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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 18, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims / Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 5, 7-24 are currently pending in this application in response to claim amendments filed on December 18, 2025.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
With respect to 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 rejections:
Applicant's claim amendments and arguments, at p.6-7, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lamparter et al. (US 2018/0224821-A1) and Nixon et al. (US 2018/0107179 A1).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informality: Claims 1 and 15 recite a grammatical issue within the limitation “wherein the system is configured to stagger data contextualization across processing layers [with each layer] mapping context information available in the respective layer”. Suggestion is to add “with each layer” for a complete sentence.
Claim 16 is dependent on claim 15 and is objected to because of the following informality: The subject matter “wherein the system is configured to stagger data contextualization across processing layers with each layer mapping context information available in the respective layer” as recited in claim 16 is repeating what has previously been recited in claim 15.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 5, 7-9, 11-20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamparter et al. (US 2018/0224821-A1) in view of Nixon et al. (US 2018/0107179 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Lamparter teaches a system configured to monitor and/or control one or more plants (fig.1), wherein the system comprises
a first processing layer (production layer 105, fig.1) and a second processing layer ({intermediate} control layer 110 and IT layer 115, fig.1),
wherein the first processing layer is associated with the plant and communicatively coupled to the second processing layer (the production layer 105 associated with production devices 105A-D of a plant coupled to field devices 110A-D and 110G-J and PLCs 110E-F of the control layer 110 and communicatively coupled to the IT layer 115, fig.1 and [0035]),
wherein the first processing layer and the second processing layer are configured inside a secure network (the production layer 105, the control layer 110, and the IT layer 115 are configured inside a SCADA/GATEWAY 115a, fig.1),
wherein the first processing layer is configured to provide process and/or asset specific data of the plant to the second processing layer (at the Production Layer 105…Each production unit {105A-D} sends and receives data through one or more field devices (e.g., Field Device 110A) at the Control Layer 110…Data received from the production units is transferred (either directly by the field devices or via an Intelligent PLC) to the IT Layer 115, [0028]; context of data gathered and utilized …may include information about the device that generated the data (e.g., a sensor), about the structure of the automation system (e.g., topology of a plant), about the working mode of the system (e.g., downtime event), about the automation software and its status while the data was generated, and/or about the product/batch that was produced while the data was generated [0035]),
wherein the second processing layer is configured to contextualize process and/or asset specific data to generate plant specific data (the Intelligent PLCs 110E and 110F {of the control layer 110, fig.1} also provide rich contextualization functionality [0027]; Contextualization Component 215 {of Intelligent PLC 200 [0031] of the control layer 110, fig.1} annotates incoming data {incoming data from the production layer 105} with context information to facilitate its later interpretation [0034]; context of data gathered and utilized by the Contextualization Component 215 may include information about the device that generated the data (e.g., a sensor), about the structure of the automation system (e.g., topology of a plant), about the working mode of the system (e.g., downtime event)…context information generated by the Contextualization Component 215 may not be restricted to the asset structure but may also include control knowledge, product-specific information, process information, event information [0035]) and to provide plant specific data of one or more chemical plant(s) to an interface to an external network (context data may be shared with other devices in the automation system [0034], data captured or generated by the components of Intelligent PLC 200 {of the control layer 110, fig.1} may be provided to external components via a Data Connector Component 210 [0039]),
wherein the system is configured to stagger data contextualization across processing layers mapping context information available in the respective layer, wherein the context information of the second processing layer is mapped to data provided by the first processing layer1 (the Intelligent PLCs 110E and 110F {at the control layer 110} also provide rich contextualization functionality…adding control level knowledge to data [0027]; Contextualization Component 215 {of Intelligent PLC 200 [0031] at the control layer 110, fig.1} annotates incoming data {data receives through one or more field devices 110A-D and 110G-J at the Control Layer 110 [0028]} with context information [0034]; context of data gathered and utilized by the Contextualization Component 215 may include information about the device that generated the data (e.g., a sensor), about the structure of the automation system (e.g., topology of a plant), about the working mode of the system (e.g., downtime event) [0035]; the Contextualization Component 215 {of control layer 110, fig.2} comprise structural metadata that link the values of PLC variables to elements in the context models, giving them meaning in terms of relations to concepts in ontologies…RDF may be used to represent semantic annotations, adding only structural links into ontologies that are shared among several PLCs or contextualization layers [0037]).
With respect to claim 1, Lamparter teaches of an industrial control automation system of a processing plant (Lamparter: fig.1 and [0007,0035,0042]), but Lamparter does not clearly teaches that the processing plant is of a chemical plant.
However, it is known by Nixon to teach of a system configured to monitor and/or control one or more chemical plant(s) (Nixon: system 10 controls and monitors chemical plants, fig.1A and fig.1L and [0002]), wherein the system comprises a first processing layer (Nixon: plant level 154 with processing level, fig.1L) and a second processing layer (Nixon: data services level 156 and/or mobile services level 158, fig.1L), wherein the first processing layer is associated with the chemical plant and communicatively coupled to the second processing layer (Nixon: plant level 154 with process level associated with chemical plant, [0002], and communicatively coupled to data services level 156 and/or mobile services level 158, fig.1L), wherein the first processing layer and the second processing layer are configured inside a secure network (Nixon: all communication levels as disclosed in Fig.1L are configured inside firewall 166 allowing secured communications, fig.1L and [0102]), wherein the first processing layer is configured to provide process and/or asset specific data of the chemical plant to the second processing layer (Nixon: server 174 {of data services level 156} receives process data values associated with a plurality of entities within the process plant {of plant level 154} including control values, measurement values, or other parameter values generated or used within the process control system, fig.1L and [0146], mobile server 178 {of mobile services level 158} receives a plurality of process data values to identify a set of process data values that correspond to the data associated with a view list, [0155]).
Because Nixon’s teaching is also directed to the system configured to monitor and/or control one or more plant(s) (Nixon: system 10 controls and monitors chemical plants, fig.1A and fig.1L and [0002]; Lamparter: fig.1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching to monitor and/or control a chemical plant as taught by Nixon combined with the industrial control automation system of the processing plant as taught by Lamparter for the purpose of controlling and monitoring the process for converting crude oil to other fuel products (Nixon: [0078]).
With respect to claim 15, Lamparter teaches a method for monitoring and/or controlling one or more plant(s) using a system (fig.1) comprising
a first processing layer (production layer 105, fig.1) and a second processing layer ({intermediate} control layer 110 and IT layer 115, fig.1),
wherein the first processing layer is associated with the plant and communicatively coupled to the second processing layer (the production layer 105 associated with production devices 105A-D of a plant coupled to field devices 110A-D and 110G-J and PLCs 110E-F of the control layer 110 and communicatively coupled to the IT layer 115, fig.1 and [0035]),
wherein the first processing layer and the second processing layer are configured inside a secure network (the production layer 105, the control layer 110, and the IT layer 115 are configured inside a SCADA/GATEWAY 115a, fig.1),
wherein the method comprises:
providing process or asset specific data of the plant from the first processing layer to the second processing layer (at the Production Layer 105…Each production unit {105A-D} sends and receives data through one or more field devices (e.g., Field Device 110A) at the Control Layer 110…Data received from the production units is transferred (either directly by the field devices or via an Intelligent PLC) to the IT Layer 115, [0028]; context of data gathered and utilized …may include information about the device that generated the data (e.g., a sensor), about the structure of the automation system (e.g., topology of a plant), about the working mode of the system (e.g., downtime event), about the automation software and its status while the data was generated, and/or about the product/batch that was produced while the data was generated [0035]),
contextualizing process or asset specific data via the second processing layer to generate plant specific data (the Intelligent PLCs 110E and 110F {of the control layer 110, fig.1} also provide rich contextualization functionality [0027]; Contextualization Component 215 {of Intelligent PLC 200 [0031] of the control layer 110, fig.1} annotates incoming data {incoming data from the production layer 105} with context information to facilitate its later interpretation [0034]; context of data gathered and utilized by the Contextualization Component 215 may include information about the device that generated the data (e.g., a sensor), about the structure of the automation system (e.g., topology of a plant), about the working mode of the system (e.g., downtime event)…context information generated by the Contextualization Component 215 may not be restricted to the asset structure but may also include control knowledge, product-specific information, process information, event information [0035]),
providing plant specific data of one or more chemical plant(s) via the second processing layer to an interface to an external network (context data may be shared with other devices in the automation system [0034], data captured or generated by the components of Intelligent PLC 200 {of the control layer 110, fig.1} may be provided to external components via a Data Connector Component 210 [0039]),
monitoring and/or controlling one or more plant(s) via the first processing layer or via the second processing layer based on the process or asset specific data or the plant specific data (Component 115A allows an operator to remotely monitor and control the devices {field devices 110A-D and 110G-J, fig.1} at the Control Layer 110 and Production Layer 105 [0028]),
wherein the system is configured to stagger data contextualization across processing layers mapping context information available in the respective layer, wherein the context information of the second processing layer is mapped to data provided by the first processing layer2 (the Intelligent PLCs 110E and 110F {at the control layer 110} also provide rich contextualization functionality…adding control level knowledge to data [0027]; Contextualization Component 215 {of Intelligent PLC 200 [0031] at the control layer 110, fig.1} annotates incoming data {data receives through one or more field devices 110A-D and 110G-J at the Control Layer 110 [0028]} with context information [0034]; context of data gathered and utilized by the Contextualization Component 215 may include information about the device that generated the data (e.g., a sensor), about the structure of the automation system (e.g., topology of a plant), about the working mode of the system (e.g., downtime event) [0035]; the Contextualization Component 215 {of control layer 110, fig.2} comprise structural metadata that link the values of PLC variables to elements in the context models, giving them meaning in terms of relations to concepts in ontologies…RDF may be used to represent semantic annotations, adding only structural links into ontologies that are shared among several PLCs or contextualization layers [0037]).
With respect to claim 15, Lamparter teaches of an industrial control automation system of a processing plant (Lamparter: fig.1 and [0007,0035,0042]), but Lamparter does not clearly teaches that the processing plant is of a chemical plant.
However, it is known by Nixon to teach of a system configured to monitor and/or control one or more chemical plant(s) (Nixon: system 10 controls and monitors chemical plants, fig.1A and fig.1L and [0002]), wherein the system comprises a first processing layer (Nixon: plant level 154 with processing level, fig.1L) and a second processing layer (Nixon: data services level 156 and/or mobile services level 158, fig.1L), wherein the first processing layer is associated with the chemical plant and communicatively coupled to the second processing layer (Nixon: plant level 154 with process level associated with chemical plant, [0002], and communicatively coupled to data services level 156 and/or mobile services level 158, fig.1L), wherein the first processing layer and the second processing layer are configured inside a secure network (Nixon: all communication levels as disclosed in Fig.1L are configured inside firewall 166 allowing secured communications, fig.1L and [0102]), wherein the first processing layer is configured to provide process and/or asset specific data of the chemical plant to the second processing layer (Nixon: server 174 {of data services level 156} receives process data values associated with a plurality of entities within the process plant {of plant level 154} including control values, measurement values, or other parameter values generated or used within the process control system, fig.1L and [0146], mobile server 178 {of mobile services level 158} receives a plurality of process data values to identify a set of process data values that correspond to the data associated with a view list, [0155]).
Because Nixon’s teaching is also directed to the system configured to monitor and/or control one or more plant(s) (Nixon: system 10 controls and monitors chemical plants, fig.1A and fig.1L and [0002]; Lamparter: fig.1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching to monitor and/or control a chemical plant as taught by Nixon combined with the industrial control automation system of the processing plant as taught by Lamparter for the purpose of controlling and monitoring the process for converting crude oil to other fuel products (Nixon: [0078]).
With respect to claim 5, Nixon and Lamparter combined teaches further wherein the second processing layer is associated with more than one chemical plant (Nixon: multiple process control systems 10 as disclosed in fig.1A coupled to data services level 156 and to the mobile services level 158 by multiple communicator interfaces 170 where each communicator interfaces 170 is coupled to each process control system and coupled to the data services level 156 physically located at different chemical plants, [0092]).
With respect to claim 7, Nixon and Lamparter combined teaches further wherein the second processing layer is configured to provide plant specific data from one or more chemical plant(s) to an external processing layer (Nixon: server 174 {of data services level 156} transmit the subset of the process data values to the mobile server 178 {of mobile services level 158}, [0147] and the mobile server 178 {of mobile services level 158} identifies alarm data value/status based on the process data to associate with a monitored condition within the process plant to communicate to a remote computing device, [0175]; where the internet 180 facilitate communication between mobile server 178 and the remote computing devices, [0104], part of the mobile network {e.g., the internet 180} is an external network not associated with the process control system or the process plant, [0104]; hence internet 180 defines as an interface to an external network).
With respect to claim 8, Nixon and Lamparter combined teaches wherein the plant specific data is provided between chemical plants across a manufacturing chain via the second processing layer and/or the external processing layer (Nixon: server 174 {of data services level 156} transmit the subset of the process data values to the mobile server 178 {of mobile services level 158}, [0147] and the mobile server 178 {of mobile services level 158} identifies alarm data value/status based on the process data to associate with a monitored condition within the process plant to communicate to a remote computing device, [0175]; where the internet 180 facilitate communication between mobile server 178 and the remote computing devices, [0104], part of the mobile network {e.g., the internet 180} is an external network not associated with the process control system or the process plant, [0104]; hence internet 180 defines as an interface to an external network).
With respect to claim 9, Nixon and Lamparter combined teaches wherein the second processing layer is configured to manage data transfer to and/or from the external processing layer in real-time or on demand (Nixon: the mobile server 178 communicates the sets of data values to the remote computing devices substantially in real-time, as the data values are received from the data server 174, [0104,0110-0111,0124]).
With respect to claim 11, Nixon and Lamparter combined teaches wherein the second processing layer is configured to host and/or orchestrate process applications relating to core plant operations (Nixon: mobile server 178 configured to orchestrate process applications such as mobile services, watch list services and mobile data services, fig.2), wherein the external processing layer is configured to host and/or orchestrate process applications relating to non-core plant operations (part of the mobile network {e.g., the internet 180} is an external network not associated with the process control system or the process plant, [0104]).
With respect to claim 12, Nixon and Lamparter combined teaches wherein a monitoring device (Nixon: field devices 44-46, fig.1A; field devices may be sensors to measure process parameters, [0003,0070,0071]) is communicatively coupled to the second processing layer and/or the external processing layer (Nixon: field devices communicatively coupled to data server 174 and mobile server 178, [0172]), wherein the monitoring device (field devices 44-46) is configured to transfer monitoring data to the second processing layer (process parameter data values based on status of field devices 44-46 within the process plant, [0172]) and/or the external processing layer.
With respect to claim 13, Nixon and Lamparter combined teaches wherein the second processing layer and/or the external processing layer is configured to manage monitoring devices (Nixon: process data are selected for monitoring by users of remote computing devices, [0173]).
With respect to claim 14, Nixon and Lamparter combined teaches wherein the monitoring device, the second processing layer and/or the external processing layer is configured to tag monitoring data provided by the monitoring device unidirectional (Nixon: field devices 44-46 communicatively coupled to data server 174 and mobile server 178, [0172], where field device 44-46 are associated with a unique device tag for information processing, [0072], The tag values may be used to identify process data or parameters that are responsive to the query, i.e. matching the query parameters, where some of the search parameters may indicate values associated with tags of entities or parameters within the configuration data, such as values indicating particular areas, equipment units, alarm statuses, or data types (e.g., “temp,” “pressure,” etc.), [0127], field devices being sensors to measure process parameters and are connected in a single direction to communicate process data to controllers 40, fig.1a and [0073]).
With respect to claim 163, Nixon and Lamparter combined teaches wherein the system is configured to stagger data contextualization across processing layers with each layer mapping context information available in the respective layer (process data values are communicated (Lamparter: the Intelligent PLCs 110E and 110F {at the control layer 110} also provide rich contextualization functionality…adding control level knowledge to data [0027]; Contextualization Component 215 {of Intelligent PLC 200 [0031] at the control layer 110, fig.1} annotates incoming data {data receives through one or more field devices 110A-D and 110G-J at the Control Layer 110 [0028]} with context information [0034]; context of data gathered and utilized by the Contextualization Component 215 may include information about the device that generated the data (e.g., a sensor), about the structure of the automation system (e.g., topology of a plant), about the working mode of the system (e.g., downtime event) [0035]; the Contextualization Component 215 {of control layer 110, fig.2} comprise structural metadata that link the values of PLC variables to elements in the context models, giving them meaning in terms of relations to concepts in ontologies…RDF may be used to represent semantic annotations, adding only structural links into ontologies that are shared among several PLCs or contextualization layers [0037]).
With respect to claim 17, Nixon and Lamparter combined teaches wherein staggering data contextualization comprises contextualization of asset and/or process specific data on different levels adding context information on single plant level and/or multi plant level (Nixon: plant and process level 154 provides process data values associated with a plurality of entities within the process plant that include control values, measurement values or other parameter values generated within the process control system and the process data values are provided as data streams from the process control system in real-time as the process data values are generated or updated, [0146]).
With respect to claim 18, Nixon and Lamparter combined teaches wherein the first processing layer is configured to provide the process and/or asset specific data including context information on asset level (Nixon: plant and process level 154 provides process data values associated with a plurality of entities within the process plant that include control values, measurement values or other parameter values generated within the process control system and the process data values are provided as data streams from the process control system in real-time as the process data values are generated or updated, [0146]).
With respect to claim 19, Nixon and Lamparter combined teaches wherein the second processing layer is configured to add further context information to or to contextualize process and/or asset specific data (Nixon: the mobile server 178 of mobile services level 158 sends a list of requested data to the data server 174…include only changed data requests, such as data subscriptions to add or remove (i.e., indicators of new data not previously requested or indicators of data previously requested but no longer requested); mobile server 178 of mobile services level 158 identifies related process data that is related to requested data based upon context but not expressly requested by the remote computing devices…the list of requested process data may include an indication of such related process data in order to further obtain process data likely to be requested by the users of the remote computing devices, [0154]).
With respect to claim 20, Nixon and Lamparter combined teaches wherein process and/or asset specific data is collected on the lowest processing layer or the first processing layer and contextualized with respect to specific assets and/or processes of a single plant, wherein contextualization relates to context available on the first processing layer (Nixon: data received from the plant/process level 154 and communicated to the mobile services level 158 are: alarms, process parameters, diagnostics, historical data, and configuration data, [0095, 0099]).
With respect to claim 22, Nixon and Lamparter combined teaches wherein data contextualization relates to adding context information to process and/or asset specific data and/or to pre-processing process and/or asset specific data (Nixon: [0099]).
With respect to claim 23, Nixon and Lamparter combined teaches wherein the second processing layer, the external processing layer or both are configured to contextualize process and/or asset specific data and/or plant specific data (Nixon: [0099]).
With respect to claim 24, Nixon and Lamparter combined teaches wherein the second processing layer is configured to provide plant specific data from one or more chemical plant(s) to an external processing layer (Nixon: mobile services level 158 provide chemical plant level 154 data specific to user of remote computing device 14, fig.1L), and wherein the second processing layer is configured to store or to manage access to historical data for a first time window (Nixon: mobile server 178 of mobile services level 158 communicate historical process data associated with selected entries for the past hour or day with context data, [0124,0130]), wherein the external processing layer is configured to store historical data for a second time window, wherein the first time window is shorter than the second time window (Nixon: context data presented to user of the remote computing device [0130] requires storage and the time window as stored in the remote computing device 14 would be shorter than when the context data being communicated by the mobile server 178 of mobile services level 158, fig.1A, fig.1L, and [0124,0130]).
With respect to claims 5, 7-9, 11-14, 16-20, and 22-24, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Nixon and Lamparter for the teachings as disclosed in each of these claims for the purpose of controlling and monitoring the process for converting crude oil to other fuel products (Nixon: [0078]).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamparter et al. (US 2018/0224821-A1) in view of Nixon et al. (US 2018/0107179 A1) and further in view of Jiang et al. (CN-110515952-A).
With respect to claim 10, Nixon and Lamparter combined teaches wherein the second processing layer is configured to store or to manage access to historical data (Nixon: the data server 174 obtains the data values from process database 58, the data historian 62, or knowledge repository 64 [0132]) and wherein the external processing layer is configured to store historical data (Nixon: remote computing device store data values, [0183]).
Nixon and Lamparter combined does not appear to teach storing or to managing access to historical data for a first time window and for a second time window, wherein the first time window is shorter than the second time window.
However, it is known by Jiang to teach storing or to managing access to historical data for a first time window and for a second time window, wherein the first time window is shorter than the second time window (Jiang: data to be stored in the history database being recorded where the first time period is less than the second time period, abstract and page 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Jiang with Nixon and Lamparter combined for the purpose of improving query efficiency (Jiang: page 2).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamparter et al. (US 2018/0224821-A1) in view of Nixon1 et al. (US 2018/0107179 A1) and further in view of Nixon2 et al. (US 2021/0089593-A1).
With respect to claim 21, Nixon1 and Lamparter combined teaches wherein plant specific data is collected on the second processing layer and contextualized with respect to a plant (Nixon1: mobile services level 158 of plant 10 receives from the plant/process level 154 data includes: alarms, process parameters, diagnostics, historical data, and configuration data, [0095, 0099], and mobile services level 158 contextualized relationships between the data and the data types, [0099], where data services level 156 coupled to the mobile services level 158 by multiple communicator interfaces 170 that is coupled to “each” process control system [plant] 10 of multiple control systems being physically located at different chemical plants, [0092]).
Nixon1 and Lamparter combined does not appear to teach contextualized with respect to multiple plants. However, it is known by Nixon2 to teach contextualized with respect to multiple plants (Nixon2: [0066]). Because Nixon2 is also directed to securing delivery of process plant-related data from process plants to external systems (Nixon2: [0002]; Nixon1: [0009]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Nixon2 combined with Nixon1 and Lamparter in order for users to receive data from multiple process plants so that the user may search over multiple sites to resolve disparate data (Nixon2: [0066]).
Conclusion
The additional prior arts made of record and have not been relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as follows: US-20240231322-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEN (CINDY) D KHUU whose telephone number is (571)272-8585. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8a-8p.
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, Ken Lo can be reached on 571-272-9774. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HIEN D KHUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116 January 16, 2026
1 “Stagger data contextualization across processing layers” as defined by Applicant as “each layer adding its own context based on information only available at that layer” (See Remarks at 6 filed on December 18, 2025). Claim 1 recites a first layer and a second layer and it’s the second layer that contextualized the data received from the first layer. Claim 1 fails to recite the exact interpretation as argued by Applicant. Nonetheless, Lamparter teaches of the control layer 110 contextualizing data received from the production layer by at least “adding control level knowledge to the data” [0027].
2 “Stagger data contextualization across processing layers” as defined by Applicant as “each layer adding its own context based on information only available at that layer” (See Remarks at 6 filed on December 18, 2025). Claim 15 recites a first layer and a second layer and it’s the second layer that contextualized the data received from the first layer. Claim 15 fails to recite the exact interpretation as argued by Applicant. Nonetheless, Lamparter teaches of the control layer 110 contextualizing data received from the production layer by at least “adding control level knowledge to the data” [0027].
3 See claim objections.