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
Claims 1 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 9 recites “the interface (600) comprises an analyser (610)” that has typos, should be “the interface comprises an analyser”. Remove block number.
Claim 10 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 10 not been further treated on the merits.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
“second layer”, “interface”, “analyser”, “key performance calculator”, “upload selector”, “condition monitoring system”, “machine protection system”, “control system”, and “monitoring system” in claims 1-2 and 5-9.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (Fig. 1, page 3 lines 18-21 and page 6 line 18-page 7 line 3, second layer 200 implemented by computer) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 recites “a key performance indicator calculator configured to determine at least one key performance indicator based on the data in the buffer, and an upload selector configured to select data from the incoming data to be forwarded to the data sink”. The relationship between the incoming data/selecting data to be forwarded to the data sink and the at least one key performance indicator are not clear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MALLADI WO 2017035536 A1.
Regarding claim 1, MALLADI teaches a monitoring system for monitoring industrial plant equipment (Fig. 5 [76] edge computing platform) comprising:
a first layer having a plurality of sensors configured to detect parameters of equipment of an industrial plant (Fig. 5 [07] [81] [209] a plurality of sensors detecting parameters of equipment of a manufacturing plant),
a second layer configured to implement a process control system based on data from the first layer (Fig. 5 [92] [93] [81] [84] [86] [88] the data processing layer 515 i.e. “second layer” including analytics engine 535 and a plurality of deployed applications 567 communicating with the data bus to perform machine learning and feedback and automated controls based on the data converted from the detected sensor data), and
PNG
media_image1.png
808
1066
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an interface coupled to the first and/or second layer configured to receive data from the first and/or second layer and to pre-process the received data (Fig. 5 [81] the data processing 515 layer including a coupled data bus 532 receiving data from the sensors i.e. “the first layer” and the analytics engine and deployed Apps i.e. “second layer”, and pre-processing the received data using decoder to decode the received data into common data format and decorating with additional metadata),
wherein the interface (600) comprises an analyser (610) configured to analyse the data from the first and/or second layer and to add metadata to the data from the plurality of sensors (Fig. 5 [81] the data bus including a decoder to decode the received data into common data format and adding additional metadata),
wherein the interface is configured to analyse the incoming data and to output the processed data to a data sink (Fig. 5 [81] [86] the incoming data is processed by the decoder of the data bus and is output to data publisher 570 i.e. “data sink” to further output to storage location 573 in the cloud i.e. “data sink”),
wherein the interface is configured to only allow a one-way data communication to the data sink (Fig. 5 [81] [86] the data bus transmitting the processed data by one-way communication to the data publisher 570 and the storage location 573 in the cloud, as indicated in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, MALLADI further teaches the interface is implemented as an Internet-of Things Edge unit (Fig. 5 [07] [76] the data bus is a IoT Edge unit).
Regarding claim 8, MALLADI further teaches an industrial plant (Fig. 5 [07] [81] [209] a plurality of sensors detecting parameters of equipment of a manufacturing plant), comprising:
at least one industrial plant equipment (Fig. 5 [07] [81] [209] a plurality of sensors detecting parameters of equipment of a manufacturing plant),
a control system (Figs. 4&5 [61] [76] edge platform) having a first layer having a plurality of sensors configured to detect parameters of the industrial plant equipment, and a second layer configured to implement a process control system based on the data from the first layer, and
a monitoring system for monitoring industrial plant equipment (Fig. 5 [75] [92] [93] [81] [84] [86] [88] the data processing layer 515 i.e. “second layer” including analytics engine 535 and a plurality of deployed applications 567 communicating with the data bus to monitor the plant equipment) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, it is directed to a method of carrying out the system with similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. Since MALLADI teaches the claimed system, he teaches the method steps for implementing the system.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MALLADI as applied to claims 1, 6 and 8-9 above, in view of Luedtke US 20150127121 A1.
Regarding claim 2, MALLADI does not explicitly further teach the interface further comprises a data buffer, a key performance indicator calculator configured to determine at least one key performance indicator based on the data in the buffer, and an upload selector configured to select data from the incoming data to be forwarded to the data sink.
Luedtke explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the interface further comprises a data buffer (Fig. 3 [0084] measurement device output data 304 held in a database or memory), a key performance indicator calculator configured to determine at least one key performance indicator based on the data in the buffer, and an upload selector configured to select data from the incoming data to be forwarded to the data sink (Fig.5 [0106] [0107] performance indicator is determined using the MDO data corresponding to the time period, and is forwarded to the destination).
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 MALLADI to incorporate the teachings of Luedtke, because they all directed to plant process control, to make the system wherein the interface further comprises a data buffer, a key performance indicator calculator configured to determine at least one key performance indicator based on the data in the buffer, and an upload selector configured to select data from the incoming data to be forwarded to the data sink. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to keep track of the performance of the processing system, as Luedtke teaches in [0107].
Claims 3-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MALLADI as applied to claims 1, 6 and 8-9 above, in view of Sayyarrodsari EP 3798776 A1.
Regarding claim 3, MALLADI does not explicitly further teach the metadata comprises time information and/or information on the sensor which has detected the data.
Sayyarrodsari explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the metadata comprises time information and/or information on the sensor which has detected the data ([0058] [0061] metadata including a state of a sensor and the time interval of the data).
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 MALLADI to incorporate the teachings of Sayyarrodsari, because they all directed to plant process control, to make the system wherein the metadata comprises time information and/or information on the sensor which has detected the data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to quickly learn insights into the associated industrial process or machine operation, as Sayyarrodsari teaches in [0058].
Regarding claim 4, Sayyarrodsari further teaches the time information comprises time stamps or time shift information ([0061] [0072] [0104] start and end time and timestamps).
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 MALLADI to incorporate the teachings of Sayyarrodsari, because they all directed to plant process control, to make the system wherein the time information comprises time stamps or time shift information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to quickly learn insights into the associated industrial process or machine operation, as Sayyarrodsari teaches in [0058].
Regarding claim 5, Sayyarrodsari further teaches the second layer comprises a condition monitoring system, and/or a machine protection system, wherein the interface is configured to analyse the data from the condition monitoring system, and/or the machine protection system and to add metadata to their output data, to process the data in order to reduce the amount of data if required, and to output the processed data to the data sink ([0111] the data collected from the sensor layer is normalized and modeled and present the resulting contextualized data, the added contextualized data can be automatically discovered and by referencing a customized model that defines data items such as key performance indicators etc., the amount of storage required is reduced).
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 MALLADI to incorporate the teachings of Sayyarrodsari, because they all directed to plant process control, to make the system wherein the second layer comprises a condition monitoring system, and/or a machine protection system, wherein the interface is configured to analyse the data from the condition monitoring system, and/or the machine protection system and to add metadata to their output data, to process the data in order to reduce the amount of data if required, and to output the processed data to the data sink. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to quickly learn insights into the associated industrial process or machine operation, as Sayyarrodsari teaches in [0058].
Regarding claim 7, Sayyarrodsari further teaches the interface is configured to perform a time shifting on data from the first layer based on time shift information in the metadata to harmonize the data with data from other sensors ([0072] synchronizing the start and stop times).
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 MALLADI to incorporate the teachings of Sayyarrodsari, because they all directed to plant process control, to make the system wherein the second layer comprises a condition monitoring system, and/or a machine protection system, wherein the interface is configured to analyse the data from the condition monitoring system, and/or the machine protection system and to add metadata to their output data, to process the data in order to reduce the amount of data if required, and to output the processed data to the data sink. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to obtain relevant and accurate data for processing, as Sayyarrodsari teaches in [0072].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bhargava US 20180307723 A1 teaches performance indicator determined and sent to learning.
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