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 3, 6 and 12-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3, 13, and 14, the phrase “based on the comparison the effective service factor…” is grammatically awkward.
Claims 6 and 15, the phrase “wherein the third value being the threshold value” is grammatically awkward; and
Claim 12, “the second controller is other of” is grammatically awkward.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naduthota, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0309506 A1 (hereinafter: ‘506), in view of Grassens, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0147193 A1 (hereinafter: ‘193), in further view “Turbomachinery Advisor / Honeywell Asset Performance for Industrials”; published by APM Solutions, circa May 2024 (hereinafter: Honeywell).
As per claim 1, ‘506 discloses a system for monitoring performance of controllers (e.g., See ‘506; [0041]-[0043] and [0049]-[0051], which disclose a system for monitoring controller performance with a processing device), the system comprising a processing unit to:
obtain a set of key performance indicators corresponding to a controller, the set of the key performance indicators being indicative of performance of the controller (e.g., See ‘506; [0057] and [0086], which disclose obtaining KPIs that show controller performance);
configure a user-defined analysis model based on a set of user inputs (e.g., See ‘506; [0054] and [0065] – [0067], which disclose user input and selected analysis rules and functions used to analyze the KPIs);
determine a control quality index (CQI) based on a plurality of key performance indicators from the set of key performance indicators using the user-defined analysis model, the CQI defining performance of the controller (e.g., See ‘506; [0064] – [0068], which disclose determining a generalized CPI from multiple KPIs using the selected analysis rules and functions);
compare the CQI with a threshold value using the user- defined analysis model in response to the determination of the CQI (e.g., See ‘506; [0082] – [0083], which disclose comparing the generalized CPI with a threshold);
ascertain if the CQI is lesser than the threshold value based on the comparison (e.g., See ‘506; [0082] - [0083], which discloses determining when the generalized CPI is below the threshold);
trigger a notification indicating that the CQI is less than the threshold value based on the ascertaining that the CQI is lesser than the threshold value (e.g., See ‘506; [0082] – [0083], which disclose triggering an alarm or warning when the generalized CPI is below the threshold); and
generate an action indicating corrective measures to be taken to improve performance of the controller based on the ascertaining that the CQI is lesser than the threshold value (e.g., See ‘506; [0043] – [0044], which disclose warning the operator of degrading performance so corrective or pre-emptive action can be taken).
Although ‘506 discloses obtaining KPIs that show controller performance, ‘506 does not explicitly disclose that the controller is configured to control a compressor.
‘193 discloses this missing feature by disclosing a performance controller that controls a compressor control mechanism (e.g., See ‘193; [0003] and [0016] – [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘193 into ‘506 for the purpose of applying controller performance monitoring to compressor control, thereby helping operators detect poor compressor control sooner.
Further, although ‘506 in view of ‘193 discloses determining a generalized CPI from multiple KPIs for a compressor controller, ‘506 in view of ‘193 does not explicitly disclose the generalized CPI defining performance of the controller in terms of utilization, availability, and reliability of the controller.
Honeywell discloses these missing features by disclosing performance controller monitoring that tracks the control quality index of performance controllers based on effective service factor (availability), standard deviation (reliability), and output deviation (utilization) calculations (e.g., See Honeywell, Page 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of Honeywell into ‘506 in view of ‘193 for the purpose of using known controller performance KPIs for compressor control monitoring, thereby helping operators judge controller health more clearly.
As per claim 2, ‘506, in view of ‘193, in further view of Honeywell (hereinafter: ‘506’s combined system) further discloses that the processing unit is to select, based on the user-defined analysis model, the plurality of key performance indicators from the set of key performance indicators in response to the configuration of the user-defined analysis model (e.g., See ‘506; [0065] – [0067], which disclose selecting multiple KPIs as inputs for the selected analysis rules and functions).
As per claim 3, ‘506’s combined system further discloses that the processing unit is to compare the effective service factor of the controller with an effective service factor threshold, the standard deviation of the controller with a standard deviation threshold, and the output deviation of the controller with an output deviation threshold (e.g., see Page 2 of Honeywell, and ‘506; [0058] – [0059], which disclose comparing controller KPIs with KPI thresholds); and determine the CQI based on the comparison the effective service factor of the controller and the effective service factor threshold, the standard deviation of the controller and the standard deviation threshold, and the output deviation of the controller and the output deviation threshold (e.g., See ‘506; [0059] and [0066] – [0068], which disclose determining the generalized CPI based on the KPI comparisons).
As per claim 7, ‘506’s combined system further discloses that the controller is one of a performance controller and an anti-surge controller (e.g., See ‘193; [0016] and [0030], which disclose a performance controller for compressor control and an anti-surge controller that controls an anti-surge valve).
As per claim 8, ‘506’s combined system further discloses that the set of user inputs comprises a time period for the determination of the CQI, (e.g., See Honeywell, Page 2, which discloses plotting KPIs and control mode against user selected time periods). wherein the processing unit is configured to define, based on the user-defined analysis model, a time period for the determination of the CQI (e.g., See ‘506; [0072], which discloses defining a time period for the generalized CPI); and determine, using the user-defined analysis model, the CQI for the defined time period (e.g., See ‘506; [0072] and [0086]-[0087], which disclose determining the generalized CPI for the defined time period).
As per claim 9, ‘506’s combined system further discloses that the processing unit is to display, on a device, at least one of the CQI, the notification, and the generated action (e.g., See ‘506; [0087], which discloses displaying the generalized CPI).
As per claim 10, ‘506 discloses a method for monitoring performance of controllers (e.g., See ‘506; [0041] – [0043], which disclose a method for monitoring controller performance), the method comprising:
obtaining, from a first controller, a first set of key performance indicators corresponding to the first controller, the first set of the key performance indicators being indicative of performance of the first controller (e.g., See ‘506; [0057] and [0086], which disclose obtaining a first set of KPIs that show controller performance);
obtaining, from a second controller, a second set of key performance indicators corresponding to the second controller, the second set of the key performance indicators being indicative of performance of the second controller (e.g., See ‘506; [0003], [0057] and [0086], which disclose obtaining a second set of KPIs that show controller performance);
configuring a first user-defined analysis model based on a first set of user inputs and a second user defined analysis model based on a second set of user inputs (e.g., See ‘506; [0054] and [0065] – [0067], which disclose user inputs and selected analysis rules and functions used to analyze the KPIs);
determining a first control quality index (CQI) based on a first plurality of key performance indicators from the first set of key performance indicators using the first user-defined analysis model, the first CQI defining performance of the first controller (e.g., See ‘506; [0065] – [0068], which disclose determining a first generalized CPI from multiple KPIs using the selected analysis rules and functions);
determining a second CQI based on a second plurality of key performance indicators from the second set of key performance indicators using the second user-defined analysis model, the second CQI defining performance of the second controller (e.g., See ‘506; [0065] – [0068], which disclose determining a second generalized CPI from multiple KPIs using the selected analysis rules and functions);
comparing the first CQI with a first threshold value in response to the determination of the first CQI using the first user-defined analysis model and the second CQI with a second threshold value using the second user-defined analysis model in response to the determination of the second CQI (e.g., See ‘506; [0082] – [0083], which disclose comparing a first generalized CPI with a first threshold and comparing a second generalized CPI with a second threshold);
triggering a first notification indicating that the first CQI is lesser than the first threshold value and generating a first action indicating corrective measures to be taken to improve performance of the first controller if it is ascertained that the first CQI is lesser than the first threshold value (e.g., See ‘506; [0043] – [0044] and [0082] – [0083], which disclose triggering a first alarm or warning when the first generalized CPI is below a threshold, so corrective or preemptive action can be taken); and
triggering a second notification indicating that the second CQI is lesser than the second threshold value and generating a second action indicating corrective measures to be taken to improve performance of the second controller if it is ascertained that the second CQI is lesser than the second threshold value (e.g., See ‘506; [0043] – [0044] and [0082] – [0083], which disclose triggering a second alarm or warning when the second generalized CPI is below a threshold, so corrective pr preemptive action can be taken).
Although ‘506 discloses obtaining first and second sets of KPIs that show first and second controller performance, ‘506 does not explicitly disclose that the first and second controllers are configured to control a compressor.
‘193 discloses this missing feature by disclosing compressor controllers that control compressor control mechanisms (e.g., See ‘193; [0003] and [0016] – [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘193 into ‘506 for the purpose of applying controller performance monitoring to compressor control, thereby helping operators detect poor compressor control sooner.
Further, although ‘506 in view of ‘193 discloses determining first and second generalized CPIs from multiple KPIs for compressor controllers, ‘506 in view of ‘193 does not explicitly disclose the first and second generalized CPIs defining performance of the first and second controllers in terms of utilization, availability, and reliability.
Honeywell discloses these missing features by disclosing performance controller monitoring that tracks the control quality index of performance controllers based on effective service factor (availability), standard deviation (reliability), and output deviation (utilization) calculations (e.g., See Honeywell, Page 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of Honeywell into ‘506 in view of ‘193 for the purpose of using known controller performance KPIs for compressor control monitoring, thereby helping operators judge controller health more clearly.
As per claim 11, ‘506, in view of ‘193, in further view of Honeywell (hereinafter: ‘506’s combined system) further discloses that the processing unit is to select, based on the user-defined analysis model, the first plurality of key performance indicators from the first set of key performance indicators (e.g., See ‘506; [0065] – [0067], which disclose selecting a first group of multiple KPIs as inputs for the first selected analysis rules and functions), and selecting, based on the second user-defined analysis model, the second plurality of key performance indicators from the second set of key performance indicators (e.g., See ‘506; [0065] – [0067], which disclose selecting a second group of multiple KPIs as inputs for the second selected analysis rules and functions).
As per claim 12, ‘506’s combined system further discloses that the first controller is one of a performance controller and an anti-surge controller and the second controller is other of the performance controller and the anti-surge controller (e.g., See ‘193; [0016] and [0030], which disclose a performance controller for compressor control and an anti-surge controller that controls an anti-surge valve).
As per claim 13, ‘506’s combined system further discloses comparing, using the first user-defined analysis model, the effective service factor of the first controller with an effective service factor threshold, the standard deviation of the first controller with a standard deviation threshold, and the output deviation of the first controller with an output deviation threshold (e.g., See Honeywell, Page 2, and ‘506; [0058] – [0059], which disclose comparing performance controller KPIs with KPI thresholds); and determining, using the first user-defined analysis model, the first CQI based on the comparison the effective service factor of the first controller and the effective service factor threshold, the standard deviation of the first controller and the standard deviation threshold, and the output deviation of the first controller and the output deviation threshold (e.g., See ‘506; [0059] and [0066] – [0068], which disclose determining the first generalized CPI based on the KPI comparisons).
As per claim 17, the rejection rational as set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 2, are incorporated herein. Further, ‘506 discloses the use of a non-transitory computer readable medium with instructions that are executed by a processing device. Further, with respect to the selecting feature, ‘506 discloses these features by selecting multiple KPIs as inputs for the selected analysis rules and functions (e.g., See ‘506; [0065] – [0067]). Further, with respect to the refrain feature, ‘506 discloses these features by disclosing triggering an alarm or warning when the generalized CPI is below the threshold, thereby teaching refraining from triggering the notification and generating the action when the generalized CPI is above the threshold (e.g., See ‘506; [0082] – [0083]).
As per claim 18, ‘506’s combined system further discloses that the first set of user inputs comprises a time period for the determination of the first CQI, the instructions being executable by the processing resource to define, based on the first user-defined analysis model, a time period for the determination of the first CQI (e.g., See Honeywell, Page 2, which discloses plotting KPIs and control mode against user selected time periods); and determine, using the first user-defined analysis model, the first CQI for the time period (e.g., See ‘506; [0072] and [0086] – [0087], which disclose determining the first generalized CPI for the defined time period).
As per claim 19, this claim further recites obtaining a second KPI set from an anti-surge controller, configuring second selected analysis rules and functions, selecting multiple KPIs, determining a second generalized CPI, comparing it to a threshold, triggering a second notification and generating a second action when the second generalized CPI is below the threshold, and refraining when the second generalized CPI is above the threshold. ‘506 discloses the second KPI, selected analysis rules and functions, generalized CPI, threshold, notification, action, and refrain features for the reasons as already discussed above with respect to the rationale set forth in the rejection of claim 17, from above. ‘193 discloses the added anti-surge controller feature in [0030] by disclosing an anti-surge controller that controls an anti-surge valve.
As per claim 20, ‘506’s combined system further discloses the second set of user inputs include a time period for the determination of the second CQI, the instructions being executable by the processing resource to define, based on the second user-defined analysis model, the time period for the determination of the second CQI (e.g., See Honeywell, Page 2, which discloses plotting KPIs and control model against user selected time periods); and determine, using the second user-defined analysis model, the second CQI for the time period (e.g., See ‘506; [0072] and [0086] – [0087], which disclose determining the second generalized CPI for the defined time period).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 14-16 are 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.
As per claim 4-6, the prior art of record fails to disclose or adequately suggest determining the CQI as first, second and third values based on the specific effective service factor, standard deviation, and output deviation threshold conditions as recited in claims 4, 5 and 6, in combination with the other claimed features and or limitations as claimed.
As per claim 14, the prior art of record fails to disclose or adequately suggest determining a second CQI for an anti-surge controller based on effective service factor, effectiveness, and output deviation, in combination with the other claimed features and or limitations as claimed.
As per claim 16, the prior art of record fails to disclose or adequately suggest obtaining KPIs using a transfer service that subscribes to data tags using OPC, pulls KPI data when the data changes, and transmits the KPIs in CSV format using SFTP, in combination with the other claimed features and or limitations as claimed.
References Considered but Not Relied Upon
The following references were considered but were not relied upon with respect to any prior art rejections:
(1) US 20220075359 A1, which discloses monitoring process gas compressor KPIs, comparing them to limits, and allowing for treatment support, reporting and performance recommendations;
(2) US 20120016607 A1, which discloses monitoring industrial equipment remotely, returning performance and health KPIs, and alerting operators when abnormal conditions are detected;
(3) US 20120303150 A1, which discloses using an industrial monitoring framework to integrate equipment data, KPIs, applications, and data updates across plant systems;
(4) US 20020077711 A1, which discloses collecting process, equipment, and performance data in a common system for plant diagnostics, control, and asset use;
(5) US 7596959 B2, which discloses monitoring compressor performance across facilities using refrigeration controllers, setpoints, sensors, and a remote processing center; and
(6) US 20140026085 A1, which discloses monitoring plant KPIs, comparing actual values to targets, and displaying improvement opportunities and diagnostic tips.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30 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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/RONALD D HARTMAN JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 July 10, 2026
/RDH/
Prosecution Insights