DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the application filed on July 29th 2025, in which claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/29/25 and 9/4/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 (i.e. “unit”) 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 limitation(s) is/are: all the “unit(s)” in claims 11-15 (e.g. configuration unit, monitoring unit, etc.).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. No corresponding structure can be found, see the 112 rejection.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/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.
Claims 5-6 and 11-15 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.
Regarding claims 11-15, claim limitation “receiving unit, configuration unit, monitoring unit, detection unit, etc.” invokes 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. There is no disclosure of any specific corresponding structure or material for performing the functions. At best, the specification teaches that the system can be “any device” (paragraph 19-20). But this does not provide corresponding material or structure for the claim limitations that invoke 112(f). 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the at least one database” in line size. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the state entry condition" and “the state exit condition” in line two. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Sigtermans et al. US 2020/0342333 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Sigtermans discloses a method for providing an alarm by an alarm providing system (a model monitors a system and makes predictions including alarms – paragraphs 5, 163):
receiving plant data from at least one industrial plant by a state providing system (monitor values – see paragraphs 44, 53, 61 and Fig. 5);
providing state data indicating at least one state of the at least one industrial plant by the state providing system (receive or determine context/state information for industrial system – see paragraphs 61-62, Fig. 5);
selecting at least one state in the provided state data based on the received plant data by the state providing system (paragraphs 61-62, Fig. 5; also see paragraphs 81-82 which teach state transitions);
providing an alarm by an event monitoring system (generate alerts – paragraphs 45-46 and 101), wherein the providing of an alarm, comprises: receiving the at least one selected state in the provided state data and the plant data (parameter values and state information - paragraphs 61-64 and Fig. 5);
providing at least one rule; detecting an alarm event in the received plant data based on the provided at least one rule (filter/matching rules – see paragraphs 50, 64 and 67);
providing at least one alarm rule based on the at least one selected state in the provided state data and the provided rules (rule produces alert/alarm, thus it is “alarm rule” under the BRI – see paragraphs 45, 101 and 162-165; and Fig. 10, paragraphs 67, 106-108 for rules); and
providing the alarm based on the detected alarm event and the provided at least one alarm rule (generate alert/alarm in response to data and rules – paragraphs 101, 164).
Regarding claim 2, Sigtermans discloses the rule is provided by querying at least one rule from at least one database (note: BRI of database is very broad, the specification teaches a database is “any storage unit” – paragraph 29; thus, even if Sigtermans does not explicitly teach a “database”, it can read on this feature by disclosing any storage; query data sources including rules – paragraph 131, Fig. 10; database – paragraph 81).
Regarding claim 3, Sigtermans discloses the providing of the state data is provided by querying state data from at least one database (monitor data including context/state – paragraph 61 and Fig. 5; query data sources – paragraph 131, Fig. 10; database – paragraph 81).
Regarding claim 4, Sigtermans discloses detecting alarm events in the received plant data by at least one machine learning unit (use model to detect alarms – paragraphs 5 and 44-46; the specification teaches machine learning unit may be a model – see paragraph 35); and providing the state data based on the alarm events detected by the at least one machine learning unit (use predictive model to provide context/state information – paragraphs 61-62, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Sigtermans discloses detecting alarm events in the received plant data by at least one machine learning unit (use model to detect alarms – paragraphs 5 and 44-46; the specification teaches machine learning unit may be a model – see paragraph 35); and providing the state data based on the alarm events detected by the at least one machine learning unit (use predictive model to provide context/state information – paragraphs 61-62, Fig. 5) and queried state data from the at least one database (query database – paragraphs 81, 131, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 6, Sigtermans discloses the state data include information about the state entry condition and/or the state exit condition (context transition between states includes entry/exit, i.e. a transition by definition is leaving one state and entering another – see paragraph 61).
Regarding claim 7, Sigtermans discloses the at least one state indicated in the state data are at least one global state and/or at least one local state (by defining the state to be either global or local, the definition includes all states, since Sigtermans teaches state data as discussed above, then it also teaches the state is either global or local – paragraph 61, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Sigtermans discloses prioritizing the at least one state by providing a weighting factor to each one of the plurality of global states and/or local states when at least one state includes a plurality of global states and/or local states (use weights – paragraphs 80-84; also see paragraphs 177-178 which teach priority).
Regarding claim 9, Sigtermans discloses the at least one state indicated in the state data is an absolute state (an absolute state is any state which is absolute – see paragraphs 49-51; Sigtermans teaches transitioning between states – paragraphs 61 and 81-82, thus the states are “absolute”).
Regarding claim 10, Sigtermans discloses prioritizing the at least one rule by providing a weighting factor to each one of the plurality of rules when the at least one rule includes a plurality of rules (rules – paragraphs 106-110 and Fig. 10, use weights – paragraphs 80-84; also see paragraphs 177-178 which teach priority).
Regarding claim 11, it is a system that corresponds to the method of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 12-14, they correspond to previously presented dependent claims 2-4 respectively; thus they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, Sigtermans discloses a prioritization unit for prioritizing the at least one state (use weights – paragraphs 80-84; also see paragraphs 177-178 which teach priority).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
G. -S. Jang, J. -Y. Keum, J. -Y. Park and Y. -K. Kim, "Active Alarm Processing in a Nuclear Power Plant," 2008 IEEE Symposium on Advanced Management of Information for Globalized Enterprises (AMIGE), Tianjin, China, 2008, pp. 1-3; discloses an industrial plant monitoring alarm system using states and rules (abstract, Sections I-II).
Park et al. US 11,092,952 B2 discloses a plant abnormality detection system (abstract) with alarms, states and rules (col. 1 ln. 15-28) and machine learning model (Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D RECEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1975. The examiner can normally be reached Flex M-F 9-5.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D RECEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights