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 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., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Below is the 101 analysis of the claims:
Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall within a statutory category of invention (Process/Machine/Manufacture/Composition of Matter)?
Yes, the claims are directed to a system (claim 1), a method (claim 12), and a non-transitory machine-readable medium (claim 19), which are a machine, process and an article of manufacture, respectively.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is the claim directed to an abstract idea? Yes.
Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites (i) analyzing industrial data and modification data; (ii) simulating a modification to generate a modified simulation model; (iii) applying historical operation data to the model; and (iv) determining whether the modification is to be performed based on an evaluation of response data generated by applying the historical operation data
Claim 12 recites (i) generating a modified simulation model; and (ii) determining whether the modification should be implemented based on an evaluation of response information relating to a response of the modified simulation model to an application of a set of historical operation information
Claim 19 recites (i) generating a modified simulation model based on an analysis of industrial data and modification data; and (ii) determining whether the modification is to be implemented based on an evaluation of response data relating to a response of the modified simulation model to an application of a set of historical operation data.
The claim limitations above collectively recite a mental process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind. With the exception of the recitation of generic computer components, none of the claims recite any specific technical steps, algorithms, data structures, or mechanisms that would preclude these steps from being performed in the human mind.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application
None of the additional claim elements (memory, processors, simulation generator component, etc), individually or in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Also the recitation of an industrial automation system represents a field of use that does not constitute a technological improvement. Furthermore, no transformation of a particular article is performed in the claims. Thus the claims essentially amount to “apply it” instructions. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Additional elements are not disclosed which sufficiently integrate the abstract idea into a practical application
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception in a chosen field of use, using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception within a field of use using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept, and therefore the claim is not patent eligible
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kaufman et al (US 2010/0274367) discloses a system that performs an analysis of an industrial automation system however it fails to disclose determining whether a modification to the industrial automation system is to be implemented based on a response of the modified simulation model that is based on applying historical operation information to the modified simulation model.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIZO BINDA VILAKAZI whose telephone number is (571)270-3926. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 571-272-1196. 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.
/SIZO B VILAKAZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights