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
This communication is a non-final action in response to application filed on 07/11/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 11/18/2025 has been considered.
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 11, 14 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 11 describes operation being performed “in the degraded mode”, which refers back to a Markush grouping in method claim 9. It’s not clear if the limitation in claim 11 means (1) “run in a degraded mode” of claim 11 must occur or (2) claim 11’s limitation merely describes what would occur in the event of “degrade mode” is being run. In other words, it’s not clear if claim 11’s limitation is required.
Similarly, claim 14 would be rejected over similar issue.
Examiner notes although claim 3 includes similar issue, it doesn’t affect the scope of the claim because it’s written as a contingent limitation in a system claim, where “the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed” (MPEP 2111.04 II). Therefore, claim 3’s BRI requires “reconfigures a whole production line comprising disparate equipment to run in the degraded mode”. Since the step is required, the scope is clear for claim 3.
Therefore, when amending claims 11 and 14 in response to these 112(b) issues, please go beyond simply adding the word “when” and instead, explicitly spell out if the limitation is required to be performed.
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 1-2, 4-20are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 17-20 are “computer-readable storage medium” (preamble). While the body of claim describe physical hardware such as sensor or logic controller, the preamble makes it clear that these hardware are intended operating environment and are outside the scope. Computer-readable storage medium, as understood by one ordinary skilled in the art would cover both transitory medium such as signals per se and non-transitory medium. Examiner notes the specification merely gives example that computer-readable storage mediums can be non-transitory but does not explicitly define all computer-readable storage medium to be non-transitory. Therefore, the BRI of claims 17-20 would cover signals per se, which is not one of the four statutory categories. Examiner recommends adding the word “non-transitory” in front of “computer-readable storage medium” to overcome this issue.
For the rest of office action, claims 17-20 are treated as non-transitory medium.
Step 2A prong 1
Using claim 9 as representative example, claim 9 includes the following limitations that recites an abstract idea.
receiving first data … and receiving second data …;
processing the first data and the second data via … to harmonize and aggregate the first data and the second data … to generate an alert for …; and
performing a repair, preventative maintenance, or run in a degraded mode, based on the alert, on one of the first machine or the second machine.
The above limitation, shows a series of steps to collect information, analyze it to generate an alert that can be displayed (see 0035 and 0050 of spec, also noting that preventive maintenance is broad enough to encompass mere dispatching a technician (display an order)). This is akin to Electric Power Group’s collecting information, analyzing it and display the result of analysis, which is mental processes. Therefore, claim 9 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2
The additional elements of claim 9 are:
a first sensor or a first programmed logic controller configured on a first machine
a second sensor or a second programmed logic controller on a second machine, wherein the first machine and the second machine are different types of machines
a communication protocol
a central server
With the exception of first and second machine, all the other hardware and protocol are generic computer components discussed in high generality. In addition, they’re merely being used to describe an operating environment. Similarly, first and second machine is merely being used to describe an operating environment. Whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, these additional elements are nothing more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use. They would not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Step 2B
As noted above in step 2A prong 2, of which the analysis is still applicable in step 2B, the additional elements, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combinations, are nothing more than mere generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use. They would not provide significantly more either.
Claims 10-16 merely further limit the abstract idea with additional step or additional elements that can be analyzed similarly to those of claim 1 above. They would also be ineligible. Examiner particularly notes claims 11 and 14 may be part of Markush grouping of claim 9 and therefore not required (see above 112(b) rejection).
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 17-20 would contain limitations substantially similar to claims 9-16 and would be rejected under similar rationale above.
Claim 3 IS eligible because the reconfigure of production line integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Examiner recommends Applicant to consider incorporating similar issue into claims 1 and 17 but please keep the 112(b) issue identified above in mind.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekhar (US 20210286348) in view of Shrivastava (US 20220011729).
As per claim 1, Sekhar discloses an apparatus comprising:
at least one memory (0064, analysis system 120 can be cloud computing server); and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (0064, analysis system 120 can be cloud computing server) and configured to:
receive first data from a first sensor or first programmed logic controller configured on a first machine and receive second data from a second sensor or a second programmed logic controller on a second machine (see at least 0064, 120 acquires and stores data from machine edge controller regarding operation. 120 can store and analyze data from multiple controllers from one or more facilities. See also Fig. 1 regarding sensor and machine controller sending data to machine edge controller prior to data connection with analysis system 120);
process the first data and the second data via a communication protocol
perform a repair, preventative maintenance, or run in a degraded mode based on the alert, on one of the first machine or the second machine or provide a notice regarding steps to be taken by a human (see at least 0064, 120 predicts possible abnormal operation and determine preventative maintenance schedule for inhibiting abnormal operations).
Sekhar discloses aggregating data on multiple machines for analysis, but does not explicitly disclose aggregation also involves harmonizing data. Shrivastava teaches harmonizing data when collecting and setting controller setting for multiple machines (Shrivastava, 0119).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Shrivastava’s harmonization with Sekhar’s analysis system that collects data on multiple machines for the purpose of compensating for differences among different machines (Shrivastava: 0119).
As per claim 2, Sekhar further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein one of the first data or the second data is intercepted from a communication, configured as designed on the first machine or the second machine, from a programmable logic controller to a human-machine interface (See Fig. 1 regarding sensor and machine controller sending data to machine edge controller prior to data connection with analysis system 120. See Fig. 2 for a laptop being used as an HMI at one of CNC machine. See 0049 that HMI can be used to display information regarding system performance).
As per claim 3, Sekhar further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein when the at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory is configured to run in the degraded mode based on the alert, the apparatus reconfigures a whole production line comprising disparate equipment to run in the degraded mode (see at least 0061, system stops (degraded mode). See 0035 that the disclosure is applicable to other machines as well).
As per claim 4, Sekhar further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first data is received via a communication protocol selected from Message Queues Telemetry Transport (MQTT), Modbus Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP), or Object Linking and Embedding Process Control Unified Architecture (OPC UA) or other protocol (see 0038 for MQTT and OPC UA. Examiner also notes Fig. 1 shows data communication occuring and whatever protocol used would fall into “other protocol”.)
As per claim 5, Sekhar further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the repair or preventive maintenance is initiated by dispatching a service technician based on the alert (see 0061, alarm generated for operator).
As per claim 6, Sekhar further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the degraded mode involves reducing a speed of a machine to prevent potential failure (0061 operation stopped).
As per claim 7, Sekhar further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the alert is generated by
Regarding harmonizing, please refer to the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 8, Sekhar further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus uses an artificial intelligence model or rule chain to determine an appropriate degraded mode for each machine in a production line (0052, learn process generates baseline parameter).
Claims 9-20 contains limitations substantially similar to claims 1-8 and are rejected under similar rationale set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM -5:00 PM Eastern.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
GEORGE CHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights