DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed 01/26/2026 (Request for Continued Examination filed 01/26/2026, however, the claims under examination were submitted previously on 11/25/2025).
Claim(s) 1-20 have been considered.
- Claim(s) 1-16, and 18-20 are pending.
- Claim(s) 1 and 20 has/have been amended.
- No claim(s) have been newly added.
- Claim 17 had been previously canceled.
- Claim(s) 1 had been previously indicated to include allowable subject matter over prior arts.
- Claim(s) 1-16, and 18-20 have been rejected as described below.
- This action is NON-FINAL.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/26/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The recited subject matter in the additional claim limitation of claim 16 does not constitute a further limitation because it appears to be same as what’s recited in the last limitation of the amended claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method (process), which is a statutory category of invention. However, claim 1 recites, “and inferring from the module-related data one or more actuator state transition conditions causing the actuator to transition from the first state to the second state, …”, and “and creating a frame using an engineering tool for control software configured to implement the reverse engineering control logic based on the inferred module-related data.” Claim 1 further recites as an extension of the “inferring” limitation, “… wherein causing the actuator to transition from the first state to the second state comprises: determining a default state for the actuator; evaluating a current service that includes the actuator, wherein evaluating the current service includes comparing the second state of the actuator in the current service with the first state in a previous service; and identifying process conditions leading to the transition of the actuator from the first state to the second state, wherein the process conditions are used to generate the reverse engineering control logic of actuator state changes within the current service based on the process conditions;”. These limitation(s) fall into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited step(s) of inferring, as described in specification, [0013], [0018-19], [0021], etc. (and see also specification [0024], [0028], etc. for the extension of the inferring step such as determining, evaluating by comparing and identifying to generate), each appear to be an observation/evaluation and judgement that can be performed in the human mind based on some available data, such as learning, deducing, deriving, determining or identifying information, consequences, causes and effects, and logical conclusions from/based on stored runtime data/sensed/measured values of the control process. Also creating a frame, as described in specification [0028], appears to be referring to creating a frame (program), which is interpreted as writing up some code/instruction based on the inferred data as a program on paper. These/This limitation(s) therefore recite(s) concept(s) performed in the human mind and/or written with a pen on a paper. Thus, this/these limitation(s) fall(s) into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas in 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Additionally, as previously amended, claim 1 further recites, “wherein further logic relating to transition states that are not reached in the runtime data is added to the reverse engineering control logic;” Adding some logic (i.e., conditions) to the control logic here is a mental step (and thus a mere expansion of an abstract idea of creating a frame as addressed above). In fact, applicant specification, 0028 describes the addition of the further logic relating to missing states that never reached the runtime data to be done by the engineer. Narrowing the data (such as the ones relating to transition states that are not reached in the runtime data) to a particular type(s) of data that maintains the specific condition doesn’t make it such that human mind is incapable of performing the function (of identifying those data and adding them to the logic). Therefore, this limitation is directed to a mere expansion of the mental process/abstract idea. Thus, this/these limitation(s) fall(s) into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas in 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Inferring by identifying step here is a mental step (and thus a mere expansion of an abstract idea).
Additionally, as previously amended, claim 1 further recites as an extension of the “creating a frame” limitation, “… wherein the frame is a machine-adaptable building block for manufacturing custom software, and wherein the reverse engineering control logic is added to the frame;” Adding some logic (i.e., conditions) to the frame (frame program) here is a mental step (and thus a mere expansion of an abstract idea of creating a frame as addressed above) as described in applicant specification, [0028], which also describes a frame as a frame program which is a reusable, machine-adaptable building block for manufacturing custom software and nothing more. Note, without any further description/definition provided regarding the building block, custom software, or the overall frame, here software building blocks can be as fundamental as programming constructs such as sequence, selection, iteration, etc., which can be written on paper with a pen as part of the code/instructions and thus considered to be a mere expansion of the mental process/abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Besides the abstract idea(s), claim recites additional element(s) such as “A computer-implemented method for reverse engineering control logic of a module for a modular industrial plant, the method comprising: obtaining module-related data including runtime data relating to prior use of the module during a timeperiod, wherein during the timeperiod at least one piece of equipment of the module transitions from a first equipment state to a second equipment state, the runtime data including tags indicating the equipment state of the equipment at a plurality of timepoints during the timeperiod, wherein the equipment includes an actuator;”. The limitations(s) highlighted in italics are additional element(s) representing insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (especially obtaining module related data (i.e., computer implemented)) that is/are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the inferring step as the mental processes) and is/are recited at a high level of generality and without improvements to computer functionality and also appears to have simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments (See MPEP 2106.05(a), MPEP 2106.04(d), and MPEP 2106.05(h)). This/these limitation(s) in the claim is/are thus insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Here, the computer is/are recited at a high level of generality and represent(s) generic computer component(s) and thus this amounts to simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or recite significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Lastly, the equipment including an actuator and the module for a modular industrial plant can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to a field of use or technological environment which are also recited at a high level of generality and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or recite significantly more (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Additionally, as amended, “and utilizing the reverse engineering control logic in the engineering tool to reverse engineer actuator states based on the process conditions;” in light of specification 0028 can be viewed as nothing more than reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it" (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, as currently amended, “using an engineering tool” for the frame creation (writing up codes/program as addressed for interpretation above) is also similarly interpreted to be merely invoking computer components as a tool and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or recite significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Lastly, as amended, “and utilizing the frame created using the engineering tool to manufacture control software to replace a control system of the module.” in light of specification 0028 can be viewed as nothing more than reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it" (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of obtaining module related information is recited in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) and the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation encompassed gathering some pre-solution data, which is considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) - sending and receiving data over a network. The computer is/are recited at a high level of generality and represent(s) generic computer component(s) and thus this amounts to simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or recite significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Lastly, the equipment including an actuator and the module for a modular industrial plant can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to a field of use or technological environment which are also recited at a high level of generality and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or recite significantly more (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Additionally, as amended, “and utilizing the reverse engineering control logic in the engineering tool to reverse engineer actuator states based on the process conditions;” in light of specification 0028 can be viewed as nothing more than reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it" (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, as currently amended, “using an engineering tool” for the frame creation (writing up codes/program as addressed for interpretation above) is also similarly interpreted to be merely invoking computer components as a tool and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or recite significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Lastly, as amended, “and utilizing the frame created using the engineering tool to manufacture control software to replace a control system of the module.” in light of specification 0028 can be viewed as nothing more than reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it" (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 2-10, and 12-13 each depends from claim 1, therefore each recites the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim 2, for example, depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 2 further recites, “wherein the runtime data further includes tags indicating a service state of at least one service performed by the module at the plurality of timepoints, and wherein the inferring comprises identifying a transition from a first service state to a second service state as being a said equipment state transition condition causing the equipment to transition from the first equipment state to the second equipment state.” Inferring by identifying step here is a mental step (and thus a mere expansion of an abstract idea). Narrowing the obtained data (runtime data) to a particular type(s) of data doesn’t make it such that human mind is incapable of performing the function (of identifying/inferring/drawing further conclusions from/using those obtained data). Therefore, this limitation is directed to a mere expansion of the mental process/abstract idea.
Claim 3 is rejected for the similar reasons mentioned for claim 2 above.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected for being a mere expansion of the mental step as well (inferring separately for various data types from the obtained data).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected for the similar reasons mentioned for claim 2 above. For claim 7, narrowing the obtained data (runtime data) to a particular type(s) of data (by excluding some of the runtime data) doesn’t make it such that human mind is incapable of performing the function (of identifying/inferring/drawing further conclusions from/using those obtained data).
Claim 8 is/are rejected for being a mere expansion of the mental step as well (determining mapping between various data types from the obtained data).
Claim(s) 9-10, and 13 is/are rejected for the similar reasons mentioned for claim 2 above.
Claim 12 is rejected for being a mere expansion of the mental step as well (identifying conflicts within various data types from the obtained data and generating an interlock rule).
Claim 11, depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 11 further recites, “obtaining the module-related data at least partly from a configuration file defining the configuration of the module, and using the module-related data to create a frame for control software configured to implement the reverse engineered control logic.” Here, using obtained data to create a frame is a mere expansion of the abstract idea (mental step). Next, obtaining the data is representing insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering that is/are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the using data to create a frame, along with the inferring step from claim 1 as the mental processes) and is/are recited at a high level of generality and without improvements to computer functionality and also appears to have simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments (See MPEP 2106.05(a), MPEP 2106.04(d), and MPEP 2106.05(h)). This/these limitation(s) in the claim is/are thus insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Additionally, these limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim, for example, “using” data for reverse engineering control logic of a module is considered as employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitation of obtaining module related information is recited in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) and the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation encompassed gathering some pre-solution data, which is considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) - sending and receiving data over a network. Therefore, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected similarly based on the analysis provided above for claim 1 due to including the above claim limitations (due to dependency from claim 1). Note, the only difference is it is/they are an apparatus and a computer-readable medium claim respectively.
Claim 16, depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 16 further recites, “wherein the control frame for control software is used to manufacture control software for replacing a control system of the module.”, which is/are recited at a high level of generality. This limitation, in light of specification 0028 can be viewed as nothing more than reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it" (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 18-20, depends on claim 1 therefore it/they recite(s) the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 18 further recites, “wherein the engineering tool is a cause-and- effect matrix.”, which is/are recited at a high level of generality. Absent any special structure or function provided within specification for these, for compact prosecution, these are thus interpreted to be merely invoking computer components as a tool such as “The "engineering tool" may be implemented in software to provide a tool for configuring the modular plant. … the reverse engineering control logic of the module is added to the frame. This may be performed via or with help from the cause-and-effect matrix.”, as in specification 0028. Without any further details provided, this/these element(s) can be viewed as nothing more than reciting mere instructions to apply an exception and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or recite significantly more (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 19 further recites, “wherein the cause-and-effect matrix is used to represent an internal implementation of a service inside the frame.”, where narrowing the data (instruction in the form of “an engineering tool” that is a “cause and effect matrix”) to a particular type(s) of data (representing an internal implementation of a service inside the frame) doesn’t make it more than mere instructions to apply an exception. Without any further details provided, this/these element(s) can be viewed as nothing more than reciting mere instructions to apply an exception and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or recite significantly more (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 20 further recites, “wherein the inferred state transition conditions are provided to the cause-and-effect matrix to show the reverse engineering control logic associated with the inferred state transition.”, where “provided” is interpreted as entry actions that may be entered in the cause-and-effect matrix, and does not recite action(s) causing a change in lecture state, for example, as in applicant specification, 0049, 0061-63, etc. Accordingly, this limitation of providing data is recited in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) and the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation encompassed gathering some extra-solution data, which is considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) - sending and receiving data over a network. Therefore, these limitations do/does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or recite significantly more.
Accordingly, claim(s) 1-16, and 18-20 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
As described in the previous office action (now further updated for new 112(d) rejection):
Claim(s) 1 (amended claim 1 now includes previously canceled claim 17 subject matter & hence all the dependent claims 2-16, and 18-20) would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 (and 35 U.S.C. 112(d) for claim 16) set forth in this Office action as the limitations are not described or suggested by the prior arts of record (including any pertinent art(s)) alone, or in combination:
Regarding claim 1, as amended, the closest prior art identified (in previous office action) in addition to the prior arts above is:
Wolton (US 20040030741 A1) – This art teaches “When an agent is operating privately during agent task execution, it compares it's current operating run time activity to the stored instances and generalizations of prior run-time activities. Matches and deviations from the plural history database either reinforce or modify the stored database of agent historical patterns of behavior and performance. … Developed beliefs can be used to modify or alter the state transition rules of an agents run time activity. If, for example, a prior run time task execution activity of an agent repeatedly finds a dead link, as a missing HTML page on the network, that page address can be discarded from the task execution stack in future agent task run time executions. This can occur even though future executions of other HTML pages may still provide a link to the missing HTML page which the agent would have followed.)
However, this art does not describe wherein further logic relating to transition states that are not reached in the runtime data is added to the reverse engineering control logic.
Accordingly, prior arts of record, Niemiec (US 20190129395 A1), Noda (US 20150160098 A1), Monti (US 20190302744 A1), Kambe (US 20160132048 A1), and Wolton (US 20040030741 A1), alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest the combination of limitations of claim 1, as amended.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009,158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Response to arguments
Applicant's remarks and arguments filed 11/25/2025 (Request for Continued Examination filed 01/26/2026, however, the claims under examination and the arguments were submitted previously on 11/25/2025) have been fully considered. See below for further details.
Based on the amendment, a 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection section has been introduced.
As previously stated, claims 1-16, and 18-20 remain allowable over prior arts, however, other rejections and formalities still need to be resolved, as described above in the rejection.
Applicant arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections (involving abstract idea) have been fully considered but have been deemed to be not persuasive.
The arguments in page 6-10 of applicant remarks mainly focuses on the claim limitations of claim 1 – see the breakdown of the main arguments below.
Regarding applicant’s argument towards the middle of page 8 of applicant remarks, “Here, it is respectfully submitted that a human mind is not equipped to generate a frame for control software configured to implement the reverse engineering control logic based on the inferred module-related data, recited by amended independent claim 1.”, Examiner would like to re-emphasize from the last office action that the argued and previously amended additional limitation recites creating/generating a frame, as described in specification [0028], appears to be referring to creating a frame (program), which is interpreted as writing up some code/instruction based on the inferred data as a program on paper. Thus, without further support provided as to why a human mind is not equipped to do so, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding applicant’s argument at the end of 3rd para of page 8 “Furthermore, Applicant respectfully submits that the human mind cannot practically utilize the frame to manufacture control software to replace a control system of the module and utilize the reverse engineering control logic in the engineering tool to reverse engineer actuator states based on the process conditions.”, examiner would like to state that this is part of additional amendment and has not been declared as mental step. Instead, it has been part of an “apply it” analysis as part of an updated rejection necessitated by amendment. See above rejection for further details.
Regarding applicant’s argument in last paragraph of page 8 continued to first paragraph of page 9 of applicant remarks, Examiner would like to point out that it appears that applicant has merely reiterated all of the claim 1 limitations and argued that claim 1, as amended, provided technical improvements to a technology and thus is directed to a practical application. Without any support for this argument, it is not clear to examiner as to what element(s) in the claim language reflects a technical improvement. Based on the amendment, however, examiner has updated the rejection above.
Regarding applicant’s argument in the last paragraph of page 9 continued to the first paragraph of page 10 of applicant remarks, it appears that applicant argued that the allowable (over prior arts) subject matter of claim 1 should be sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. In response, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner would like to remind that the analysis of eligibility is different from that of novelty and obviousness.
While the patentability of claims over the prior art is a factor for consideration in relevant parts of subject matter eligibility test, in this particular scenario, the allowable (over prior arts) subject matter previously incorporated from canceled claim 17 to claim 1 has been actually interpreted as an expansion of the mental step and similarly the newly amended claim limitations are interpreted as a combination of a mere expansion of mental step along with some mere instruction to apply and merely linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a field of use or technological environment which are also recited at a high level of generality, etc. See the updated rejection above for further details.
For this argument and the previous argument for step 2A, examiner would like to remind:
See MPEP 2106.05(a):
- It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception.
Accordingly, given the current claim language, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been updated to reflect the amendment as considered and analyzed by the examiner. See above rejection for further details.
Accordingly, claims 1-16, and 18-20 are patentable over prior arts, but are not patent eligible due to having the pending 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections (and the 112(d) rejection for claim 16).
Suggestions:
In order to move the prosecution forward, examiner recommends applicant to provide further claim amendments with inventive features that may help overcome the current rejection based on further search and consideration. As previously suggested, Examiner would like to note, for example, further defining the “frame” (such as in specification, 0028), “reverse engineering” along with language focused on actuator state changes such as in specification 0049-50 etc. and further defining “modular industrial plant" by incorporating physical components with specific configurations of those components using the claimed logic with the detail of how these are being implemented within the claim language may possibly help overcome current prior art rejections, depending on the claim language.
Pertinent Art(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Solimano et al. (US 20100082141 A1) relates generally to a Manufacturing Executing System (MES) implements a planned manufacturing process and controls the corresponding production at the plant floor in a method and in a system for managing and controlling manufacturing processes planned by an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and produced by the plant floor. The method includes defining sequential process segments. Each sequential process segment includes a plurality of actions to be performed at a plant floor level. The method includes the execution of a software tool including the steps of activating a sequential process segment and sequentially executing the respective actions. The method further includes defining state machines including a plurality of states and state transitions corresponding to actions to be performed at plant floor. A state manager tool is executed to define the state machines. A software tool is activated by the state manager tool to execute the state transitions of the state machine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARZIA T MONTY whose telephone number is (571)272-5441. The examiner can normally be reached on T-F: 11 am - 5 pm (approximately). 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, Robert Fennema can be reached on 571-272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5441.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARZIA T MONTY/Examiner, Art Unit 2117 /ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117