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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on November 11, 2022. Claims Thomsen are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on November 11, 2022. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s request for priority to PCT/JP2020/019784 dated May 19, 2020.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the reference numbers should be removed. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 9, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each of claims 3, 9, and 15 recites XML and should recite “Extensible Markup Language (XML)” at the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 is directed toward an apparatus, claim 7 is directed toward a method, and claim 13 is directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, each of the independent claims 1, 7, and 13 along with the corresponding dependent claims 2-6, 8-13, and 14-18 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts. In this case, the independent claims 1, 7, and 13 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. The language of independent claim 1 is used for illustration:
A physical model generation apparatus comprising:
at least one processor (this limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a computer); and
a memory storing instructions (this limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a computer);
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to (this limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a computer):
acquire design information of a target control system (receiving data is considered insignificant extra-solution activity);
generate plant architecture information from the design information, the plant architecture information describing physical components and connections therebetween included in the target control system (a person may mentally generate the plant architecture information for the control system including physical components and connections between components);
generate component state information that describes possible states for each physical component described in the plant architecture information (a person may mentally generate possible states of each component within the plant architecture information);
acquire general behavior information that describes general behavior for each types of physical components (receiving data is considered insignificant extra-solution activity); and
generate physical model of the target control system based on the plant architecture information, the component state information, and the general behavior information (a person may mentally generate a model of the physical control system based on the architecture information, component state in formation, and the general behavior information).
As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claims 7 and 13, which are of similar scope to claim 1, likewise recite at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In this case, the mental processes/certain methods of organizing human activity/mathematical concepts judicial exception is/are not integrated into a practical application. For example, independent claims 1, 7, and 13 recite the additional elements of a processor, a memory, a computer, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. These limitations amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer, add insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally link use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d). More specifically, all of these limitations amount to implementing the abstract idea using a generic computer.
Therefore, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Because the additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, independent claims 1, 7, and 13 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea and, therefore, does not add significantly more. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept.
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claims 1, 7, and 13 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-13, and 14-18 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-6, 8-13, and 14-18, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 2-6, 8-13, and 14-18 are patent ineligible. Therefore, claims 1-18 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner encourages Applicant to request an interview to discuss potential amendments for overcoming the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0300437 (hereinafter, “Thomsen”). Examiner notes that at least [0146] indicates that the various disclosed embodiments include features combinable with other embodiments and anticipates such adaptations.
Regarding claim 1, Thomsen discloses A physical model generation apparatus comprising (see at least Fig. 11, [0004], [0050], and the publication generally):
at least one processor (see at least [0004] and [0050]); and
a memory storing instructions (see at least [0050]);
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire design information of a target control system (see at least [0090]; the design model);
generate plant architecture information from the design information, the plant architecture information describing physical components and connections therebetween included in the target control system (see at least [0088] and [0113]; the hierarchical asset/plant architecture);
generate component state information that describes possible states for each physical component described in the plant architecture information (see at least [0089] and [0122]-[0123]; state information may be determined for physical components within the plant architecture);
acquire general behavior information that describes general behavior for each types of physical components (see at least [0073]; event information descriptive of behavior of physical components may be acquired); and
generate physical model of the target control system based on the plant architecture information, the component state information, and the general behavior information (see at least [0085]; the plant asset model).
Regarding claim 2, Thomsen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Thomsen discloses wherein the generation of the physical model includes:
extracting names of each physical component in the target control system from the plant architecture information (see at least [0080]-[0081]; component names may be included from the plant architecture information);
extracting states of each physical components in the target control system from the component state information (see at least [0080]-[0081]; productive and non-productive states may be extracted, for example);
converting the general behaviors described in the general behavior information into specific behaviors of each physical component in the target control system using the extracted names and states of each physical component in the target control system (see at least [0080]-[0081]; productive and non-productive states may be extracted, for example); and
generating the physical model that describes the specific behaviors of each physical component in the target control system (see at least [0080]-[0086]; the model may include behaviors/actions/states/etc. of each asset of the control system).
Regarding claim 4, Thomsen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Thomsen discloses wherein the generation of the component state information includes:
acquiring type state information that describes possible states for each type of the physical components (see at least [0068], [0104], and [0122]; state information of physical industrial assets/devices may be acquired);
for each physical component in the plant architecture information, acquiring possible states corresponding to the type of that physical component from the type state information (see at least [0068], [0104], and [0122]; the type and state of each asset/device is determined); and
generating the component state information that describes the possible states acquired from the type state information (see at least [0068], [0104], and [0122]; possible states are determined and state information is acquired for the assets/devices).
Regarding claim 5, Thomsen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Thomsen discloses wherein the generation of the component state information includes:
acquiring a controller program that includes a logic for monitoring or controlling the physical components of the target control system (see at least [0043]-[0044] and [0076]; a controller for monitoring/controlling the systems/processes of the assets/devices is acquired);
extracting possible states of each physical component in the plant architecture information from the controller program (see at least [0041]-[0044] and [0076]; states of the assets/devices are extracted/used by the one or more controllers); and
generating the component state information that describes the possible states extracted from the controller program (see at least [0068], [0041]-[0044] and [0080]; state information of the assets/devices are extracted via the one or more controllers executing one or more programs).
Regarding claim 6, Thomsen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Thomsen discloses wherein the generation of the physical model includes:
for each type of the physical components in the plant architecture information, determining whether there is a corresponding general behavior to that type of the physical components in the general behavior information (see at least [0033]; higher level events are considered general behaviors); and
for each type of the physical components to which there is no corresponding general behavior in the general behavior information, acquiring a user input that specifies the general behavior corresponding to that type of the physical component (see at least [0069]; user input may be used to generate states of associated assets).
Each of claims 7-8 and 10-12 is rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claims 1-2 and 4-6 above, respectively, as are 13-14, and 16-18, respectively. Additionally, the computer and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claims 7 and 13, respectively, are considered equivalent to the processor and memory combination found in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Thomsen as evidenced by NPL document “P&IDs (Piping & Instrumentation Diagrams) and P&ID Valve Symbol Library” (hereinafter, “Assured Automation”).
Regarding claim 3, Thomsen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Thomsen discloses wherein the design information is an XML document in which a Piping Instrumentation Diagram of the target control system is described, and the generation of the plant architecture information comprises to extract information about the physical components and the connections thereof from the XML document (see at least Fig. 11, [0038], and [0098]; output may include ladder logic, sequential function charts, function block diagrams, or structure text).
Thomsen does not explicitly teach that the sequential function chart is a P&ID. However, Examiner asserts that a P&ID chart is at least an obvious variant of the sequential function chart disclosed by Thomsen as evidenced by Assured Automation which indicates that P&IDs are used for the same purposes as the disclosed sequential function charts; see at least Assured Automation at “Phases of Use for P&IDs.” Furthermore, Examiner takes official notice that the use of an XML file for P&ID is a well-known document type for such a file.
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 3.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
EP3026606 which pertains to creation of a production plant model including physical assets of the production plant, their corresponding states, and connections therebetween.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 PM.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666