DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-9 and 12-14 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the prior art references of record fail to teach “a label attached to a result of operation of the second calculation formula, wherein the label includes identifier information which identifies a record in the operation information”. Examiner disagrees with this assessment because Stone teaches “Control then proceeds to 420, at which the object resolver identifies the object instances associated with the requested service” (Para 0056).
Applicant argues the prior art references of record fail to teach “wherein the common format is a file format including at least one of text, Comma- Separated Values (CSV). or eXtensible Markup Language (XML)”. Examiner disagrees because Chassapis teaches “Once checked, the results are sent to a data output formatting module 280 for formatting into a standard format, such as HTML or XML” (Para 0071).
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, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following is Examiner's analysis of the claimed invention under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG)
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claims 1 recites a machine (device), claim 12 recites a manufacture (non-transitory computer readable storage medium).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 1 (and similar claim 12) recites “the operation information having an association of a second calculation formula obtained by modifying the first calculation formula using the monitoring item of the project data, with a label attached to a result of operation of the second calculation formula, wherein the label includes identifier information which identifies a record in the operation information” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. The step of “obtaining a second calculation formula” is the recitation of a mathematical algorithm; therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 1 recites “a design support device comprising: a project memory to store project data including device information that is information about a device and monitoring information that is information about a monitoring item and is linked to the device information” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 12 recites “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium in which a design support program is stored, the design support program being configured to cause a computer to execute: a procedure of storing project data including device information that is information about a device and monitoring information that is information about a monitoring item and is linked to the device information” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 1 (and similar claim 12) recites “the project data having information necessary to control the device, stored therein; a specification memory to store, therein, specification data that is data in which a specification serving as a design guideline of a device profile is defined” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 1 (and similar claim 12) recites “and includes an operated monitoring item name defined by a first calculation formula; and device profile generation circuitry to generate a device profile including device- monitoring item information and operation information on the basis of the project data, the device-monitoring item information having a description of the monitoring information according to a common format that is not dependent on the device” which is mere necessary data gathering because all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984).
The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly
more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an
ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken
individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a
computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
For the reasons above, claims 1 and 12 are rejected as being directed to nonpatentable
subject matter under §101. This rejection applies equally to the dependent claims. The additional limitations of the dependent claims are addressed briefly below:
Regarding claim 3
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (device).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the project data further includes a communication system representing a communication protocol for acquiring the monitoring item, and the device profile generation circuitry generates the device profile further including protocol information that specifies a method of acquiring data of the monitoring item in the device-monitoring item information by the communication system” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984).
Regarding claim 4
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (device).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “wherein the protocol information further includes a method of acquiring a result of operation of the second calculation formula in the operation information” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (device).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “the calculation formula setting screen including a calculation formula display area in which a second calculation formula obtained by modifying the first calculation formula using the monitoring item in the project data is displayed, a label name setting field in which a label attached to a result of operation of the second calculation formula is set” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the device profile generation circuitry displays a calculation formula setting screen on a display and generates the operation information according to contents set on the calculation formula setting screen; and a storage area setting field in which a storage area storing the result of operation of the second calculation formula is set” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 8
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (device).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the device profile generation circuitry checks whether a monitoring item corresponding to an element constituting the first calculation formula is present in the project data, and displays the first calculation formula for which all the monitoring items corresponding to elements constituting the first calculation formula are present in the project data as the second calculation formula in the calculation formula display area” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 9
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (device).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 9 recites “network analysis circuitry to acquire route information of the device connected via a network; and a project data reader to communicate with the device using the route information and read project data held by the device” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (US 20200225631 A1) hereafter Takahashi in view of Stone (US 20030046615 A1) hereafter Stone
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi teaches a design support device comprising: a project memory to store project data including device information that is information about a device and monitoring information that is information about a monitoring item and is linked to the device information, the project data having information necessary to control the device, stored therein(Para 0073, The aforementioned variables or values stored in the memory may be associated with information of the field device, in addition to a case where each controller 1 is used as a work memory); a specification memory to store, therein, specification data that is data in which a specification serving as a design guideline of a device profile is defined (Para 0178, Such programs can also be recorded in a computer-readable recording medium and be provided as a program product), and device profile generation circuitry to generate a device profile including device-monitoring item information and operation information on the basis of the project data (Para 0064, The terminal device 100 has a function for a user to remotely monitor an object such as a field device), the device-monitoring item information having a description of the monitoring information according to a common format that is not dependent on the device (Para 0064, the terminal device 100 includes, for example, a PC (Personal Computer), but is not limited to a PC. For example, a smart phone, a tablet terminal or the like may be used).
In analogous art, Stone teaches includes an operated monitoring item name defined by a first calculation formula (Para 0026, The MTTF is the time from an initial instant to the next failure event)(“MTTF” teaches “a first calculation formula”); and the operation information having an association of a second calculation formula obtained by modifying the first calculation formula using the monitoring item of the project data (Para 0025, the availability of a service may be calculated as the Mean Time To Failure (MTTF) divided by the sum of the MTTF and the Mean Time To Repair (MTTR), i.e., availability=MTTF/(MTTF+MTTR))(“availability” teaches “a second calculation formula”), with a label attached to a result of operation of the second calculation formula, wherein the label includes identifier information which identifies a record in the operation information(Para 0056, Control then proceeds to 420, at which the object resolver identifies the object instances associated with the requested service). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takahashi to include the teaching of Stone. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to determine reliability of a system, as taught by Stone (Abs, Exemplary embodiments of the invention provide methods and systems for performing reliability balancing).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi in view of Stone teaches the design support device according to claim 1, wherein the project data further includes a communication system representing a communication protocol for acquiring the monitoring item, and the device profile generation circuitry generates the device profile further including protocol information that specifies a method of acquiring data of the monitoring item in the device-monitoring item information by the communication system (Takahashi, Para 0018, A communication device includes a display capable of displaying a screen for remotely monitoring the control device, and a control unit for controlling the terminal device).
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi in view of Stone teaches the design support device according to claim 3, wherein the protocol information further includes a method of acquiring a result of operation of the second calculation formula in the operation information (Takahashi, Para 0025, the availability of a service may be calculated as the Mean Time To Failure (MTTF) divided by the sum of the MTTF and the Mean Time To Repair (MTTR), i.e., availability=MTTF/(MTTF+MTTR)).
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi in view of Stone teaches the design support device according to claim 1, wherein the device profile generation circuitry displays a calculation formula setting screen on a display and generates the operation information according to contents set on the calculation formula setting screen, the calculation formula setting screen including a calculation formula display area in which a second calculation formula obtained by modifying the first calculation formula using the monitoring item in the project data is displayed, a label name setting field in which a label attached to a result of operation of the second calculation formula is set, and a storage area setting field in which a storage area storing the result of operation of the second calculation formula is set (Takahashi, Para 0018, A communication device includes a display capable of displaying a screen for remotely monitoring the control device, and a control unit for controlling the terminal device).
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi in view of Stone teaches the design support device according to claim 7, wherein the device profile generation circuitry checks whether a monitoring item corresponding to an element constituting the first calculation formula is present in the project data, and displays the first calculation formula for which all the monitoring items corresponding to elements constituting the first calculation formula are present in the project data as the second calculation formula in the calculation formula display area (Takahashi, Para 0018, A communication device includes a display capable of displaying a screen for remotely monitoring the control device, and a control unit for controlling the terminal device).
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi in view of Stone teaches the design support device according to any one of claim 1, further comprising: network analysis circuitry to acquire route information of the device connected via a network (Takahashi, Para 0178, the program can also be provided by downloading from a network via the communication interfaces); and a project data reader to communicate with the device using the route information and read project data held by the device (Takahashi, Para 0179, programmable indicator 4 or the terminal device).
Claim 12 is the computer readable storage medium claim corresponding to the device claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claims 2, 5, 6, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (US 20200225631 A1) hereafter Takahashi in view of Chassapis et al (US 20050021712 A1) hereafter Chassapis
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi teaches a design support device comprising:
a project memory to store project data including device information that is information about a device, monitoring information that is information about a monitoring item and is linked to the device information (Para 0073, The aforementioned variables or values stored in the memory may be associated with information of the field device, in addition to a case where each controller 1 is used as a work memory), and a communication system representing a communication protocol for acquiring the monitoring item, the project data having information necessary to control the device, stored therein (Para 0018, A communication device includes a display capable of displaying a screen for remotely monitoring the control device, and a control unit for controlling the terminal device); and device profile generation circuitry to generate a device profile including device-monitoring item information and protocol information on the basis of the project data (Para 0064, The terminal device 100 has a function for a user to remotely monitor an object such as a field device), and the protocol information specifying a method of acquiring data of the monitoring item of the device- monitoring item information by the communication system (Para 0063, One or multiple terminal devices 100 can be connected to the programmable indicator 4 via a wired or wireless communication path).
Takahashi does not appear to explicitly teach the device-monitoring item information having a description of the monitoring information according to a common format that is not dependent on the device; wherein the common format is a file format including at least one of text, Comma- Separated Values (CSV) or eXtensible Markup Language (XML).
In analogous art, Chassapis teaches the device-monitoring item information having a description of the monitoring information according to a common format that is not dependent on the device (Para 0087, The packet structures follow a common format, and allow the universal controller of the present invention to perform control and monitoring functions on each of the devices connected thereto) wherein the common format is a file format including at least one of text, Comma- Separated Values (CSV) or eXtensible Markup Language (XML) (Para 0071, Once checked, the results are sent to a data output formatting module 280 for formatting into a standard format, such as HTML or XML). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takahashi to include the teaching of Chassapis. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to allow communication with a plurality of devices, as taught by Chassapis (Abs, A multi-user, multi-device remote access system is provided for allowing a plurality of non-homogenous, spatially-distributed devices, such as sensors, actuators, controllers, and other similar devices, to be remotely controlled by a user via a user interface).
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi in view of Chassapis teaches the design support device according to claim 2, wherein the device profile generation circuitry generates the device profile including the protocol information that specifies a method of acquiring data of one of the monitoring items in the device-monitoring item information (Takahashi, Para 0018, A communication device includes a display capable of displaying a screen for remotely monitoring the control device, and a control unit for controlling the terminal device).
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi in view of Chassapis the design support device according to claim 2, wherein the project data further includes information used to group the monitoring items, and the device profile generation circuitry generates the device profile including the protocol information that specifies a method of collectively acquiring data of a plurality of the monitoring items grouped in the device-monitoring item information(Takahashi, Para 0018, A communication device includes a display capable of displaying a screen for remotely monitoring the control device, and a control unit for controlling the terminal device).
Claim 13 is the computer readable storage medium claim corresponding to the device claim 2, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 14, Takahashi in view of Chassapis the design support device according to claim 2, further comprising: network analysis circuitry to acquire route information of the device connected via a network (Takahashi, Para 0178, the program can also be provided by downloading from a network (not shown) via the communication interfaces); and a project data reader to communicate with the device using the route information and read project data held by the device (Takahashi, Para 0179, programmable indicator 4 or the terminal device).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Brooks Hale whose telephone number is 571-272-0160. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm est.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272-4098. 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.
/B.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights