DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is a response to an RCE with amendment/arguments filed on 8/21/2025 which was in response to the office action mailed on 6/20/2025 (hereinafter the prior office action).
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 9 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are independent.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/21/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 8/21/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states in Pg. 7 in “Remarks” that the cited Para. 44 of Miller and Para. 82 of Rao do not teach the newly amended limitation in claims 1 and 9 of a first and second controllers monitoring respective performance indicator types.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Miller teaches the newly amended limitation of a first and second controllers monitoring respective performance indicator types. This is because Miller discloses in Para. 52 that multiple controllers monitor assets, where each controller monitors respective systems or processes, i.e. a first controller monitors a first performance indicator type, while a second controller monitors a second type.
Applicant further states in Pg. 7 in “Remarks” that Miller and Para. 82 of Rao do not teach Applicant’s adjusting limitation in claims 1 and 9.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Rao teaches adjusting. This is because Rao discloses in Para. 82 that process controls are adjusted to contribute performance of facility in response to status/performance of facility, where Miller teaches the rest of the limitations related to performance. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
each of the system elements in claims 9-15 configured to perform an action.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 of this title, 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(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0334563) (hereinafter “Miller”) in view of Rao et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0247661) (hereinafter “Rao”).
Regarding claim 1, Miller teaches a method, comprising: establishing an authenticated connection with a performance indicator server in accordance with a defined schedule, (Fig. 1, Para. 91 - - repository, i.e. server, includes performance indicators storing data from controllers; Para. 119 - - data retrieval can be done at defined times, i.e. defined schedule, where server connection is authenticated in order for data to be retrieved)
wherein the performance indicator server stores data from one or more controllers that manage assets of a production facility, (Para. 91 - - repository, i.e. server, includes performance indicators storing data from controllers that manage production facility assets)
wherein the one or more controllers include a first controller that monitors a first type of performance indicator and a second controller that monitors a second type of performance indicator; (Para. 52 - - multiple controllers monitor assets, where each controller monitors respective systems or processes, i.e. a first controller monitors a first performance indicator type, while a second controller monitors a second type)
and automatically evaluating a performance of the production facility, via a performance evaluation algorithm, in response to collecting performance indicator data via the authenticated connection; (Para. 205 - - production facility can be automatically evaluated via analytics component using server data; Para. 191, 210 - - performance evaluation algorithm is used to analyze performance indicators)
But Miller does not explicitly teach and adjusting, via the one or more controllers, one or more features contributing to the performance of the production facility in response to evaluating the performance of the production facility.
However, Rao teaches and adjusting, via the one or more controllers, one or more features contributing to the performance of the production facility in response to evaluating the performance of the production facility. (Para. 82 - - process controls are adjusted to contribute performance of facility in response to status/performance of facility)
Miller and Rao are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain connected devices being controlled based on received data from devices.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Miller, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Rao.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to perform real-time process control, as suggested by Rao (Para. 82).
Regarding claim 2, Miller further teaches monitoring the defined schedule via the one or more controllers, (Para. 52 - - multiple controllers monitor assets; Para. 119 - - monitoring is at defined times, i.e. defined schedule)
wherein the defined schedule delineates when and how often the authenticated connection is to be established, (Para. 119 - - data retrieval can be done at defined times, i.e. establishing authenticated connection on defined schedule)
wherein the defined schedule further delineates a timeframe associated with the performance indicator to be collected, (Para. 119 - - data retrieval at defined times, i.e. defined schedule, delineates collection timeframe for data, i.e. performance indicator)
and wherein the defined schedule is associated with a controller list comprising the one or more controllers. (Para. 119 - - defined schedule is associated with respective controller; Fig. 1 - - controllers are known/listed)
Regarding claim 3, Miller further teaches wherein the defined schedule delineates establishing the authenticated connection once every twenty-four hours. (Para. 57 - - data can be collected daily, i.e. every twenty-four hours)
Regarding claim 4, Miller further teaches collecting the performance indicator data for the one or more controllers, (Para. 91, 93 - - control project’s control is evaluated in terms of performance)
wherein the one or more controllers are included in the controller list. (Fig. 1 - - controllers are known/listed)
Regarding claim 5, Miller further teaches wherein the evaluating the performance of the production facility comprises comparing metric values of the performance indicator data to threshold values that characterize compliant performance of the production facility. (Para. 91, 93, 109 - - performance metrics, i.e. performance indicator compared to threshold values, are used)
Regarding claim 6, Miller further teaches generating a performance summary report that includes the performance indicator data and characterizes the comparing of the metric values to the threshold values. (Para. 154-155 - - performance statistics are generated for viewing; Para. 91, 93, 109 - - performance statistics are based on being compared to threshold values)
Regarding claim 7, Miller further teaches automatically distributing access to the performance summary report to one or more supervisor entities via an electronic correspondence upon generation of the performance summary report, (Para. 57 - - system can utilize higher level systems, i.e. supervisor entities, to manage operations, where such systems access performance summary reports)
wherein the one or more supervisor entities are associated with the one or more controllers. (Para. 57 - - supervisor entities are associated to the industrial controllers)
Regarding claim 8, Miller further teaches automatically distributing a copy of the performance summary report to one or more supervisor entities via an electronic correspondence upon generation of the performance summary report, (Para. 57 - - system can utilize higher level systems to manage operations, where such systems collect performance summary reports, i.e. copies of reports)
wherein the one or more supervisor entities are associated with the one or more controllers. (Para. 57 - - supervisor entities are associated to the industrial controllers)
Regarding claim 9, Miller teaches a system, comprising: memory to store computer executable instructions; and one or more processors, operatively coupled to the memory, that execute the computer executable instructions (Para. 47 - - processors execute instructions stored in coupled memory)
to implement: a data collector configured to establish an authenticated connection with a performance indicator server in accordance with a defined schedule, (Fig. 1, Para. 91 - - repository, i.e. server, includes performance indicators storing data from controllers; Para. 119 - - data retrieval can be done at defined times, i.e. defined schedule, where server connection is authenticated in order for data to be retrieved)
wherein the performance indicator server stores data from one or more controllers that manage assets of a production facility, (Para. 91 - - repository, i.e. server, includes performance indicators storing data from controllers that manage production facility assets)
wherein the one or more controllers include a first controller that monitors a first type of performance indicator and a second controller that monitors a second type of performance indicator; (Para. 52 - - multiple controllers monitor assets, where each controller monitors respective systems or processes, i.e. a first controller monitors a first performance indicator type, while a second controller monitors a second type)
a data analyzer configured to automatically evaluate a performance of the production facility, based on at least the first and second type of performance indicators, via a performance evaluation algorithm, in response to collecting performance indicator data via the authenticated connection; (Para. 205 - - production facility can be automatically evaluated via analytics component using server data; Para. 191, 210 - - performance evaluation algorithm is used to analyze performance indicators)
But Miller does not explicitly teach and a supervisor entity configured to adjust, via the one or more controllers, one or more features contributing to the performance of the production facility in response to evaluating the performance of the production facility.
However, Rao teaches and a supervisor entity configured to adjust, via the one or more controllers, one or more features contributing to the performance of the production facility in response to evaluating the performance of the production facility. (Para. 82 - - process controls are adjusted to contribute performance of facility in response to status/performance of facility)
Miller and Rao are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain connected devices being controlled based on received data from devices.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Miller, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Rao.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to perform real-time process control, as suggested by Rao (Para. 82).
Regarding claim 10, Miller further teaches wherein the defined schedule delineates when and how often the authenticated connection is to be established, (Para. 119 - - data retrieval can be done at defined times, i.e. establishing authenticated connection on defined schedule)
wherein the defined schedule further delineates a timeframe associated with the performance indicator to be collected, (Para. 119 - - data retrieval at defined times, i.e. defined schedule, delineates collection timeframe for data, i.e. performance indicator)
and wherein the defined schedule is associated with a controller list. (Para. 119 - - defined schedule is associated with respective controller; Fig. 1 - - controllers are known/listed)
Regarding claim 11, Miller further teaches wherein the defined schedule delineates establishing the authenticated connection once every twenty-four hours. (Para. 57 - - data can be collected daily, i.e. every twenty-four hours)
Regarding claim 12, Miller further teaches wherein the data collector is configured to collect the performance indicator data for the one or more controllers, (Para. 91, 93 - - control project’s control is evaluated in terms of performance)
wherein the one or more controllers are included in the controller list. (Fig. 1 - - controllers are known/listed)
Regarding claim 13, Miller further teaches wherein the data analyzer is configured to compare metric values of the performance indicator data to threshold values that characterize compliant performance of the production facility. (Para. 91, 93, 109 - - performance metrics, i.e. performance indicator compared to threshold values, are used)
Regarding claim 14, Miller further teaches a scheduler configured to generate a performance summary report that includes the performance indicator data and characterizes the comparing of the metric values to the threshold values. (Para. 154-155 - - performance statistics are generated for viewing; Para. 91, 93, 109 - - performance statistics are based on being compared to threshold values)
Regarding claim 15, Miller further teaches a publisher configured to automatically distribute access to the performance summary report to one or more supervisor entities via an electronic correspondence upon generation of the performance summary report, (Para. 57 - - system can utilize higher level systems, i.e. supervisor entities, to manage operations, where such systems access performance summary reports)
wherein the one or more supervisor entities are associated with the one or more controllers. (Para. 57 - - supervisor entities are associated to the industrial controllers)
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 11,774,944 by Cella et al., which discloses industrial internet of things where data is collected and organized (Title/Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saad M. Kabir whose telephone number is 571-270-0608 (direct fax number is 571-270-9933). The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays to Fridays 9am to 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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.
/SAAD M KABIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119