DETAILED ACTION
The following is an initial Office Action upon examination of the above-identified application on the merits. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 13, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Clam 1 recites the grammatical issue “classify least one subsystem …” in lines 5, 6, and 7. Suggested claim limitation: “… classify at least one system …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 1 recites “… an equipment graph …” in line 4 and “… an equipment graph …” in lines 6 and 7, . Suggested claim language: The limitation of “… an equipment graph …” in lines 6 and 7 should read “… the equipment graph …” since the limitation has antecedent support; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 1 recites the redundant claim limitation of “… equipment graph as incomplete” in lines 5 and 6.
The following claims recite limitations that lack sufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claims:
Claim 1 recites “… the at least one incomplete systems …” in line 8 and “ … the subsystems …” in line 10.
Claim 2 recites “… the subsystems …” in line 1
Claim 3 recites “… the subsystems …” in line 1 and “… the first equipment subsystem …” in lines 2-3.
Claim 4 recites “… the subsystems …” in line 1 and “… the first equipment subsystem …” in lines 2-3.
Claim 10 recites “ … the subsystems …” in line 8.
Claim 13 recites “ … the subsystems …” in line 1.
Claim 18 recites “… the subsystems …” in line 14.
Claim 9 recites the grammatical and antecedent issue of “… the classifying at least one subsystem in an equipment graph as unique…” in lines 1-2. Suggested claim limitation “… the classifying of the at least one subsystem in an equipment graph in the equipment graph as unique …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 10 recites the redundant claim limitation of “… equipment graph as incomplete” in lines 3 and 4.
Claim 10 recites “… an equipment graph …” in line 4 and “… an equipment graph …” in lines 4 and 5. Suggested claim language: The limitation of “… an equipment graph …” in lines 4 and 5 should read “… the equipment graph …” since the limitation has antecedent support; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 18 recites “… an equipment graph …” in line 4 and “… an equipment graph …” in lines 6, 8, and 10. Suggested claim language: The limitation of “… an equipment graph …” in lines 6, 8, and 10 should read “… the equipment graph …” since the limitation has antecedent support; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Note: The claims are replete with grammatical and antecedent errors. The Applicant is encouraged to carefully review the claims for any further issues that were inadvertently omitted by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The breath of claim 18 with respect to the claim interpretations of “classifying” and “discarding” is unknown since the specification as filed does not recite an algorithm(s) that a computer uses to perform the claimed functions as recited in claim 18.
Claims 19 and 20, dependent from claim 18, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 18.
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 18-20 are 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 limitations “classifying” and “discarding” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The breath of claim 18 with respect to the claim interpretations of “classifying” and “discarding” is unknown since the specification as filed does not recite an algorithm(s) that a computer uses to perform the claimed functions as recited in claim 18.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 19 and 20, dependent from claim 18, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 18.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
At step 1, the claim recites “(a) controller” comprising of concrete devices (i.e. a memory and processor), and therefore is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “classify at least one subsystem in an equipment graph as unique”; “classify least one subsystem in the equipment graph as incomplete”; “classify least one subsystem in an equipment graph as incomplete”; “classify least one subsystem in an equipment graph as duplicate”; and “discard the at least one incomplete subsystems and the at least one duplicate subsystem from the equipment graph creating a compact graph”.
The limitations of “classify at least one subsystem in an equipment graph as unique”; “classify least one subsystem in the equipment graph as incomplete”; “classify least one subsystem in an equipment graph as incomplete”; and “classify least one subsystem in an equipment graph as duplicate”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “classify” in the context of the claim encompasses an analysis/evaluation of data to identify specific information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “discard the at least one incomplete subsystems and the at least one duplicate subsystem from the equipment graph creating a compact graph”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “… creating a compact graph”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “discard the at least one incomplete subsystems and the at least one duplicate subsystem from the equipment graph …”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a memory”; “a processor in communication with the memory …”; and “control at least one of the subsystems in the compact graph”.
The limitations “a memory” and “a processor in communication with the memory …” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “control at least one of the subsystems in the compact graph” is recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). “As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965).” (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a memory” and “a processor in communication with the memory …” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitations of “… controlling a smart device …” merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recite “… classifying the subsystems in the compact graph as synchronous subsystems or asynchronous subsystems”.
The limitation of “… classifying the subsystems in the compact graph as synchronous subsystems or asynchronous subsystems”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “classifying” in the context of the claim encompasses an analysis/evaluation of data to identify specific information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 3:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recite “… classifying the subsystems as synchronous comprises determining that only one routing path through the first equipment subsystem may be run at a time”.
The limitation of “… classifying the subsystems as synchronous comprises determining that only one routing path through the first equipment subsystem may be run at a time”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of the claim encompasses an analysis/evaluation of data to identify specific information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 4:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recite “… classifying the subsystems as asynchronous comprises determining that multiple routing paths through the first equipment subsystem may be run at a time”.
The limitation of “… classifying the subsystems as asynchronous comprises determining that multiple routing paths through the first equipment subsystem may be run at a time”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of the claim encompasses an analysis/evaluation of data to identify specific information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 5:
The limitation “… a first equipment subsystem in the compact graph comprises an input, a transport, and an output” further details “a first equipment subsystem in the compact graph” in claim 4; and the claim stands rejected for the same rationale as set forth above in claim 4.
Claim 6:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recite “… classifying the transport as a controlled transport or a passive transport”.
The limitation of “… classifying the transport as a controlled transport or a passive transport”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “classifying” in the context of the claim encompasses an analysis/evaluation of data to identify specific information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 7:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recite “… classifying the controlled transport as looped or non-looped”.
The limitation of “… classifying the controlled transport as looped or non-looped”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “classifying” in the context of the claim encompasses an analysis/evaluation of data to identify specific information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 8:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recite “… classifying the passive transport as convection or line pressure”.
The limitation of “… classifying the passive transport as convection or line pressure”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “classifying” in the context of the claim encompasses an analysis/evaluation of data to identify specific information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 9:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recite “… the classifying at least one subsystem in an equipment graph as unique comprises recognizing and extracting the at least one unique subsystem from a system graph …”.
The limitation of “… the classifying at least one subsystem in an equipment graph as unique comprises recognizing … the at least one unique subsystem from a system graph”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “recognizing” in the context of the claim encompasses an analysis/evaluation of data to identify specific information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… the classifying at least one subsystem in an equipment graph as unique comprises … extracting the at least one unique subsystem from a system graph …”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “… extracting the at least one unique subsystem from a system graph”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… the classifying at least one subsystem in an equipment graph as unique …”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 10:
Claim 10 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 11:
The limitation “… at least one subsystem is derived from a drawing file comprising a plurality of controllable devices” further details “… at least one subsystem” in claim 10; and the claim stands rejected for the same rationale as set forth above in claim 10.
Claim 12:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recite “… classifying the at least one subsystem comprises extracting the at least one subsystem from a system graph”.
The limitation of “… classifying the at least one subsystem comprises extracting the at least one subsystem from a system graph”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “… extracting the at least one subsystem from a system graph”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… classifying the at least one subsystem …”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 13:
The limitation “… at least one of the subsystems represents at least one of the plurality of controllable devices” further details “… at least one of the subsystem” in claims 10-12; and the claim stands rejected for the same rationale as set forth above in claims 10-12.
Claim 14:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recite “… a control scheme is generated from the at least one subsystem”.
The limitation of “… a control scheme is generated from the at least one subsystem”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “… a control scheme is generated …”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… from the at least one subsystem”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 15:
At step 2A, pong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… at least one control action from the control scheme is issued to the at least one of the plurality of controllable devices”.
The limitation of “… the at least one of the plurality of controllable devices” is generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “… at least one control action from the control scheme is issued to …” represent an extra-solution activity because they are mere nominal or tangential additions to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the limitation “… at least one control action from the control scheme is issued to …”, as discussed above, represents a mere means and operation for outputting data and is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-known, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
The additional element of the “… the at least one of the plurality of controllable devices” merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 16:
The limitation “… at least two subsystems are precomputed” further details “… at least one of the subsystem” in claim 10; and the claim stands rejected for the same rationale as set forth above in claim 10.
Claim 17:
The limitation “… path routing devices of a first subsystem and path routing devices of a second subsystem are precomputed” further details “… at least one of the subsystem” in claims 10-14; and the claim stands rejected for the same rationale as set forth above in claims 10-14.
Claim 18:
Claim 18 represents an equivalent a non-transitory storage medium claim to claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Further, at step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… classifying at least one subsystem in an equipment graph as complete”.
The limitation of “… classifying at least one subsystem in an equipment graph as complete”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
The limitation of “… classifying at least one subsystem in an equipment graph as complete”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “classifying” in the context of the claim encompasses an analysis/evaluation of data to identify specific information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “instructions”.
The limitation of “instructions” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “instructions” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19:
The limitation “… at least two subsystems belong to multiple groups” further details “… at least one of the subsystem” in claim 18; and the claim stands rejected for the same rationale as set forth above in claim 18.
Claim 20:
The limitation “… an asynchronous group and a synchronous group” further details “… at least one of the subsystem” in claim 18 and “multiple groups” in claim 19; and the claim stands rejected for the same rationale as set forth above in claims 18 and 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to configuring and virtual imaging of systems and monitoring and control systems.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0241403 A1 discloses a generation of building instructions for building element models.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0122416 A1 discloses a monitoring system includes a dashboard including a graphical user interface display space.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0208864 A1 discloses a controller includes a plurality of configurable input ports, a plurality of configurable output ports, and a configuration circuit.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0231334 A1 discloses a next-generation architecture for industrial process control and automation systems.
U.S. Patent No. 8,099,178 B2 discloses user customization of an interface with building automation system information, communications, and configurations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
