DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Reissue Applications
This application seeks to reissue US Patent No. 8,204,717 (“the ‘717 patent”). In an amendment submitted with the 02/17/2026 RCE, claims 22-23, 25-28, 32, 34, 37-38, 40, and 43-44 were amended, and claims 24, 29, 30, 36, 39, and 42 were canceled.
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 8,204,717 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/17/2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s Response
The applicant argues that the Furem reference discloses that “the user program may store, process, calculate, and/or analyze information and display sensor information as the machine operates. However, data analysis or display during operation is not equivalent to deterministic real-time control of control operation of the at least one industrial automation unit, as claimed in the amended claim 22.” Remarks at 13. This is not persuasive. This claim limitation is indefinite, as described in the §112 ¶2 rejection below. Despite this, the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) as it would best be understood by the POSITA. See MPEP 2111. The BRI of this claim is met by the Furem disclosure.
Furem discloses that “variables” are determined based on sensor readings, including an “electrical variable” (Furem 4:61-67), an “environmental variable” (id. 5:1-6), a “mechanical variable” (id. 6:56-60), a “shovel motion control variable” (id. 9:4-7), etc. The sensors readings describing these variables are stored locally on the machine 1100, and an output showing these readings is displayed to the user of the machine 1100. Id. 10:47-52. This data is displayed to the user of the machine via a user interface 1170 on information device 1160 (id. 10:36-37), thus portrays these variables to the operator of the machine. For example, variable data such as “hoist rope length, stick extension, and/or swing angles, etc.” is rendered to “show a mechanical response of the machine” and “assist the user in visualizing certain variables and/or their effects related to the machine” Id. 14:28-48. The POSITA would understand this passage to show that the rendered variable data provides the operator with information that can enable better control of the machine. This data is therefore made available to the machine operator “for performing deterministic real-time control functions that directly control operation of the at least one industrial automation unit to perform real-time operations.” As described in the §112 rejections below, the claim does not recite how the first portion of data is used for the “real-time control function” or what actually performs the ”real-time control functions.” Therefore Furem’s disclosure meets the BRI of this claim limitation.
The applicant further argues that Furem does not disclose that “the second portion of data transmitted to the cloud” is excluded “from participation in deterministic real-time control functions” as recited in amended claim 22. Remarks at 13. This is not persuasive. The applicant has not shown where support for this new limitation is to be found, and it does not appear that the specification describes this claim limitation. See the §112 ¶1 rejection below. The claim will be given its BRI in light of the specification, which describes that the “second portion of data” that is delivered to the cloud includes “each of the readings” from a sensor, while the locally-stored data comprises a subset of these readings. ‘717 patent at 6:36-45. This is taught by Furem, which describes retaining lower-sampling-frequency data at the local machine and transmitting higher-sampling-frequency data to the cloud. See Furem at 10:4-17; 10:53-11:15; and 16:22-39. See also the final Office action at 4-5 and 15, and the claim rejection below. The data that is sent to the cloud in Furem is “excluded from the deterministic real-time control functions” because this data includes samples that are not used at the local machine. Therefore Furem meets the BRI of this claim limitation.
The claims have been amended to recite:
selectively direct execution of services related to the first portion of data and the second portion of data, either to the local processing unit in the client device for the deterministic real-time control functions or to the computing cloud for the non-real-time analytical processing based on at least a configured mapping
The applicant mostly focuses on Furem to argue that the cited prior art fails to teach this feature. Remarks at 15-17. However, this limitation is taught by Duchesneau.
This new limitation in claim 22 is similar to language in claim 31 requiring that a service bus in the local processing unit “is configured to direct based on a configured mapping, a request for a service call made to the at least one local processing unit to an appropriate service provider provided either locally on the client device of the plurality of client devices or on the computing cloud.” Claim 31 was previously rejected with reliance on Duchesneau. See final Office action at 20-21. The applicant has not addressed this rejection or provided argument describing why it is thought that Duchesneau does not teach or suggest this feature. It is maintained that Duchesneau teaches the limitation in amended claim 22, and thus the claim is rendered obvious by the combination of Karasawa, Furem, and Duchesneau. See the §103 rejections below.
Claim Interpretation
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 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: “client device” and “computing cloud” in claims 22 and 34
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.
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.
Objection, 37 CFR 1.173 – Insufficient Explanation of Support
This application is objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.173(c), which requires “an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims.” The application states that “Support for the new claims can be found at least at Col. 3, ll. 45-59, Col. 5, ll. 8-29, Col. 6, ll. 10- 24, Col. 6, ll. 30-50, Col. 6, ll. 60-65, Col. 7, ll. 49-55 of the Specification as originally filed.” Remarks at 9. This listing of passages of the ‘717 patent does not clearly describe where support is found for each change made to the patent claims. In addition, other than “Col. 3, ll. 45-59,” the remaining passages cited by the applicant appear to be unrelated to the claim language, and it is not clear if these passages refer to the specification of the ‘717 patent.
The applicant is required to provide an explanation that unmistakably describes where support for each change in claim scope exists in the specification of the ’717 patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 22-23, 25-28, 31-35, 37-38, 40-41, and 43-45 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 independent claims have been amended to recite “deterministic” real-time control functions. The ‘717 patent includes no mention of a control function being “deterministic,” which may be defined as “an inevitable consequence of antecedent causes1.” The specification does not support this claim scope.
The claims also recite that “the first portion of data is stored at a local storage unit of the client device to ensure availability for performing deterministic real-time control functions that directly control operation of the at least one industrial automation unit to perform real-time operations, independent of connectivity to the computing cloud.” While the scope of this language is indefinite (see §112 ¶2 rejection below), the BRI of this limitation does not find support in the specification. The applicant has not provided an adequate description of where support for this limitation exits (see the objection under 1.173(c) above), but it appears that this feature is described in the following passages of the ‘717 patent:
Real time functions are those functions that instruct or control other devices, including the actual mechanical systems used in a factory. These real time functions are generally always required to be available, and may be designed to be non-resource intensive. An example of these real time functions may include the programming of a basic automated system to perform a specific function (e.g., drill into a substance) for a specific time.
Non-real time functions are functions that may be used to form the real-time functions. Examples of non-real-time functions are those functions used to train the real time functions and simulations of the products created by the non-real-time functions. These non-real-time functions are may be processor intensive and require specialized software.
Not only may functions be performed on a real time or non-real time basis, data may be required by the system on a real or non-real time basis. In one embodiment, data that is required on a real time basis will be stored locally in local data storage 210 while data that is not needed on a real time basis may be stored in the storage unit 112 in the computing cloud 108.
[…]
The information to be stored in the local environment 202 and the computing cloud 108 (as opposed to that which is stored only in the computing cloud 108) may be determined based upon what information is anticipated to be needed by the local environment 202. For instance, the local environment 202 may take readings every 10 seconds but only require readings every minute. Each of the readings may be stored in the computing cloud 108 for enhanced analysis, but only one reading a minute may need to be stored in the local environment 202. This storage allows the local environment 202 to cache the data that it anticipates needing while providing the computing cloud 108 with all available data. In this way, the computing cloud 108 has as much information as possible to perform analysis, while the local environment has stored the information it needs for immediate operation.
‘717 patent at 4:13-33 and 6:36-50. The specification does not disclose that the “first portion of data” is data for “performing deterministic real-time control functions that directly control operation of the at least one industrial automation unit to perform real-time operations.”
The locally-stored “first portion of data” contains sensor “readings,” which describe “operational condition of one or more manufacturing tools, such as temperature, pressure, airflow, viscosity of a lubricant, vibration, or other measureable operating parameter(s).” ‘717 patent at 3:23-25. The ‘717 patent only discloses that the client “needs [the readings] for immediate operation” but it does not describe what this “immediate operation” actually is. Lacking a clear disclosure, it cannot be assumed that the sensor readings (i.e. temperature, pressure, airflow, viscosity of a lubricant, vibration, etc.) are used for “performing deterministic real-time control functions that directly control operation of the at least one industrial automation unit to perform real-time operations.” Therefore the specification does not provide support for this limitation.
In addition, there is no discussion in the specification of controlling operations “independent of connectivity to the computing cloud.” This limitation likewise does not find support in the written description.
The claims further recite that “the second portion of data is excluded from the deterministic real-time control functions.” This is not described in the ‘717 patent. The only discussion in the ‘717 patent that relates to first and second portions of data that are obtained at a first and second sampling frequency is reproduced below:
The information to be stored in the local environment 202 and the computing cloud 108 (as opposed to that which is stored only in the computing cloud 108) may be determined based upon what information is anticipated to be needed by the local environment 202. For instance, the local environment 202 may take readings every 10 seconds but only require readings every minute. Each of the readings may be stored in the computing cloud 108 for enhanced analysis, but only one reading a minute may need to be stored in the local environment 202
‘717 patent at 6:36-45. This shows that the “second portion of data” that is delivered to the cloud includes “each of the readings” that are taken every 10 seconds, while the locally-stored data contains a subset of these readings. Therefore some of the second portion of data is stored locally, and would be available for the “deterministic real-time control functions” (if support for that limitation exists: see above). This contradicts the claim limitation requiring that the second portion of data is excluded from the control functions. There is no disclosure in the specification that shows this to be the case.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 ¶2
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 22-23, 25-28, 31-35, 37-38, 40-41, and 43-45 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 22 has been amended to recite that “the first portion of data is stored at a local storage unit of the client device to ensure availability for performing deterministic real-time control functions that directly control operation of the at least one industrial automation unit to perform real-time operations.” This language is indefinite. The claim does not recite that “deterministic real-time control functions” are actually performed, or that “each client device” is configured to perform these control functions. Instead, the claim recites only storing the first portion of data locally “to ensure availability” for performing real-time control functions. This describes the intended result of the limitation requiring that “the first portion of data is stored at a local storage unit.” Claim language is indefinite when it describes an “intended result and does not provide a clear cut indication of scope because it impose[s] no structural limits” on the claimed apparatus. MPEP 2173.05(g).
This language is likewise indefinite in method claim 34. This language does not positively recite a process step, but instead recites the intended result of the process steps. The language therefore appears to be non-limiting: claim language that “expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited” does not limit the claim. MPEP 2111.04 I. However, for reasons given above with respect to claim 22, it is not clear how, or whether, this language is meant to limit the scope of the method claim. For this reason, the scope of claim 34 and its dependents cannot be determined.
The claims further recite:
selectively direct execution of services related to the first portion of data and the second portion of data, either to the local processing unit in the client device for the deterministic real-time control functions or to the computing cloud for the non-real-time analytical processing based on at least a configured mapping
This is likewise indefinite. As with the claim language described above, this does not positively recite that the client device is actually configured to perform the real-time control functions, and it is not clear if the claim requires this.
The ‘717 patent describes that when a user requests a service, a “service bus directs requests for those services to the appropriate service providers either locally or in the cloud based on configured mapping.” See the ‘717 patent at 3:45-63. The “service bus” that directs the requests is “local to the plant.” Id. But the claim only recites that the client device is configured to “direct execution of services … for the deterministic real-time control functions.” This is not a direct limitation requiring the client device to be configured to perform those real time functions. Rather, this appears to only require the delivery of a request, with the intent being that the request will result in performance of the “real-time control functions.” Again, this shows an “intended result and does not provide a clear cut indication of scope because it impose[s] no structural limits” on the client device. MPEP 2173.05(g).
Similarly, the claim recites directing execution of services “to the computing cloud for the non-real-time analytical processing.” This claim limitation describes functionality of the client device, not the computing cloud, and appears to describe that the intent of “direct[ing] services … to the computing cloud” is “for the non-real-time analytical processing” to be performed at the cloud. Nowhere in the claim is it recited that the computing cloud is configured to perform the non-real-time processing, and thus it is not clear if the claim requires this. It is also not clear if the “non-real-time analytical processing” is the same as the “predictive analysis” that the claim later recites being performed by the computing cloud.
The claims further recite “deterministic” real-time control functions. It is not clear what this term requires. The specification includes no mention of “deterministic.” The scope of this language is not clear because it cannot be determined in light of the claims or the specification what is, and what is not, a “deterministic” real-time function. Therefore this language renders the claim indefinite because it would not enable the public to be “informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent.”. MPEP 2173.
Claims 31 and 43 are further rejected under §112 ¶2. These claims recite that a service bus is “configured to direct based on a configured mapping, a request for a service call made to the at least one local processing unit to an appropriate service provider provided either locally on the client device of the plurality of client devices or on the computing cloud.” But these claims rely on claims 22 and 34, which recite “selectively direct execution of services related to the first portion of data and the second portion of data, either to the local processing unit in the client device for the deterministic real-time control functions or to the computing cloud for the non-real-time analytical processing based on at least a configured mapping.” It is not clear if the “service” that is recited in claims 31 and 43 is the same as the “services” that are recited in the independent claims. It is not clear if the “configured mapping” is the same as in the independents. It is not clear if the “appropriate service … provided locally on the client” is the same as, is narrower than, or is broader than, the “deterministic real-time control functions.” Likewise it is not clear if the service “provided … on the computing cloud” is the same as the “non-real-time analytical processing” that is recited in claims 22 and 34.
Claims 31 and 43 also recite “the at least one local processing unit is provided using a service bus.” It is not clear what limitation this places on the claim, or how a processing unit can be “provided using a service bus.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 22-23, 25-28, 31-35, 37-38, 40-41, and 43-45 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Karasawa, US 7133807, in view of Furem, US 7181370, and further in view of Duchesneau, US 20090216910.
As to claim 22 Karasawa discloses a system, comprising:
a plurality of client devices (Fig. 1 and 8:39-45 – each plant 101, 110, and 120 has a plant-side computer 11, or client device), wherein each client device of the plurality of client devices is associated with at least one industrial automation unit (4:9-13 and 8:39-45 – each client device is associated with an apparatus, which includes manufacturing apparatuses for semiconductor or LCD device. These are industrial automation units), wherein each client device comprises at least one local processing unit (Fig. 1), wherein at least one sensor is attached to the at least one industrial automation unit (Fig. 1: monitoring device 18 is a sensor attached to the unit. See also 6:56-59); and
a computing cloud comprising shared hardware resources and shared software resources (Fig. 1 and 8:36-59 - the hardware and software of the vendor-side computer 26 are resources that are shared among plant-side computers in plants 101, 110, and 120. As described in reexamination proceeding 90/020,121, this vendor-side computer meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “computing cloud.” See e.g. the 12/17/2019 Patent Board Decision at 5-14.);
wherein each client device of the plurality of client devices is configured to:
obtain, through the at least one sensor, data describing one or more operating parameters of one or more industrial automation units (7:18-32 – operating state data, which is data describing operating parameters of each apparatus (industrial automation unit), is obtained by plant-side computer 11);
wherein the computing cloud is configured to:
provide access to the shared hardware resources and the shared software resources to the plurality of client devices via the at least one local processing unit (8:36-59 - the hardware and software of the vendor-side computer 26 is accessible to computers within plants 101, 110, and 120); and
receive, from a client device of the plurality of client devices, the data (7:55-57 and 9:12-26; Fig. 9:S11 - operating state data is transmitted to the vendor-side computer);
determine, using the shared hardware resources and the shared software resources, a status of the one or more industrial automation units based on the data (Fig. 9: S14 and S15; 15:40-67 – the status of a monitored unit is determined by vendor-side computer); and
provide a notification based on the status determined for the one or more industrial automation units (12:4-11; 16:1-13).
Karasawa fails to disclose that the client devices are configured to obtain, through the at least one sensor, a first portion of data at a first frequency, wherein the first portion of data is stored at a local storage unit of the client device to ensure availability for performing deterministic real-time control functions that directly control operation of the at least one industrial automation unit to perform real-time operations, independent of connectivity to the computing cloud, wherein the first portion of data describes real-time operating parameters of the at least one industrial automation unit;
obtain, through the at least one sensor, a second portion of data associated at a second frequency, wherein the second portion of data is transmitted to the computing cloud by the client device for non-real-time analytical processing, wherein the second portion of data is excluded from the deterministic real-time control functions, wherein the second portion of data describes one or more non-real-time operating parameters of the one or more industrial automation units, wherein the second frequency is greater than the first frequency;
receive, from a client device of the plurality of client devices, the second portion of data; determine the status of the one or more industrial automation units based on a predictive analysis of the second portion of data obtained at the second frequency, wherein the predictive analysis comprises a comparison of the second portion of data with empirical data obtained from the one or more industrial automation units, and wherein the status of the one or more industrial automation units comprises a predicted future failure of the at least one industrial automation unit.
Furem discloses a system comprising a plurality of client devices associated with at least one industrial automation unit and a computing cloud that monitors operating parameters of the industrial automation unit (Fig. 3: 3100 and 15:42-60 – server 1400 (a computing cloud) monitors parameters of machines 1100 (see Fig. 1), which are industrial automation units – see 9:61-10:3);
wherein the client devices are configured to
obtain, through the at least one sensor, a first portion of data at a first frequency, wherein the first portion of data is stored at a local storage unit of the client device (10:4-17 – data from sensors is obtained at various rates, “such as for example, 100, 88, 61, 49, 23, 1, 0.5, and/or 0.1, etc. readings per second” (emphasis added). The scope of this disclosure includes that multiple data sets are obtained based on different sampling frequencies. Therefore Furem discloses that at least one sensor produces a first and second portion of data at a first and second frequency. Some of the sensor readings (including lower- and/or higher-frequency readings) are stored within the client device for analysis while the machine is running (see 10:18-20, 37-39, and 47-52), therefore this locally-stored data describes real-time operating parameters) to ensure availability for performing deterministic real-time control functions that directly control operation of the at least one industrial automation unit to perform real-time operations, independent of connectivity to the computing cloud, wherein the first portion of data describes real-time operating parameters of the at least one industrial automation unit (Variables are determined based on sensor readings, including an “electrical variable” (Furem 4:61-67), an “environmental variable” (id. 5:1-6), a “mechanical variable” (id. 6:56-60), a “shovel motion control variable” (id. 9:4-7), etc. The sensors readings are stored locally on the machine 1100, and an output showing these readings is displayed to the user of the machine 1100. Id. 10:47-52. This data is displayed to the user of the machine via a user interface 1170 on information device 1160 (id. 10:36-37), thus portrays real-time readings to the operator of the machine. For example, variable data such as “hoist rope length, stick extension, and/or swing angles, etc.” is rendered to “show a mechanical response of the machine” and “assist the user in visualizing certain variables and/or their effects related to the machine” Id. 14:28-48. The POSITA would understand this passage to show that rendered variable data provides the operator with information that can enable better control of the machine. This data is therefore available (independent of connectivity to the cloud) to the operator “for performing deterministic real-time control functions that directly control operation of the at least one industrial automation unit to perform real-time operations.”),
obtain, through the at least one sensor, a second portion of data at a second frequency, wherein the second portion of data is transmitted to the computing cloud by the client device for non-real-time analytical processing, wherein the second portion of data is excluded from the deterministic real-time control functions (10:4-17 – data from sensors is obtained at various rates, “such as for example, 100, 88, 61, 49, 23, 1, 0.5, and/or 0.1, etc. readings per second” (emphasis added). Sensor readings (including higher-frequency readings) are transmitted to the remote server for predictive analysis (see 10:53-11:15 and 16:22-39), therefore this data describes non-real-time operating parameters. Only the lower-frequency, locally-stored data is used to aid in the control of machine operations, as shown above. This meets the BRI of the limitation requiring that data transmitted to the cloud is “excluded” from these operations. See ‘717 patent at 6:36-45), wherein the second portion of data describes one or more non-real-time operating parameters of the one or more industrial automation units, wherein the second frequency is greater than the first frequency (The sensor data that is sent to the server is delivered at a variable “data transmission rate” that is selected by a user. 11:16-19. The “transmission rate” at which the data is delivered from the machine 1100 to the server 1400 describes “a sampling rate associated with data supplied from at least one sensor to the first wireless transceiver.” Id. at 12:48-53 (emphasis added). See also 9:26-29, which defines “transmission rate” as “a rate associated with a sampling and/or transfer of data, and not a modulation frequency. Units can be, for example … samples per second.”). Therefore Furem teaches that a first portion of data, captured at a lower frequency, is stored at a local storage unit, while a second portion captured at a higher frequency is delivered to the cloud-based storage. This interpretation is consistent with the written description of the ‘717 patent at 4:10-54.);
selectively direct execution of services related to the first portion of data and the second portion of data, either to the local processing unit in the client device for the deterministic real-time control functions or to the computing cloud for the non-real-time analytical processing (This limitation is indefinite, as described in the §112 rejections above. However, the BRI of this language is implicitly taught in Furem. The data that is stored locally and is used for real-time control functions is directed to local storage, and the machine is directed to execute a process, or service, to render a display of the variables relating to machine operations. Similarly, the data for non-real-time analysis is directed to the cloud, implicitly with the intent of causing the cloud to execute a service to analyze that data. See above.).
wherein the computing cloud is configured to:
receive, from a client device of the plurality of client devices, the second portion of data (Sensor readings (including higher-frequency readings) are transmitted to the remote server for predictive analysis. Furem at 10:53-11:15 and 16:22-39);
determine, in real time, the status of the one or more industrial automation units based on a predictive analysis of the second portion of data obtained at the second frequency, wherein the predictive analysis comprises a comparison of the second portion of data with empirical data obtained from the one or more industrial automation units, and wherein the status of the one or more industrial automation units comprises a predicted future failure of the at least one industrial automation unit (16:22-39 – based on data received from the client device, a status of the unit is determined. This status includes predicting an impending failure based on a comparison with empirical data that is indicative of an impending failure of one or more units (see 17:10-30). This monitoring and prediction “allow[s] proactive, predictive, and/or preventive maintenance rather than reactive maintenance” (id.), and can, for example, “promptly … help prevent a failure of the electric motor controller due to overheating.” Id. at 16:42-46. In addition, Furem teaches that data from the machines is processed and displayed in real time. See e.g. 18:66-19:31. From this the skilled artisan would conclude that determining the status occurs in real time).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to modify the system of Karasawa with the teachings of Furem by including the ability to “automatically and heuristically predicting a failure associated with the machine and/or recommending preventative maintenance in advance of the failure” (Furem 2:2-6). A person of skill in the art would have found motivation in Furem to make this modification, which would “allow proactive, predictive, and/or preventive maintenance rather than reactive maintenance.” Furem 16:28-31. The skilled artisan would recognize that such predictive maintenance would reduce cost and downtime.
The Karasawa-Furem combination fails to disclose the shared hardware resources comprise a plurality of data storage units and a plurality of processing units; and selectively direct execution of services related to the first portion of data and the second portion of data, either to the local processing unit in the client device for the deterministic real-time control functions or to the computing cloud for the non-real-time analytical processing based on at least a configured mapping.
However, Duchesneau discloses a computing cloud (¶1141) comprising shared hardware resources that comprise a plurality of data storage units and a plurality of processing units (Abstract; ¶473-476 – hardware resources, comprising plural storage and processing units, are shared among requesting clients), and
selectively direct execution of services, either to the local processing unit in the client device for the deterministic real-time control functions or to the computing cloud for processing based on at least a configured mapping (¶¶ 364 and 659-661 – services are scheduled and load balanced by a task redirector. A POSITA would appreciate this as a disclosure that a service bus that selectively directs execution of services based on a mapping to an appropriate service provider in the computing cloud. Because the claim requires that directing execution of services “either to the local processing unit … or to the computing cloud,” the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim only requires one of these two alternative features).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Karasawa-Furem with the teachings of Duchesneau by providing a plurality of storage units and processing units, and the selective directing of services. When Karasawa-Furem is modified to include this, the selection of a particular cloud server to analyze the higher-frequency non-real-time data would be the result of Duchesneau’s selective directing of the execution of services. The rationale for making this modification is provided by Duchesneau, which states that utilizing distributed, cloud-based, shared hardware resources provides improved adaptability and efficiency compared with a single-location processing resource. See e.g. Duchesneau ¶¶ 154-164.
As to claim 23 Karasawa discloses that the at least one industrial automation unit comprises at least one of an industrial tool or a manufacturing tool (4:9-13 and 8:39-45 – the apparatus includes manufacturing apparatuses for semiconductor or LCD device. These are manufacturing tools).
As to claim 25 Karasawa-Furem discloses that the status of the one or more industrial automation units comprises a predicted life expectancy of the one or more industrial automation units (Furem 16:22-39 – an “impending” failure is predicted. This is a prediction of the remaining life expectancy of the unit); and
the computing cloud is configured to determine the predicted life expectancy by at least performing predictive analysis using the second portion of data received from one or more client devices of the plurality of client devices indicating at least one past failure of the one or more industrial automation units (Furem 17:10-30 – failure is predicted based on training data that includes sensor readings associated with past failure of monitored machines. Predictive analysis is therefore performed based on data indicating past failures).
As to claim 26 Karasawa-Furem discloses that the computing cloud is further configured to determine, based on the predicted life expectancy, a maintenance schedule for the at least one industrial automation units; and the notification comprises an indication of the maintenance schedule (Furem 18:2-5 and 18:32-37).
As to claim 27 Karasawa-Furem discloses that the computing cloud is configured to determine the predicted future failure of the at least one industrial automation unit associated with the at least one client device by performing predictive analysis using the second portion of data associated with one or more client devices of the plurality of client devices indicating at least one past failure of respective industrial automation units (Furem 17:10-26 – a future failure is predicted based on analysis of data relating to the machine component prior to a previous failure).
As to claim 28 Karasawa-Furem discloses that the status comprises a determination, for a first industrial automation unit of the one or more industrial automation units, of either an actual industrial automation unit failure or a predicted future failure of the first industrial automation unit (Furem 17:10-26 – actual failures of other units is determined and is used to predict failure in other units);
the notification comprises a warning of a potential industrial automation unit failure for a second industrial automation unit different from the first industrial automation unit (Furem 16:22-38 – prediction of a future failure is based on the analysis of past failures of other units.) and the computing cloud is configured to provide the notification to the client device, of the plurality of client devices, that is associated with the second industrial automation unit (Karasawa 10:41-67 and 13:50-52 and Fig. 3: 3800-3900 – the warning is sent to the client device based on this prediction).
As to claim 31 Duchesneau discloses that the at least one local processing unit is provided using a service bus; and the service bus is configured to direct, based on a configured mapping, a request for a service call made to the at least one local processing unit to an appropriate service provider provided either locally on the client device of the plurality of client devices or on the computing cloud (¶¶ 364 and 659-661 – services are scheduled and load balanced by a task redirector. A POSA would appreciate this disclosure as a service bus that directs service requests based on a mapping to an appropriate service provider in the computing cloud. Because the claim requires that the service endpoint directs the request to a service provider “either locally … or on the computing cloud,” the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim only requires one of these two alternative features).
As to claim 32 Karasawa discloses that at least one client device of the plurality of client devices comprises at least one sensor configured to monitor one or more operational conditions of the one or more industrial automation units of the at least one industrial automation unit (Fig. 1: 18; 6:56-58).
As to claim 33 Furem discloses that the one or more non-real-time operating parameters comprise at least one of temperature, pressure, airflow, lubricant viscosity, or vibration (10:4-11. The data described in this passage includes non-real-time operating parameters that are passed to the cloud for predictive analysis. See rejection of claim 22).
As to claim 34 see rejection of claim 22. The grounds of rejection based on the Karasawa-Furem-Duchesneau combination renders obvious the method of broader claim 34. See also the §112 rejection of this claim above.
As to claims 35, 37-38, 40-41, and 43-45, see rejection of claims 23, 25-28, and 31-33, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J HANCE whose telephone number is (571)270-5319. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00am-7:00pm ET.
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, Michael Fuelling can be reached at (571) 270-1367. 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.
/ROBERT J HANCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/CHARLES R CRAVER/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 deterministic. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011).