the operational data and geolocation data (The monitoring system 200 can collect information based on certain criteria provided by the monitoring system service provider 150 and hardware configuration of the monitoring system 200 and the asset 200 [0090]; At operation 706, the analysis performing module 306, based on the positional data received from the monitoring system 200, may determine whether the asset 120 has moved between the unloading and loading events [0104]), and
provide a status update to the user device based on the monitoring (At operation 506 the monitoring system processor 300 can pull the information from the monitoring system provider 150 using, for example, a Web Service protocol. At operation 508, the monitoring system processor can process the information pulled from the monitoring system provider 150 and produce a report for an authorized user (e.g., a customer) [0090]).
However, Reinhart does not specifically disclose performing a data transformation to standardize the monitoring data into standardized data and storing the standardized data in a database.
Matthews discloses performing a data transformation to standardize the monitoring data into standardized data (a data collection and normalization module configured to accept data originating from a plurality of sensors and to convert the data to normalized data for subsequent processing by the system [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reinhart in view of Matthews to perform a data transformation to standardize the monitoring data into standardized data to process these data in a standardize format (normalize the input received from these devices to allow standardized presentation of information to the monitor or response center agent, Matthews [0049]) and, correspondingly, store the normalized data (“standardized data”) in a database to simplify/enable historical prospective analysis of the data from different sensors (a collection of authorized sensors/devices as well as historical device data (data previously recorded and stored for each device), Matthews [0099]).
With regards to Claim 4, Reinhart additionally discloses the network device is further configured to: provide, to the user device, a side-by-side comparison of operational data from two of the one or more monitoring devices (Figs. 11-13).
With regards to Claim 7, Reinhart additionally discloses when monitoring the monitored equipment of the group, the network device is further configured to: identify when monitored equipment of the group achieves an operational parameter (Fig. 12) and a stored target (“threshold”), Fig.4A.
However, Reinhart does not specifically mention an exceedance of a threshold related to the parameter.
Mathews discloses that it is known in the art to use a threshold to detect abnormality [0010].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reinhart in view of Matthews to use a threshold related to monitored parameters to detect abnormalities in collected data as known in the art.
With regards to Claim 8, Reinhart additionally discloses when monitoring the monitored equipment of the group, the network device is further configured to: identify when monitored equipment of the group reaches a maintenance threshold for in-service hours (Fig. 13, Machine Maintenance; The maintenance report 13 can enable tracking the asset hours and calculating when the next service interval is [0124]; stored target, Fig.4A).
With regards to Claims 11 and 18, Reinhart in view of Matthews discloses the claim limitations as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
In addition, with regards to Claim 11, Reinhart discloses establishing a wireless connection with monitoring devices [0040, 0060].
In addition, with regards to Claim 18, Reinhart discloses a computer-readable medium [0127].
With regards to Claims 14, 16, and 17, Reinhart in view of Matthews discloses the claim limitations as discussed above with regards to Claim 11 and Claims 4, 7, and 8, respectfully.
With regards to Claim 9, Reinhart additionally discloses maintenance report including maintenance schedules and health indicators (The production report 908 can include, but not limited to cycle times; number of loads per day, amount of the material moved each day, machine hours, and machine costs. The maintenance report 904 can include machine hours, timing of scheduled services, types of scheduled services, location of the asset, details of the scheduled services (e.g., maintenance operations, parts required, etc.). The health report 902 can include machine performance indicators, information on any alarms that have been triggered, or any other issues with the asset 120 [0118])
However, Reinhart does not specifically disclose storing, in the database, operating thresholds and maintenance schedules for different equipment models of the group, and associate each of the monitored equipment of the group with the operating thresholds and maintenance schedules of one of the different equipment models.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reinhart in view of Matthews to store, in the database, operating thresholds and maintenance schedules for different equipment models of the group, and associate each of the monitored equipment of the group with the operating thresholds and maintenance schedules of one of the different equipment models to manage maintenance schedule and health status of the equipment as known in the art.
With regards to Claim 10, Reinhart is silent that operational data includes vibration data and temperature data for the monitored equipment.
Mathew discloses that operational data include temperature data [0066, 0098].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reinhart in view of Matthews to include in operation data temperature (Matthew) among other possible data such as vibration data characterizing equipment health as known in the art.
With regards to Claim 19, Reinhart is silent storing, in the database, operating thresholds and maintenance schedules for different equipment models of the group; associating each of the monitored equipment of the group with the operating thresholds and maintenance schedules of one of the different equipment models, wherein, the instructions for monitoring the monitored equipment further include: identifying when any monitored equipment of the group achieves an operational parameter that exceeds a corresponding operating threshold, or identifying when any monitored equipment of the group reaches a service hour threshold a corresponding maintenance schedule.
However, in Claim 8, Reinhart additionally discloses when monitoring the monitored equipment of the group, the network device is further configured to: identify when monitored equipment of the group reaches a maintenance threshold for in-service hours.
Additionally, in Claim 9, Reinhart in view of Matthews discloses storing, in the database, operating thresholds and maintenance schedules for different equipment models of the group, and associate each of the monitored equipment of the group with the operating thresholds and maintenance schedules of one of the different equipment models.
Reinhart additionally discloses an operational threshold (stored target, Fig.4A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reinhart in view of Matthews storing, in the database, operating thresholds and maintenance schedules for different equipment models of the group and predictably associating each of the monitored equipment of the group with the operating thresholds and maintenance schedules of one of the different equipment models, wherein, the instructions for monitoring the monitored equipment further include: identifying when any monitored equipment of the group achieves an operational parameter that exceeds a corresponding operating threshold, or identifying when any monitored equipment of the group reaches a service hour threshold a corresponding maintenance schedule as shown in Fig. 9 (Reinhart) and as known in the art of equipment/asset maintenance.
With regards to Claim 20, Reinhart discloses interpreting values, in the monitoring data, that have non-standard meaning for specific control panels associated with a monitored device and default values assigned to a database (Fig. 4A, Steps 404-408) but is silent on converting the register values to default units.
Matthews discloses performing data transformation as discussed in Claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reinhart in view of Matthews converting the register values to default units assigned for the database (“stored target”, Step 406, Matthews) to accomplish standardization of the values as discussed in Matthews.
Claims 2, 3, 5-6, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinhart in view of Matthews, and further in view of David Dixon et al. (US 11195184), hereinafter ‘Dixon’.
With regards to Claims 2 and 3, Reinhart is silent on wherein the network device is further configured to: perform an action based on at least one of the operational data or the geolocation data (Claim 2) and identify an action to be performed based on the operational data or the geolocation data, confirm authorization to perform the action, and automatically initiate performance of the action (Claim 3).
Dixon discloses wherein the network device is further configured to: perform an action based on at least one of the operational data or the geolocation data and identify an action to be performed based on the operational data or the geolocation data, confirm authorization to perform the action, and automatically initiate performance of the action (Fig.1, Steps 414, 416).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reinhart in view of Matthews, and Dixon to perform an action based on at least one of the operational data or the geolocation data as known in the art of asset insurance management (One or more remedial actions are initiated based on received policyholder's instructions, Dixon, Abstract).
With regards to Claims 5 and 5, Reinhart is silent on wherein the user interface to select the group includes a map on which to define a geofence and a user tool to define a geofence boundary, and wherein the definition of the group includes the monitoring devices within geofence boundary (Claim 5) and identify when monitored equipment of the group moves outside the geofence boundary (Claim 6).
Dixon discloses selecting the group that includes a map on which to define a geofence and a user tool to define a geofence boundary, and wherein the definition of the group includes the monitoring devices within geofence boundary and identifying when monitored equipment of the group moves outside the geofence boundary (Fig.4, 402-408).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reinhart in view of Matthews, and Dixon to define a geofence boundary and identify the equipment that moves outside the geofence boundary to check a compliance to an insurance policy of an asset (to detecting a violation of the abovementioned asset movement rules (Dixon, Col.10, Lines 27-30).
With regards to Claims 12, 13, and 15, Reinhart in view of Matthews, and Dixon discloses the claim limitations as discussed above with regards to Claim 11 and Claims 2, 3, and 5, respectfully.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matthew Harrison et al. (US 20190102753) discloses obtaining, from one or more network edge devices, operational data of one or more operational assets and identifying, based on an analysis of the operational data, an improvement to an operational asset considering a geo-fence.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights