Swiss Reinsurance Company Limited

[2017] APO 12

IP AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

Swiss Reinsurance Company Limited [2017] APO 12

Patent Application:                   2015202866

Title:Computer system and computer-based method for assessing the safety of a process industry plant

Patent Applicant:  Swiss Reinsurance Company Limited

Hearing officer:  P M Spann Deputy Commissioner of Patents

Decision Date:  15 March 2017

Catchwords:  PATENTS – examiner’s objections – computer implemented method for conducting a safety assessment in a processing plant – abstract idea or mere scheme – no patentable subject matter disclosed – application refused.

Representation:  Patent applicant:          Griffith Hack.

IP AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

Patent Application:                   2015202866

Title:Computer system and computer-based method for assessing the safety of a process industry plant

Patent Applicant:  Swiss Reinsurance Company Limited

Date of Decision:  15 March 2017

DECISION

Patent application 2015202866 is refused pursuant to section 49(2) of the Act.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This matter concerns grounds of objection and whether I should exercise the Commissioner’s power to refuse the application under section 49(2) of the Patents Act 1990.

Background

1. Australian patent application 2015202866 (the Application) was made in the name of Swiss Reinsurance Company Limited (the Applicant). It is a divisional application from application 2012216586 which itself is a divisional of PCT application 2005337411. The earliest priority date is 14 October 2005.

1. The grandparent PCT application was subject to 3 adverse reports objecting on the basis that what was claimed was not a manner of manufacture and lacked novelty. It subsequently lapsed for failure to gain acceptance. The parent application was objected to on the same grounds and received 6 adverse reports before also lapsing for failure to gain acceptance. Examination of the present application was requested on 15 July 2015 and rather optimistically accompanied by a request for the Commissioner to postpone acceptance. 3 adverse reports have issued again objecting on grounds that the invention claimed is not a manner of manufacture and lack of novelty. The last report indicated:

“My report below includes objections that are equivalent to objections raised in previous examination reports. As there has now been several adverse reports in relation to this subject matter, the application will be referred to a Hearing Officer to consider whether to accept or refuse the application under s49 or to direct amendment under s107. If you wish to be heard on this matter, you have 1 month from the date of this report to request a hearing. Fee item 230 applies.”

1. The applicant however did not request to be heard. It rather filed a further divisional application number 2017201643 pursuing a course of action that, although permitted under the Act, in my view does nothing for the reputation of the patent system and is likely to bring into question the generous availability of divisional applications to the detriment of other users of the system. While the applicant has the right to appeal my decision to the Federal Court, it appears that instead the divisional of this case will very soon be examined and referred to another delegate for determination. It is not clear what benefit the applicant derives from this but is the cause of considerable wastage of Patent Office resources and presumably significant inconvenience for any interested third parties.

The patent specification

1. The subject matter of the application is said to particularly concern a computer-based method for establishing a safety assessment of a process industry plant comprising multiple organizational units. As background it is stated that:

“The process industry, e.g. the petrol industry, is generally based on the cascading effect of various unit operations. In other words, the process industry typically relies on input/output systems where an input material is processed into an output product through sequential steps performed at a series of cascaded components of the system. Interruption at any point in the system causes the overall process to stop. Consequently, interruption of process steps causes downtime, which results in loss of production. It is therefore of general interest to reduce downtime, increase mean time between failures and prevent deterioration of equipment in the processing plants. Also in order to prevent harm of humans and environment, it is of great interest to ensure that there are no accidents in the processing plant.”

1. Figure 2 of the specification sets out the step of the computer implemented method which involves the following general steps:

·    inputting of information about the plant and organisational units;

·    asking questions about safety aspects of the units eg questions related to safety awareness, safety behaviour, change management, and/or human error;

·    receiving responses;

·    rating responses and applying scores for aspects of plant safety

·    displaying information about the result of the safety assessment. 

1. The description appears to disclose a number of options in the implementation of the method. For example, responses may be recorded by a human reviewer or entered directly into a computer.

1. The claims as last proposed to be amended on 6 December 2016, include 13 claims of which claim 1 is:

“1.     A computer-based automated method for establishing a safety assessment of a process industry plant including multiple organizational units, wherein a rating of an inspection and/or steps and areas of possible improvements of the different organisational units is determined by means of an expert system from received data of the organisational units, the method comprising:

identifying a process industry plant, wherein a plurality of organizational units of the process industry plant are selectable and wherein the organizational units relate to hierarchical levels of the plant;

selecting by the computer a human representative of one of the organizational units, and providing one or more defined questions as output in a user interface to the human representative, and receiving and storing answers for each of the question as outputted from the human representative of one of the organizational units;

rating the answers received by generating respective scores, wherein answer data stored by computer is rated automatically by the computer, by means of rules based expert system, and storing safety assessment scores in a memory device of the computer, each safety assessment score being related to one safety rating based on an inspection, undertaken in one of the organizational units with regards to one of multiple defined safety related aspects of the plant, and an answer, given by the respective human representative of one of the organizational units in response to one of a set of defined safety assessment questions, each question being related to one of the multiple defined safety aspects;

assigning in the computer each of the safety assessment scores to the respective one of the organizational units and to the respective one of the defined safety aspects, the scores being assigned based on a range including a best case score indicative of proactive safety management, intermediate level scores, and a worst case score indicative of an absence of basic requirements;

assigning, by the computer, safety assessment scores to specific items associated with safety inspections, wherein data about inspections are stored with definitions of inspection items related to one of the safety relevant aspects;

storing data about inspection results in a memory device of the computer, and assigning scores to inspection items and organizational units based on the inspection results;

calculating according to defined safety assessment criteria and based on scores assigned to inspection items, in the computer using a processor, multiple aspect-specific scores, the aspect-specific scores corresponding to the multiple defined safety aspects for each one of the organizational units, the aspect-specific scores being calculated from the safety assessment scores associated with a corresponding organizational unit, the safety assessment criteria assigning the calculated aspect-specific scores for an organizational unit having only intermediate level and best case scores being calculated based on a combination of the assigned scores, and for an organizational unit having at least one worst case score assigned to a defined safety aspect, the worst case score for that defined safety aspect is assigned as the aspect specific score for that organizational unit;

calculating, by the computer, total aspect-specific scores for the plant based on the calculated aspect-specific scores for each of the organizational units;

establishing, by establishing means, the safety assessment from the total aspect-specific scores for the plant, wherein in the computer total aspect-specific scores are calculated for the plant from the aspect-specific scores of the organizational units;

indicating, by means of the computer, improvements, if the aspect-specific score of an organizational unit is below a defined threshold, wherein the computer determines the steps and areas of possible improvements depending on the scores assigned to the respective safety aspect, and wherein the computer determines the steps and areas of possible improvements by means of an expert system.”

1. It is notable that while the claims as proposed to be amended are limited to use of a rules based expert system to rate answers and suggest area of improvement, the specification says nothing more about how those systems are implemented either generally or in the present case to produce a robust safety assessment.

Discusion

10.  The examination of the present application is governed by the Patents Act 1990 (the Act) as amended by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012. Consequently, the standard of proof that applies to the examination of the present application is the balance of probabilities, that is, I must accept the present application if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the application complies with the Act. If I am not satisfied, then I may refuse the application.

11.  Otherwise it is unnecessary to set out the applicable law here (this was done succinctly by the delegate in the recent decision in Accenture Global Services Limited [2017] APO 9 at [51]-[57]. However the parallels between the facts of the present matter and that considered by the Full Court in Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 177 will be readily apparent.

12.  In my view the substance of the present matter is a scheme for the collation of information about safety in a processing plant and the collation and display of that information in a report. While conducted using the convenience of a computer it can equally be said here that there is no “…invention or ingenuity in any program or operation of a computer, or implementation by a computer to operate the method. Accordingly, the ingenuity of the inventors must be in the steps of the method itself. The method does utilise the speed and processing power and ability of a computer but there is no suggestion that this is other than a standard operation of generic computers with generic software to implement a business method.” (RPL at [110])

13.  Since “Simply putting a business method or scheme into a computer is not patentable unless there is an invention in the way in which the computer carries out the scheme or method.” RPL at [107]), I am satisfied that the invention claimed in all claims constitutes a mere scheme or abstract idea and consequently is not a manner of manufacture as required by the Act.

14.  The applicant in its submissions to the examiner seeks to characterise the claims differently, emphasising that the safety assessment is automated and that this automation represents the technical solution to a technical problem. However a fair reading of the specification does not reveal a technical contribution in that sense or otherwise. As I have noted above the specification does not describe how ‘expert systems’ are applied in the claimed invention and it follows that any ingenuity that was required to do so is not apparent. Consequently I cannot agree that substance of the invention lies in the application of artificial intelligence to safety assessments.

15.  The applicant’s argument however highlights the potential for an objection under section 40, that is, that the specification does not disclose the invention in a manner which is clear enough and complete enough for the invention to be performed by a person skilled in the relevant art and that the claims are not supported by the description. It would also seem unlikely that the best method of performing the invention has been disclosed. Nevertheless given my finding above it is not necessary to further consider these or the ground of lack of novelty raised by the examiner.

Conclusion

16.  I am satisfied that the application does not comply with section 18(1)(a). The claims are not directed to a manner of manufacture. I also do not consider there is any patentable subject matter disclosed in the specification and nothing would be served by allowing the applicant a further opportunity to amend. I will therefore refuse the application.

P M Spann
Deputy Commissioner of Patents