DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on 11/13/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
This action is Final.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C.
120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Argument 1: The applicant argues that claim 1 and its analogous claims are not directed to an abstract idea because, when evaluated as a whole, the claim does not recite a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, since it requires querying a knowledge base and using a knowledge base that is trained to map past control loop data to templates, which they contend a person cannot do with pen and paper. They also argue the Office misapplied the guidance on extra solution activity because the receiving step is not a mere data transfer, since it requires matching past control loop data to new control loop data, mapping, and selecting a template, which they characterize as meaningful claim activity. They further argue the claim is integrated into a practical application because it provides configuration data that instantiates the selected template for implementation of a new control loop in an engineering system, and the added attribute clause, including performing a control operation, further ties the claim to technical control system operation. They also argue the Office did not properly perform Step 2A Prong Two under MPEP 2106.04(d) and did not address practical application considerations, including an asserted transformation from a query and digitized design data into configuration data used to implement a control loop. Finally, they argue that even if an exception is found, the ordered combination provides significantly more than routine activity, and that any WURC analysis should be done at Step 2B rather than being assumed at Step 2A.
Examiner Response to Argument 1: The examiner has considered the argument set forth above but is not persuaded because claim 1, as currently amended, still recites, at a high level, comparing information and selecting a template based on whether past control loop data matches new control loop data, which is a mental evaluation that can be performed by a person with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore remains a mental process under Step 2A Prong 1. The recited “knowledge base is trained” language is stated functionally and does not require any particular training technique or specific improvement to computer functionality, and the added clause that the control loop data “describes an attribute of a control loop including performing a control operation” merely characterizes the information being compared and used for the mapping and matching, which likewise remains within the mental evaluation. Further, the limitations of receiving a selected template and providing configuration data amount to receiving and outputting information for later use, and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claim does not recite any specific control improvement or specific implementation details that change how the computer or engineering system operates, beyond the intended use context of “implementation in an engineering system.” Accordingly, the claim as a whole is not directed to a practical application and does not add significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, and the rejection is maintained.
Argument 2: The applicant argues the Office has not established a prima facie case of obviousness for claim 1 and its analogous claims because Jirkovsky allegedly discloses only a static template library, not a knowledge base trained to map past control loop data from prior engineering projects to templates based on past instantiation, and because Jirkovsky’s input and output tags and relationships are not the claimed new or past control loop data and do not describe an attribute including performing a control operation. They argue Duke’s training is directed to symbol or character recognition using image based training data rather than training a knowledge base to map control loop data to templates, and they argue Lekron’s duplicating a previous loop is merely repeating a prior loop type selection and does not involve matching new control loop data to past control loop data. They further argue the Office did not clearly articulate a reason to combine and that the proposed combination would render Jirkovsky unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, citing the unsatisfactory for intended purpose rationale. For claim 3, they argue Koltun normalizes SVG vector graphics and thus normalizes a graphic object rather than standardizing or normalizing control loop data. For claims relying on Koziolek, they argue Koziolek only discusses comparing newly generated code to existing code and reviewing merge conflicts and does not teach the claimed submission for conflict review, engineering review, review data, or updating steps as mapped. They also generally argue that because the independent claim is not taught, combining the base references with Koltun or Koziolek for the dependent claim rejections is improper, and they assert the dependent claims are at least allowable based on their dependency from the independent claims.
Examiner Response to Argument 2: The examiner has considered the argument set forth above but is not persuaded because the applied references, as mapped, collectively teach or render obvious the claimed template based control loop configuration workflow, including identifying control loop information from digitized design data, selecting an applicable template, creating an instance of the template with the identified loop related data, and outputting the resulting loop configuration for use in an engineering or industrial control environment, and the added “performing a control operation” clause is met by the same mapped teachings that the control loops are used to control machines and instruments in the industrial environment. Further, the “trained knowledge base” limitation is satisfied by Duke’s teaching of using previously tagged P and ID diagrams as training data to generate a model, which is to be the same as training a knowledge base using past project data so it can later support mapping and selection, while Jirkovsky supplies the template based extraction, selection, and instantiation workflow, and Lekron teaches selecting a stored prior loop pattern or module precisely because it corresponds to a prior loop and using it to accelerate building a selected loop configuration. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these teachings because they address the same problem of efficiently reusing proven control loop patterns and prior engineering information to accelerate and standardize control system configuration, and the combination uses known techniques for their known purpose without changing the fundamental operation of the references. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments do not overcome the established prima facie case of obviousness, and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition
of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1: The claim is directed to a method, which falls under the category of a process. The limitation satisfies step 1.
Step 2A Prong 1:(a) “querying a knowledge base with a query for a template to map with new control loop data of a new control loop identified in new digitized design data for a new engineering project, the query including the new control loop data, wherein the knowledge base is trained to map past control loop data of past control loops identified in past digitized design data from one or more past engineering projects to respective templates based on past instantiation of the respective templates with the past control loops by the one or more past engineering projects;” -- The limitation is directed querying knowledge base to map and train new control loop data with past control data identified in digitized design. The limitation is directed to a process that can completed in the human mind, with aid of pen and paper, and thus is directed to a mental process.
(b) “wherein at least one of the new control loop data or the past control loop data describes an attribute of a control loop including performing a control operation” -- The limitation is directed to characterizing information in the control loop data by describing an attribute of a control loop (including performing a control operation), which is information used for the mapping/matching and selection process. The limitation is directed to a process that can completed in the human mind, with aid of pen and paper, and thus is directed to a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B:(a) “receiving a selected template in response to the query, wherein the selected template is selected from the respective templates based on a mapping with the past control loop data matching the new control loop data;” – The limitation recites receiving selected templates based on query data, where the template is selected based on mapping with past data that matches with the new data. The limitation is directed to merely receiving/sending gathered data, which is not considered to be a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, under step 2B, the act of sending/receiving data to be used for manipulation is a well-understood, routine, and convention activity that cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
(b) “and providing configuration data, including an instantiation of the selected template with the new control loop data, for implementation of the new control loop in an engineering system,” – The limitation recites providing data that includes instantiation of selected templates with new data for which will be applied to a control loop in an engineering system. The limitation to mere instructions to apply data unto a computer, and it cannot be integrated to a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, claim 1 is non-patent eligible. Claims 13 and 20 are analogous to claim 1 because they recite the same querying/trained mapping/matching-based template selection and providing configuration data limitations (including the added “attribute … performing a control operation” clause, notwithstanding the differing terminology in the wherein limitation), in system and computer-readable-medium form with only generic memory/processor/instructions elements, and therefore the same 101 analysis and rejection apply.
Regarding claim 2, (similar to claim 14)
Step 1: The claim is directed to a method, which falls under the category of a process. The limitation satisfies step 1.
There are no elements to be evaluated under Step 2A Prong 1.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B:
“The method of claim 1, further comprising instantiating the new control loop data with the selected template.” – The limitation recites that the method of claim 1 will further comprising the new control loop data with the selected template. The limitation amounts to no more than merely limiting to a particular use/environment, and it cannot be integrated to a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Therefore, claim 2 is non-patent eligible. Claim 14 is analogous to claim 2, and thus will face the same rejection set forth above.
Regarding claim 3,
Step 1: The claim is directed to a method, which falls under the category of a process. The limitation satisfies step 1.
There are no elements to be evaluated under Step 2A Prong 1.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B:
“The method of claim 1, wherein the new control loop data and past control loop data are standardized and/or normalized.” – The limitation is directed to where the new and past control loop data are standardized/normalized. The limitation amounts to no more than mere limiting to a particular field of use/environment, and it cannot be integrated to a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
There are no elements to be evaluated under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Therefore, claim 3 is non-patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, (same to claim 15)
Step 1: The claim is directed to a method, which falls under the category of a process. The limitation satisfies step 1.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“submitting the pairings for a conflict review performed manually and/or automatically;” – The limitation is directed to submitting the pairings of the past templates/control loops for conflict review that can be performed manually or automatically. The limitation recites process that can be performed in the human mind using evaluation, observation, and judgement, using pen and paper, and thus it is directed to a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B:
“collecting, before providing to the knowledge base for training, pairings of past templates and past control loops having identifiers and past control loop data as used for respective past instantiations by the respective past engineering projects;” – The limitation recites collecting past templates and control loops and using respective past instantiations by past engineering projects. The limitation is directed to mere data gathering of collected/past data for data manipulation, which is an insignificant, extra-solution activity, and it is not considered an integration to a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, under Step 2B, the act of merely collecting data used for data processing and/or manipulation is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (WURC) that cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
“receiving review data based on the conflict review;” – The limitation is directed to receiving review data based on the conflict review performed. The limitation is directed to receiving/sending gathered data, which is considered to an insignificant, extra-solution activity, and it cannot be integrated to a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, under Step 2B, the act of sending/receiving data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
“updating the collection as a function of the conflict review data, wherein the knowledge base is created and/or trained using the collection.” – The limitation recite updating the collection of data as an operation of the conflict review gathered data, and that the knowledge base will be generated and/or trained using the collection of data. Updating gathered data is considered to be an insignificant, extra-solution activity that cannot be integrated to a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, under 2B, updating collected data is also considered to be a well-understood, routine and conventional activity (WURC) that cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Therefore, claim 4 is non-patent eligible. Claim 15 are analogous to claim 4, and thus will face the same rejection set forth above.
Regarding claim 5, (analogous to claim 16)
Step 1: The claim is directed to a method, which falls under the category of a process. The limitation satisfies step 1.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“The method of claim 4, wherein the conflict review comprises: identifying a conflict in which first and second control loop data for two different pairings are the same and are paired respectively with different templates; reviewing the digitized design data to identify an additional attribute of the respective first and second control loops that is different for the first control loop relative to the second control loop” – The limitation is directed to a conflict review that comprises identifying conflict within two datasets for its respective pairings to assess if they are the same and correctly paired with different templates, and identifying attributes of the control loops that are different. The limitation is directed to a process that can be completed in the human mind using evaluation, observation, and judgement, using pen and paper if needed, to complete the same task. Thus, the limitation is directed to a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B:
“and including in the review data a new feature to be added to the control loop data in the collection for the first and second control loops that corresponds to the additional attribute so that the first and second control loops have different corresponding control loop data.” – The limitation recited the review data further including a new feature that will be added to the control loop data. The limitation does amount to no more than further limiting to a field of use/environment, and it cannot be integrated to a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Therefore, claim 5 is non-patent eligible. Claim 16 are analogous to claim 5, and thus will face the same rejection set forth above.
Regarding claim 6, (similar to claim 17)
Step 1: The claim is directed to a method, which falls under the category of a process. The limitation satisfies step 1.
There are no elements to be evaluated under Step 2A Prong 1.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B:
“The method of claim 5, further comprising adding the additional attribute to the control loop data of at least one of the first and second control loops.” – The limitation recite adding additional attribute to control loop data for the first and second loops. The limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply/add additional attribute information to gathered data that has been collected for the first and second control loops, which cannot be integrated to a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, claim 6 is non-patent eligible. Claim 17 are analogous to claim 6, and thus will face the same rejection set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, (analogous to claim 18)
Step 1: The claim is directed to a method, which falls under the category of a process. The limitation satisfies step 1.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“The method of claim 1, further comprising: submitting a mapping of the selected template and the new control loop data for engineering review” – The limitation is directed to submitting selected template mapping and new control loop data for an engineering review. The limitation is directed to a process that can be completed in the human mind using evaluation, observation, and judgement. Therefore, the limitation is directed to a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B:
“receiving review data based on the engineering review; ” – The limitation recites receiving review data that’s based on the engineering review. The limitation is directed to mere data gathering, and it is an insignificant, extra-solution activity that cannot be integrated to a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, under Step 2B, the act of sending/receiving data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity that cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
“updating the knowledge base as a function of the review data.” – The limitation recites updating the knowledge base as function of the gathered review data. Merely gathering and updating stored data is an insignificant, extra-solution activity that cannot be integrated to a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, under Step 2B, the act of updating stored data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Therefore, claim 7 is non-patent eligible. Claim 18 are analogous to claim 7, and thus will face the same rejection set forth above.
Regarding claim 8,
Step 1: The claim is directed to a method, which falls under the category of a process. The limitation satisfies step 1.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying the past control loop data in past digitized design data from a past engineering project; and pairing the past control loop data to a past template that was instantiated by the past engineering project using a control loop that corresponds to the past control loop data.” – The limitation is directed to identifying past control data from a past engineering project and pair it to a past template instantiated by the past engineering project using a control loop corresponding to past control loop data. The limitation is directed to a process that can be performed in the human mind using evaluation, observation, and judgement, and thus the limitation is directed to a mental process.
There are no elements to be evaluated under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Therefore, claim 8 is non-patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9,
Step 1: The claim is directed to a method, which falls under the category of a process. The limitation satisfies step 1.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“The method of claim 1, further comprising identifying the new control loop data in the new digitized design data.” – The limitation is directed to identifying new control loop data within the new digitized design data. The limitation is directed to a process that can be completed in the human mind using evaluation, observation, and judgement, and thus the limitation is directed to a mental process.
There are no elements to be evaluated under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Therefore, claim 9 is non-patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10,
Step 1: The claim is directed to a method, which falls under the category of a process. The limitation satisfies step 1.
There are no elements to be evaluated under Step 2A Prong 1.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B:
“The method of claim 1, wherein machine learning is used for training the knowledge base and for responding to queries submitted to the knowledge base.” -- The limitation recites that machine learning will merely be applied for purposes of training and query responses that are submitted to the knowledge base. The limitation is recited in a high level of generality, and thus it cannot be integrated to a practical application, nor can it provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, claim 10 is non-patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11,
Step 1: The claim is directed to a method, which falls under the category of a process. The limitation satisfies step 1.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“The method of claim 1, wherein the past and new control loop data include control loop type, one or more tags, and/or attributes of the one or more tags, wherein the attributes of the one or more tags include system type, signal type, signal count, signal level, alarms, and/or signal and/or equipment description.” – The limitation is directed to labelling and categorizing different tags and types of data relating to signals, alarms, and/or equipment description. Labelling/categorizing data and information is a process that can be completed in the human mind using evaluation, observation, and judgement (with aid of pen and paper), and thus it is directed to a mental process.
There are no elements to be evaluated under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Therefore, claim 11 is non-patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, (analogous to claim 19)
Step 1: The claim is directed to a method, which falls under the category of a process. The limitation satisfies step 1.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“and updating the knowledge base includes increasing the confidence score when the mapping was approved by the engineering review, and decreasing the confidence score when the mapping was disapproved and/or a modification to or replacement of the selected template was suggested by the engineering review.” – The limitation is directed to increasing/decreasing a confidence score value when a mapping is either modified, disapproved , or replacement of a selected template that was suggested by the engineering review. The limitation is directed to a process that can be completed in the human mind using evaluation, observation, and judgement. Thus, the limitation is directed to a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B:
“The method of claim 7, wherein each mapping in the knowledge base has an associated confidence score” – The limitation recites that each mapping in the knowledge base previously introduced will further include associated confidence scores. The limitation amounts to no more than merely further limiting to a particular field of use/environment, and it cannot be integrated to a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Therefore, claim 12 is non-patent eligible.
Furthermore, for claims 14-20, the limitation related to “The automated engineering system of claim [x], wherein the processor upon execution of the instructions is further configured to”, would be evaluated under Step 2A Prong 2. The limitation recites a system where the processor upon its execution of the instructions will further perform the following tasks, which does not amount to a practical application , nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this
Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not
identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the
prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention
pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are
summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 8-10, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20160161930-A1 by Jirkovsky et. al. (referred herein as Jirkovsky) in view of US-11195007-B2 by Duke et. al. (referred herein as Duke) further in view of US-4862345 by Lekron et. al. (referred herein as Lekron).
Regarding Claim 1,
Jirkovsky teaches:
A method comprising: querying a knowledge base with a query for a template to map with new control loop data of a new control loop identified in new digitized design data for a new engineering project, the query including the new control loop data, ([Jirkovsky, [0023]] “wherein the input tags and output tags for an instrument and/or a group of instruments and the at least one relationship ... may be derivable from a template library, and identifying a control loop (type) for each established relationship among the input tags and the output tags”, wherein the examiner interprets “template library” to be the same as the claimed knowledge base, “input tags and output tags ... derivable” to be the same as the new control-loop data included in the query, and “identifying a control loop ... for each established relationship” to be the same as selecting the template that maps to the new control loop).
receiving a selected template in response to the query; ([Jirkovsky, [0044]] “A selected template may be applicable on an instrument (or group of instruments)... The template represents an overall control loop or a part of a control loop...”, wherein the examiner interprets that the transformation engine identifies and applies “a selected template” to be the same as receiving a selected template in response to the query because the template is delivered by the engine immediately after the query for an instrument or group of instruments is processed.)
and providing configuration data, including an instantiation of the selected template with the new control loop data, for implementation of the new control loop in an engineering system, ([Jirkovsky, [0046]] “when all necessary I/O tags for control and the corresponding relationships among them are identified, at step S236 the P&ID integration tool 260 applies the second transformation 264 in order to create an instance for each bundle of I/O tags and relationships. The second transformation 264 may be a template corresponding to the identified I/O tags and relationships and provides one or more identified control loop types.”; [Jirkovsky, [0042]] “the P&ID integration tool 260 receives the extracted data from the P&ID and outputs at its end control loops (or control loop types) for application to the control system of the industrial environment.”; [Jirkovsky, [0053]] “In step S208, the control loops may then be distributed to control modules within the industrial environment, where the control loops can be used to appropriately control the machines and instruments within the industrial environment.”, wherein the examiner interprets creating an instance of a template with the identified tag bundles, outputting those control-loop objects for application, and distributing them to control modules to be the same as instantiating the selected template with new control-loop data, providing the configuration data, and implementing the new control loop within the engineering system, respectively.)
wherein at least one of the new control loop data or the past control loop data describes an attribute of a control loop including performing a control operation. ([Jirkovsky, [0053]] “control loops can be used to appropriately control the machines and instruments…”, wherein the examiner interprets control-loop data describing a control loop that is used to “appropriately control” machines/instruments to be the same as the claimed data describing an attribute including performing a control operation because they are both directed to control-loop information associated with performing control in an engineering/industrial environment.)
Jirkovsky does not teach wherein the knowledge base is trained to map past control loop data of past control loops … to respective templates based on past instantiation …; and wherein the selected template is selected from the respective templates based on a mapping with the past control loop data matching the new control loop data.
Duke teaches:
wherein the knowledge base is trained to map past control loop data … from one or more past engineering projects ([Duke, col 1, lines 64-65] “The training data may be synthetic or collected from actual previously tagged P&ID diagrams.”, wherein the examiner interprets “training data … collected from actual previously tagged P&ID diagrams” to be the same as past control-loop data from prior engineering projects that train the knowledge base to perform the claimed mapping).
Jirkovsky and Duke do not teach wherein the selected template is selected … based on a mapping with the past control loop data matching the new control loop data.
Lekron teaches:
wherein the selected template is selected … based on a mapping with the past control loop data matching the new control loop data ([Lekron, page 11, col. 5-6] “The operator may also choose to duplicate the previous loop... Once these selections are made, the system enters a fast-build mode during which it builds the selected loopage. The program calls a program module corresponding to the particular loop selected.”, wherein the examiner interprets Lekron’s option to “duplicate the previous loop” and use a “program module… corresponding to the particular loop selected” to be the same as selecting the template based on a mapping/match to past control-loop data because they are both directed to selecting a stored prior loop pattern (template) precisely because it corresponds to (matches) the prior loop configuration.)
Jirkovsky, Duke, Lekron, and the instant application are analogous art because they are all directed to automating the generation and implementation of control-loop configurations for industrial engineering systems.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the template-based control-loop generation approach disclosed by Jirkovsky to include the “duplicate the previous loop… fast-build mode” disclosed by Lekron. One would be motivated to do so to efficiently accelerate deployment of new control loops, as suggested by Lekron (“fast-build mode during which it builds the selected loopage”). Claims 13 and 20 are analogous to claim 1, and therefore the rejection above applies to claims 13 and 20 as well (notwithstanding differing terminology in the wherein clause).
Regarding Claim 2, Jirkovsky, Duke, and Lekron teach The method of claim 1, (see rejection of claim 1).
Jirkovsky further teaches further comprising instantiating the new control loop data with the selected template([Jirkovsky [0046] “create an instance for each bundle of I/O tags and relationships. The second transformation 264 may be a template corresponding to the identified I/O tags and relationships and provides one or more identified control loop types”, wherein the examiner interprets create an instance for each bundle of I/O tags and relationships using a template corresponding to the identified I/O tags and relationships to be the same as instantiating the new control loop data with the selected template because they are both directed to applying a selected template in order to generate a concrete control-loop instance that embodies the specific control-loop data).
Jirkovsky, Duke, Lekron, and the instant application are analogous art because they are all directed to automating engineering system configuration using control loop data and reusable templates derived from prior digitized design data.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the template-based control system configuration disclosed by Lekron to include the process by which to “create an instance for each bundle of I/O tags” disclosed by Jirkovsky. One would be motivated to do so to efficiently enable automated generation of specific control loop instances based on predefined templates, as suggested by Jirkovsky (“create an instance for each bundle of I/O tags and relationships”). Claim 14 is analogous to claim 2, and therefore the rejection above applies to claim 14 as well.
Regarding claim 8, Jirkovsky, Duke, and Lekron teach The method of claim 1, (see rejection of claim 1).
Jirkovsky further teaches identifying the past control-loop data in past digitized design data from a past engineering project ([Jirkovsky, [0004]] “parsing… a P&ID and identifying… [and] identifying… a control loop…”, wherein the examiner interprets parsing/identifying control loops in a P&ID to be the same as identifying past control-loop data contained in past digitized design documents.)
and pairing the past control-loop data to a past template that was instantiated by the past engineering project using a control loop that corresponds to the past control loop data. ([Jirkovsky, [0026]] “the method can further comprise identifying at least one of the templates for each instrument and/or for each group of instruments,” wherein the examiner interprets identifying templates from a template library to be the same as pairing past control-loop data to a past template corresponding to that past control loop because they are both directed to associating identified loop information with an applicable template.)
Jirkovsky, Duke, Lekron, and the instant application are analogous art because they are all directed to automated engineering systems that interpret control loop data for use in process control design and configuration.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the engineering system configuration and deployment process disclosed by Duke to include the “parsing a P&ID and identifying a control loop” disclosed by Jirkovsky. One would be motivated to do so to efficiently automate the extraction and use of control logic from digitized design diagrams, as suggested by Jirkovsky ([Jirkovsky, [0004]] “parsing… a P&ID and identifying… [and] identifying… a control loop…”).
Regarding claim 9, Jirkovsky, Duke, and Lekron teach The method of claim 1, (see rejection of claim 1).
Jirkovsky further teaches further comprising identifying the new control loop data in the new digitized design data. ([Jirkovsky, [0021]] “the control loop extraction module 215 may identify a control loop for a relationship between the one or more input tags and the one or more output tags associated with the instruments,” wherein the examiner interprets identifying a control loop for a relationship between input and output tags to be the same as identifying the new control loop data in the new digitized design data.)
Jirkovsky, Duke, Lekron, and the instant application are analogous art because they are all directed to automated control system design processes that identify and reuse control logic based on digitized design inputs.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the automated control system configuration based on digitized input diagrams disclosed by Duke to include the “control loop extraction module” taught by Jirkovsky. One would be motivated to do so to efficiently extract structured control logic from digitized engineering drawings using input/output tags, as suggested by Jirkovsky ([0021] “the control loop extraction module 215 may identify a control loop for a relationship between the one or more input tags and the one or more output tags associated with the instruments,”).
Regarding claim 10, Jirkovsky, Duke, and Lekron teach The method of claim 1, (see rejection of claim 1).
Duke further teaches wherein machine learning is used for training the knowledge base and for responding to queries submitted to the knowledge base. ([Duke, col. 18, lines 47-49] “may cause processor 1024 to apply a deep learning process or convolution neural network to train data input in the data store 1022”, wherein the examiner interprets applying a deep-learning neural network to train data in a data store to be the same as using machine learning for training the knowledge base) AND ([Duke, col. 4, lines 61-64] “Identified symbols or tags may be indexed and stored in a database… and searched within the database”, wherein the examiner interprets enabling the database to be searched to be the same as responding to queries submitted to the knowledge base).
Jirkovsky, Duke, Lekron, and the instant application are analogous art because they are all directed to automated control system design and generation using templates, control loop data, or stored engineering knowledge.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the machine learning-driven knowledge base system disclosed by Duke to include the “placement of pre-tested modules” disclosed by Lekron. One would be motivated to do so to efficiently configure drawings, as suggested by Lekron ([Lekron, col. 7, lines 5-9] “The placement of pre-tested modules for standard control strategies into the configuration drawing is fast, reliable and allows use of standard proven strategies.”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jirkovsky in view of Duke in view of Lekron further in view of NPL reference “Automated generation of modular PLC control software from P&ID diagrams in process industry.” by Koltun et al. (referred herein as Koltun).
Regarding claim 3, Jirkovsky, Duke, and Lekron teach The method of claim 1, (see rejection of claim 1).
Jirkovsky, Duke, and Lekron do not teach wherein the new control loop data and past control loop data are standardized and/or normalized.
Koltun teaches wherein the new control loop data and past control loop data are standardized and/or normalized. ([Koltun, page 3, sec 4] “The vector is calculated and normalized for each line after which it is sampled to its end while the corresponding matrix entries are filled” and [Koltun, page 3, sec 4] “The resulting matrix, containing connected piping and instrumentation objects, can finally be exported into various standardized exchange formats such as XML”, wherein the examiner interprets the “vector” that is “calculated and normalized for each line” and the resulting matrix that contains “connected piping and instrumentation objects” to be the same as normalizing both newly-acquired and previously-stored control-loop data because they are both directed to converting extracted engineering/control-loop-related information (and its relationships) into a consistent representation suitable for automated processing, comparison, and reuse; the examiner further interprets exporting the resulting matrix into “standardized exchange formats such as XML” to be the same as standardizing both the new and the historical control-loop data because they are both directed to representing extracted control-loop-related information in a standardized format for storage, comparison, and subsequent automated processing.)
Jirkovsky, Duke, Lekron, Koltun, and the instant application are analogous art because they are all directed to automated design and configuration of engineering control systems using digitized design data and reusable control logic patterns.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the automated control loop generation system disclosed by Jirkovsky to include the process by which the “vector is calculated and normalized for each line” disclosed by Koltun. One would be motivated to do so to efficiently ensure consistency, compatibility, and reuse across new and historical control-loop-related data representations used for automated processing and comparison, as suggested by Koltun (([Koltun, page 3, sec 4] “The vector is calculated and normalized for each line after which it is sampled to its end while the corresponding matrix entries are filled” and [Koltun, page 3, sec 4] “The resulting matrix, containing connected piping and instrumentation objects, can finally be exported into various standardized exchange formats such as XML”).
Claims 4-7, 11-12, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jirkovsky in view of Duke in view of Lekron further in view of NPL reference “Rule-based code generation in industrial automation: four large-scale case studies applying the cayenne method.” by Koziolek et al. (referred herein as Koziolek).
Regarding Claim 4, Jirkovsky, Duke, and Lekron teach The method of claim 1, (see rejection of claim 1).
Jirkovsky further teaches further comprising: collecting, before providing to the knowledge base for training, pairings of past templates and past control loops having identifiers and past control loop data as used for respective past instantiations by the respective past engineering projects; ([Jirkovsky, abstract and [0023]] “the input tags and output tags ... are derivable from a template library, and identif[ies] a control loop for each established relationship”, wherein the examiner interprets deriving input/output tags from a template library together with identifying a control loop for each relationship to be the same as assembling/collecting template and control-loop pairings that retain identifiers and historical loop data because they are both directed to forming reusable associations between templates and identified loops.)
Duke further teaches wherein the knowledge base is created and/or trained using the collection.([Duke, col. 14, lines 38-40] “generating a symbol recognition model based on the symbol recognition training data set”, wherein the examiner interprets generating a model from training data to be the same as creating and training the knowledge base using the collected pairings because they are both directed to forming a trained model/knowledge representation based on prior examples.)
Jirkovsky, Duke, and Lekron do not teach submitting the pairings for a conflict review performed manually and/or automatically; receiving review data based on the conflict review; and updating the collection as a function of the conflict review data.
Koziolek teaches:
submitting the pairings for a conflict review performed manually and/or automatically;([Koziolek, page 154] “the rule engine optionally generates C&E matrices as an intermediate representation to facilitate manual review and approval by the engineering contractor”, wherein the examiner interprets generation of C&E matrices as an intermediate representation for “manual review and approval” to be the same as submitting/forwarding the collected template/control-loop pairings for conflict review because they are both directed to presenting the generated pairings/mappings in a reviewable form so inconsistencies/conflicts can be identified and resolved prior to acceptance/use.)
receiving review data based on the conflict review; and updating the collection as a function of the conflict review data, ([Koziolek, page 154] “the CAYENNE approach suggests a merging approach where the newly generated code is compared with the existing code and lets the control engineer review and approve any merge conflicts”, wherein the examiner interprets the engineer “review and approve” of identified “merge conflicts” to be the same as generating/receiving conflict-review feedback (review data) because they are both directed to producing review outcomes responsive to identified conflicts; and wherein the examiner further interprets resolving/approving merge conflicts in the context of comparing newly generated outputs with existing outputs to be the same as updating/modifying the stored collection of pairings because they are both directed to changing what is retained/accepted in the stored set of engineering associations after conflicts are identified.)
Jirkovsky, Duke, Lekron, Koziolek, and the instant application are analogous art because they are all directed to improving automation of engineering design through rule/template reuse and review/validation workflows.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the template-based control system automation disclosed by Jirkovsky to include Koziolek’s review/approval and merge-conflict workflow. One would be motivated to do so to validate and correct the collected pairings prior to reuse and training, as suggested by Koziolek. Claim 15 is analogous to claim 4, and therefore the rejection above applies to claim 15 as well.
Regarding claim 5, Jirkovsky, Duke, Lekron, and Koziolek teach The method of claim 4, (see rejection of claim 4).
Jirkovsky further teaches:
wherein the conflict review comprises: identifying a conflict in which first and second control loop data for two different pairings are the same and are paired respectively with different templates ([Jirkovsky, [0032]] “Conventionally, when two or more instruments have the same loop number, they refer to the same loop for one process or sub-process.” and [Jirkovsky, [0047]] “Although the P&ID integration step has been described above as applying two different transformations (i.e. to two templates).”, wherein the examiner interprets two instruments having the same loop number (i.e., referring to the same loop) to be the same as first and second control-loop data for two different pairings being the same because both are directed to duplicated/identical loop identification data corresponding to the same loop; and wherein the examiner further interprets applying two different transformations (i.e., to two templates) to be the same as those identical control-loop data being paired with different templates because both are directed to the same loop being associated with different template-based transformations.)
reviewing the digitized design data to identify an additional attribute of the respective first and second control loops that is different for the first control loop relative to the second control loop([Jirkovsky, [0033]] “The control system engineer then must determine corresponding input tags and output tags for control for each instrument ...”, wherein the examiner interprets determining corresponding input/output tags for each instrument to be the same as reviewing digitized design data to identify an additional distinguishing attribute between otherwise duplicated loop records because both are directed to examining the design/loop information to identify differences that determine the loops.)
including in the review data a new feature to be added to the control loop data in the collection for the first and second control loops that corresponds to the additional attribute so that the first and second control loops have different corresponding control loop data ([Jirkovsky, [0052]] “The control system engineer may then define or add in appropriate parameters for each control loop…”, wherein the examiner interprets defining/adding appropriate parameters for each control loop to be the same as including review-derived information identifying a new feature to add to the stored control-loop data corresponding to the additional attribute because both are directed to augmenting the loop data record with additional parameters/features so the loop representations are no longer identical.)
Jirkovsky, Duke, Lekron, Koziolek, and the instant application are analogous art because they are all directed to automated systems for reviewing and updating control loop data in engineering designs.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined control-loop automation and review workflow (as taught by Jirkovsky/Duke/Lekron and further including Koziolek’s review/conflict handling) to incorporate Jirkovsky’s disambiguation approach of adding appropriate parameters when duplicate loop identifiers occur. One would be motivated to do so to resolve conflicts arising from duplicated loop identifiers by introducing distinguishing attributes so the stored loop data are consistent and usable for subsequent template selection and instantiation, as suggested by Jirkovsky ([0052] “The control system engineer may then define or add in appropriate parameters for each control loop…”). Claim 16 is analogous to claim 5, and therefore the rejection above applies to claim 16 as well.
Regarding claim 6, Jirkovsky, Duke, Lekron, and Koziolek teach The method of claim 5, (see rejection of claim 5).
Lekron further teaches further comprising adding the additional attribute to the control loop data of at least one of the first and second control loops ([Lekron, col. 3, lines 53-55] “The loop may then be edited by adding or deleting components, component specifications, junction boxes, input/output devices, or wiring information.”, wherein the examiner interprets editing the loop by adding component specifications and other loop-related information to be the same as adding the additional attribute to the stored control-loop data of at least one of the loops because both are directed to modifying the stored loop record by adding attribute information that changes how the loop is represented/configured.)
Jirkovsky, Duke, Lekron, Koziolek, and the instant application are analogous art because they are all directed to automated engineering systems that digitally modify or configure control loop data.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the automated engineering workflow to incorporate Lekron’s loop editing by adding attributes/components as part of resolving identified conflicts/duplications, in order to update loop data records to reflect distinguishing attributes and maintain consistency across stored loop data, as suggested by Lekron [(Lekron, col. 3, lines 53-55] “The loop may then be edited by adding or deleting components, component specifications, junction boxes, input/output devices, or wiring information.”). Claim 17 is analogous to claim 6, and therefore the rejection above applies to claim 17 as well.
Regarding claim 7, Jirkovsky, Duke, and Lekron teach The method of claim 1, (see rejection of claim 1).
Jirkovsky, Duke, and Lekron do not teach submitting a mapping of the selected template and the new control-loop data for engineering review; receiving review data based on the engineering review; and updating the knowledge base as a function of the review data.
Koziolek teaches submitting a mapping of the selected template and the new control-loop data for engineering review; receiving review data based on the engineering review; and updating the knowledge base as a function of the review data ([Koziolek, page 154] “The rule engine optionally generates C&E matrices as an intermediate representation to facilitate manual review and approval by the engineering contractor”, [Koziolek, page 160] “provide the involved engineers detailed feedback on the generation and allow humans to override the rule engine if needed” AND [Koziolek, page 156] “the triple of cause, traversal, and effect either matched with an existing interlocking rule, or we created a new rule and added it to our rule database”, wherein the examiner interprets generating C&E matrices as an intermediate representation for “manual review and approval” to be the same as submitting the mapping (selected template instantiated/matched to new loop data) for engineering review because both are directed to presenting the generated engineering mapping in a reviewable form; wherein the examiner interprets providing engineers “detailed feedback” and allowing override to be the same as receiving review data based on the engineering review because both are directed to producing review outcomes/feedback that reflect approval, disapproval, or suggested modifications; and wherein the examiner interprets matching with an existing rule or creating a new rule and adding it to the rule database to be the same as updating the knowledge base as a function of the review data because both are directed to updating the stored rule/knowledge repository based on the outcome of human-in-the-loop review.)
Jirkovsky, Duke, Lekron, Koziolek, and the instant application are analogous art because they are all directed to systems that automate engineering design and control logic generation while incorporating feedback to improve design rules/templates.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the template-based transformation and control loop configuration system disclosed by Jirkovsky to include Koziolek’s “detailed feedback” and “override” workflow. One would be motivated to do so to improve correctness and acceptance of generated mappings/rules through engineering review and feedback-driven updates, as suggested by Koziolek ([Koziolek, page 160] “provide the involved engineers detailed feedback on the generation and allow humans to override the rule engine if needed”). Claim 18 is analogous to claim 7, and therefore the rejection above applies to claim 18 as well.
Regarding claim 11, Jirkovsky, Duke, and Lekron teach The method of claim 1, (see rejection of claim 1).
Lekron further teaches:
wherein the past and new control loop data include control loop type; ([Lekron, col. 4, lines 60-65] “The choice of the loop type… is dictated by the nature of the piping and instrument diagram (P&ID).”, wherein the examiner interprets “loop type” to be the same as control loop type because both are directed to categorizing the type of a control loop derived from the P&ID.)
include system type… ([Lekron, col. 5, lines 7-14] “the operator decides whether a distributive control system (DCS) will be used, whether the control system will be a single station type…”, wherein the examiner interprets DCS and single station type to be the same as system type because both are directed to categorizing the type of control system used.)
signal type,… ([Lekron, col. 10, lines 52-57] “This transducer converts the electrical signal to an air signal”, wherein the examiner interprets electrical signal and air signal to be the same as signal type because both are directed to categorizing the type of signal used in the loop.)
signal and/or equipment description ([Lekron, FIG. 3 description] “the components for each of the three loops are separately listed… along with their tag numbers, their specification numbers, manufacturers, loop drawing numbers, and location.”, wherein the examiner interprets specification numbers, manufacturers, loop drawing numbers, and location to be the same as signal and/or equipment description because both are directed to descriptive metadata associated with loop components/equipment and signals.)
Jirkovsky further teaches:
one or more tags, and/or attributes of the one or more tags… ([Jirkovsky, [0023]] “identifying one or more input tags and one or more output tags associated with each identified instrument”, wherein the examiner interprets input tags and output tags to be the same as one or more tags because both are directed to tag identifiers associated with instruments/loops.)
signal count, ([Jirkovsky, [0033]] “temperature recording controller… may have at least one output tag and at least two input tags for control”, wherein the examiner interprets at least one output tag and at least two input tags to be the same as signal count because both are directed to the number of signals/tags associated with the loop.)
Koziolek further teaches signal level, alarms ([Koziolek, page 157] “Alarm limits are specified for the level sensor… indicating the allowed low and high filling levels.”, wherein the examiner interprets “level sensor” / “filling levels” to be the same as signal level, and wherein the examiner further interprets “alarm limits… allowed low and high…” to be the same as alarms because both are directed to threshold-based alarm parameters for a measured level signal.)
Jirkovsky, Duke, Lekron, Koziolek, and the instant application are analogous art because they are all directed to automated control loop systems that analyze and store descriptive control loop parameters for configuration and monitoring purposes.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control loop identification/tagging system disclosed by Jirkovsky to include the use of “alarm limits” disclosed by Koziolek. One would be motivated to do so to effectively incorporate alarm-based constraints as part of system metadata to enhance operational safety and monitoring, as suggested by Koziolek ([Koziolek, page 157] “Alarm limits are specified for the level sensor B102 … indicating the allowed low and high filling levels.”).
Regarding claim 12, Jirkovsky, Duke, Lekron, and Koziolek teach The method of claim 7, (see rejection of claim 7).
Duke further teaches wherein each mapping in the knowledge base has an associated confidence score; and updating the knowledge base includes increasing the confidence score when the mapping was approved by the engineering review, and decreasing the confidence score when the mapping was disapproved and/or a modification to or replacement of the selected template was suggested by the engineering review. ([Duke, col. 18, lines 57-58] “associating the patterns with a score and corresponding label”, [Duke, col. 10, lines 26-29] “the threshold value may be adjusted by a user during a verification step to confirm that symbols identified by the model… are accurate”, and [Duke, col. 18, lines 21-25] “augmenting training data with any misclassified contour sub-images, retraining… and validating… accuracy”, wherein the examiner interprets associating patterns with a “score” to be the same as each mapping having an associated confidence score because both are directed to attaching a numeric scoring metric representing confidence/likelihood of correctness to an identified pattern/mapping. The examiner further interprets a user verification step that confirms identified symbols are accurate (and the associated threshold adjustment used for that confirmation) to be the same as approval of a mapping by engineering review and increasing confidence in the approved mapping because both are directed to human validation confirming correctness and thereby reinforcing the reliability of the mapping, and wherein the examiner further interprets identifying misclassifications and augmenting training data/retraining/validating to be the same as disapproval and/or suggested modification/replacement and decreasing confidence in the prior mapping because both are directed to treating the prior mapping as insufficiently reliable and performing corrective action that corresponds to lowered confidence and revision/replacement.)
Jirkovsky, Duke, Lekron, Koziolek, and the instant application are analogous art because they are all directed to automation using trained models/knowledge representations that are verified and refined based on review/validation feedback.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Duke’s scored-pattern/verification approach into the engineering review workflow so that mappings/templates can be tracked with confidence metrics and adjusted based on approval/disapproval outcomes, thereby improving the accuracy and reliability of automated mappings used for subsequent reuse as disclosed by the remaining references. One would be motivated to use Duke’s approach for engineering review using numeric metrics and scoring criteria as suggested by Duke ([Duke, col. 18, lines 57-58] “associating the patterns with a score and corresponding label”, [Duke, col. 10, lines 26-29] “the threshold value may be adjusted by a user during a verification step to confirm that symbols identified by the model… are accurate”, and [Duke, col. 18, lines 21-25] “augmenting training data with any misclassified contour sub-images, retraining… and validating… accuracy”). Claim 19 is analogous to claim 12, and therefore the rejection above applies to claim 19 as well.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVAN KAPOOR whose telephone number is (703)756-1434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00AM - 5:00 PM EST (times may vary).
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, David Yi can be reached at (571) 270-7519. 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.
/DEVAN KAPOOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2126
/LUIS A SITIRICHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2126