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 .
This office action is a response to an amendment filed 03/25/2026.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 13-24 are pending.
Claims 1, 15, 16 and 24 are amended.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 13-24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18081091 (as outlined below), in view of US Patent No. 6,148,306 to Seidl et al., (hereinafter Seidl), and in further view of US Patent No. 11,363,937 to Hitzler et al., (hereinafter Hitzler).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Instant Application
Co-pending Application No. 18081091
1. (Currently Amended) An apparatus comprising:
at least one of an actuator or a heater;
and
a controller that controls the at least one of the actuator or the heater, wherein
the controller:
obtains an application defined by a plurality of blocks that drive the at least one of the actuator or the heater, the application including information on an order of execution of the blocks of the application;
obtains, from a rule database, a rule prohibiting, when the application includes a second block, a first block from not being executed before the second block;
determines whether the rule applies to the blocks of the application, the rule applying when an order of execution of the blocks of the application does not include the first block being executed before the second block;
in response to determining that the rule applies to the blocks of the application modifies the application, by at least one of inserting the first block before the second block, reordering the first block before the second block, or deleting the second block, such that the rule does not apply, whereby a triggering condition of the rule no longer holds
and
drives the at least one of the actuator or the heater based on the application modified.
1. (Currently Amended) An information processing method executed by
…at least one of an actuator or a heater included in a device (i.e. an apparatus)..
a computer system, the information processing method comprising:
(a) selecting M blocks as M selected blocks from among N blocks for driving at least one of an actuator or a heater included in a device to be controlled, in accordance with an input operation performed by an operator, where N is an integer greater than or equal to two, and M is an integer greater than or equal to one and less than or equal to N;
(b) generating an application including at least the M selected blocks by setting an order in which each of the at least M selected blocks is executed in accordance with an input operation performed by the operator;
(c) consulting a rule that when one block included in two or more given blocks is executed, prohibits at least one of remaining blocks included in the two or more given blocks from not being executed,
and modifying the application when the rule applies to the M selected blocks included in the application; …
2. (Original) The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein in (c), the application is modified by (1) adding a new block to the M selected blocks, (2) changing the order of the M selected blocks, or (3) removing any block included in the M selected blocks.
3. (Original) The information processing method according to claim 2, wherein the two or more given blocks include a first block and a second block, the rule prohibits the first block from not being executed before the second block is executed, and in (c), when the application includes the second block and does not include the first block before the second block, the application is modified by adding the first block before the second block. (the modifications have the intent and result that the rule would not apply, whereby a triggering condition of the rule no longer holds, since the modification will make the rule moot)
…and
(d) driving the at least one of the actuator or the heater based on the modified application.
The co-pending claim does not explicitly teach a rule from a database.
However, Seidl from the same or similar field of programmed control, teaches a rule from a database (a set of rules stored in a data structure (i.e. database), see C2L24-36, Seidl).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application and control as described by the co-pending claim and incorporating a rule database, as taught by Speidl.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better make rules accessible to devices needing to access rules by maintaining them in a storage (see C2L24-36, Seidl)).
The co-pending claim does not explicitly teach automatically modifying an application.
However, Hitzler from the same or similar field of sequence based programmed control of equipment, teaches automatically modifying an application (A sequential application program is checked/validated for needed conditions, and can be automatically adjusted/modified, see C7L52 to C8L7, Hitzler).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application and control as described by the combination that includes the co-pending claim and incorporating a automatically modifying an application, as taught by Hitzler.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more conveniently make changes to a program so as to properly fulfill desired needed conditions of a system without requiring direct user intervention when possible (see C7L52 to C8L7, Hitzler).
3. (Currently Amended) The apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein when the application includes the second block and does not include the first block before the second block, the controller modifies the application by inserting the first block before the second block.
3. (Original) The information processing method according to claim 2, wherein the two or more given blocks include a first block and a second block,the rule prohibits the first block from not being executed before the second block is executed, andin (c), when the application includes the second block and does not include the first block before the second block, the application is modified by adding the first block before the second block.
4. (Currently Amended) The apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein when the application includes the first block and the second block, and does not include the first block before the second block, the controller modifies the application by reordering the first block to come before the second block.
4. (Original) The information processing method according to claim 2, wherein the two or more given blocks include a first block and a second block, the rule prohibits the first block from not being executed before the second block is executed, and in (c), when the application includes the first block and the second block, and does not include the first block before the second block, the application is modified by reordering the first block to come before the second block.
5. (Currently Amended) The apparatus according to claim 1
wherein when the application includes the second block and does not include the first block before the second block, the controller modifies the application by deleting the second block.
5. (Original) The information processing method according to claim 2, wherein the two or more given blocks include a first block and a second block, the rule prohibits the first block from not being executed before the second block is executed, and in (c), when the application includes the second block and does not include the first block before the second block, the application is modified by removing the second block.
6. (Original) The apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the rule prohibits the first block from not being executed in a period from a start of the application to before the second block is executed.
6. (Original) The information processing method according to claim 3, wherein the rule prohibits the first block from not being executed in a period from a start of the application to before the second block is executed.
7. (Original) The apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the first block is for establishing an executable environment for the second block.
7. (Original) The information processing method according to claim 6, wherein the first block is for establishing an executable environment for the second block.
13. (Original) The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the rule is for ensuring that the two or more given blocks are executed in combination to prevent the at least one of the actuator or the heater from reaching a maximum withstand temperature.
13. (Original) The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the rule is for ensuring that the two or more given blocks are executed in combination to prevent the at least one of the actuator or the heater from reaching a maximum withstand temperature.
14. (Original) The apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
an enclosure including an interior space, wherein the rule is for ensuring that the two or more given blocks are executed in combination to prevent the interior space from reaching a maximum withstand temperature.
14. (Original) The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the device to be controlled includes an enclosure including an interior space, and the rule is for ensuring that the two or more given blocks are executed in combination to prevent the interior space from reaching a maximum withstand temperature.
15. (Currently Amended) A method for controlling an apparatus including
at least one of an actuator or a heater, the method comprising:
obtaining an application defined by a plurality of blocks that drive the at least one of the actuator or the heater, the application including information on an order of execution;
obtaining, from a rule database, a rule prohibiting, when the application includes a second block, a first block from not being executed before the second block;
determining whether the rule applies to the blocks of the application, the rule applying when an order of execution of the blocks of the application does not include the first block being executed before the second block;
in response to determining that the rule applies to the blocks of the application, modifying the application, by at least one of inserting the first block before the second block, reordering the first block before the second block, or deleting the second block, such that the rule does not apply, whereby a triggering condition of the rule no longer holds;
and
driving the at least one of the actuator or the heater based on the application modified.
1. (Currently Amended) An information processing method executed by
…at least one of an actuator or a heater included in a device (i.e. an apparatus)..
a computer system, the information processing method comprising:
(a) selecting M blocks as M selected blocks from among N blocks for driving at least one of an actuator or a heater included in a device to be controlled, in accordance with an input operation performed by an operator, where N is an integer greater than or equal to two, and M is an integer greater than or equal to one and less than or equal to N;
(b) generating an application including at least the M selected blocks by setting an order in which each of the at least M selected blocks is executed in accordance with an input operation performed by the operator;
(c) consulting a rule that when one block included in two or more given blocks is executed, prohibits at least one of remaining blocks included in the two or more given blocks from not being executed,
and modifying the application when the rule applies to the M selected blocks included in the application; …
2. (Original) The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein in (c), the application is modified by (1) adding a new block to the M selected blocks, (2) changing the order of the M selected blocks, or (3) removing any block included in the M selected blocks.
3. (Original) The information processing method according to claim 2, wherein the two or more given blocks include a first block and a second block, the rule prohibits the first block from not being executed before the second block is executed, and in (c), when the application includes the second block and does not include the first block before the second block, the application is modified by adding the first block before the second block. (the modifications have the intent and result that the rule would not apply, whereby a triggering condition of the rule no longer holds, since the modification will make the rule moot)
…and
(d) driving the at least one of the actuator or the heater based on the modified application.
The co-pending claim does not explicitly teach a rule from a database.
However, Seidl from the same or similar field of programmed control, teaches a rule from a database (a set of rules stored in a data structure (i.e. database), see C2L24-36, Seidl).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application and control as described by the co-pending claim and incorporating a rule database, as taught by Speidl.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better make rules accessible to devices needing to access rules by maintaining them in a storage (see C2L24-36, Seidl)).
The co-pending claim does not explicitly teach automatically modifying an application.
However, Hitzler from the same or similar field of sequence based programmed control of equipment, teaches automatically modifying an application (A sequential application program is checked/validated for needed conditions, and can be automatically adjusted/modified, see C7L52 to C8L7, Hitzler).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application and control as described by the combination that includes the co-pending claim and incorporating a automatically modifying an application, as taught by Hitzler.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more conveniently make changes to a program so as to properly fulfill desired needed conditions of a system without requiring direct user intervention when possible (see C7L52 to C8L7, Hitzler).
16. (New) An apparatus comprising:
at least one of an actuator or a heater;
and a controller that controls the at least one of the actuator or the heater, wherein the controller:
obtains an application defined by a plurality of blocks that drive the at least one of the actuator or the heater, the application including information on an order of execution of the blocks of the application, the blocks including a first block;
obtains, from a rule database,
a rule prohibiting, when the application includes a second block, a third block from not being executed after the second block;
determines whether the rule applies to the blocks of the application, the rule applying when an order of execution of the blocks of the application does not include the third block being executed after the second block;
in response to determining that the rule applies to the blocks of the application, modifies the application, by at least one of inserting the third block after the second block, reordering the third block after the second block, or deleting the second block, such that the rule does not apply, whereby a triggering condition of the rule no longer holds;
and
drives the at least one of the actuator or the heater based on the application modified.
1. (Currently Amended) An information processing method executed by
…at least one of an actuator or a heater included in a device (i.e. an apparatus)..
a computer system, the information processing method comprising:
(a) selecting M blocks as M selected blocks from among N blocks for driving at least one of an actuator or a heater included in a device to be controlled, in accordance with an input operation performed by an operator, where N is an integer greater than or equal to two, and M is an integer greater than or equal to one and less than or equal to N;
(b) generating an application including at least the M selected blocks by setting an order in which each of the at least M selected blocks is executed in accordance with an input operation performed by the operator;
(c) consulting a rule that when one block included in two or more given blocks is executed, prohibits at least one of remaining blocks included in the two or more given blocks from not being executed,
…8. … include a second block and a third block, the rule prohibits the third block from not being executed after the second block is executed.
and modifying the application when the rule applies to the M selected blocks included in the application; …
2. (Original) The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein in (c), the application is modified by (1) adding a new block to the M selected blocks, (2) changing the order of the M selected blocks, or (3) removing any block included in the M selected blocks.
8. …., and in (c), when the application includes the second block and does not include the third block after the second block, the application is modified by adding the third block after the second block. (the modifications have the intent and result that the rule would not apply, whereby a triggering condition of the rule no longer holds, since the modification will make the rule moot)
…and
(d) driving the at least one of the actuator or the heater based on the modified application.
The co-pending claim does not explicitly teach a rule from a database.
However, Seidl from the same or similar field of programmed control, teaches a rule from a database (a set of rules stored in a data structure (i.e. database), see C2L24-36, Seidl).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application and control as described by the co-pending claim and incorporating a rule database, as taught by Speidl.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better make rules accessible to devices needing to access rules by maintaining them in a storage (see C2L24-36, Seidl)).
The co-pending claim does not explicitly teach automatically modifying an application.
However, Hitzler from the same or similar field of sequence based programmed control of equipment, teaches automatically modifying an application (A sequential application program is checked/validated for needed conditions, and can be automatically adjusted/modified, see C7L52 to C8L7, Hitzler).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application and control as described by the combination that includes the co-pending claim and incorporating a automatically modifying an application, as taught by Hitzler.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more conveniently make changes to a program so as to properly fulfill desired needed conditions of a system without requiring direct user intervention when possible (see C7L52 to C8L7, Hitzler).
17. (New) The apparatus according to claim 16,
wherein when the application includes the second block and does not include the third block after the second block, the controller modifies the application by inserting the third block after the second block.
8. (Original) The information processing method according to claim 2, wherein the two or more given blocks include a second block and a third block,the rule prohibits the third block from not being executed after the second block is executed, andin (c), when the application includes the second block and does not include the third block after the second block, the application is modified by adding the third block after the second block.
18. (New) The apparatus according to claim 16,
wherein when the application includes the second block and the third block, and does not include the third block after the second block, the controller modifies the application by reordering the third block to come after the second block.
9. (Original) The information processing method according to claim 2, wherein the two or more given blocks include a second block and a third block, the rule prohibits the third block from not being executed after the second block is executed, and in (c), when the application includes the second block and the third block, and does not include the third block after the second block, the application is modified by reordering the third block to come after the second block.
19. (New) The apparatus according to claim 16,
wherein when the application includes the second block and does not include the third block after the second block, the controller modifies the application by deleting the second block.
10. (Original) The information processing method according to claim 2, wherein the two or more given blocks include a second block and a third block,the rule prohibits the third block from not being executed after the second block is executed, andin (c), when the application includes the second block and does not include the third block after the second block, the application is modified by removing the second block.
20. (New) The apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the rule prohibits the third block from not being executed in a period from after the second block is executed to an end of the application.
11. (Original) The information processing method according to claim 8, wherein the rule prohibits the third block from not being executed in a period from after the second block is executed to an end of the application.
21. (New) The apparatus according to claim 20, wherein the third block is for restoring an environment changed by execution of the second block to an environment before the execution of the second block.
12. (Original) The information processing method according to claim 11, wherein the third block is for restoring an environment changed by execution of the second block to an environment before the execution of the second block.
22. (New) The apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the rule is for ensuring that the two or more given blocks are executed in combination to prevent the at least one of the actuator or the heater from reaching a maximum withstand temperature.
13. (Original) The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the rule is for ensuring that the two or more given blocks are executed in combination to prevent the at least one of the actuator or the heater from reaching a maximum withstand temperature.
23. (New) The apparatus according to claim 16, further comprising: an enclosure including an interior space, wherein the rule is for ensuring that the two or more given blocks are executed in combination to prevent the interior space from reaching a maximum withstand temperature.
14. (Original) The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the device to be controlled includes an enclosure including an interior space, and the rule is for ensuring that the two or more given blocks are executed in combination to prevent the interior space from reaching a maximum withstand temperature.
24. (New) A method for controlling an apparatus including
at least one of an actuator or a heater, the method comprising:
obtaining an application defined by a plurality of blocks that drive the at least one of the actuator or the heater, the application including information on an order of execution of the blocks of the application, the blocks including a first block;
obtaining, from a rule database,
a rule prohibiting, when the application includes a second block, a third block from not being executed after the second block;
determining whether the rule applies to the blocks of the application, the rule applying when an order of execution of the blocks of the application does not include the third block being executed after the second block;
in response to determining that the rule applies to the blocks of the application, modifying the application, by at least one of inserting the third block after the second block, reordering the third block after the second block, or deleting the second block, such that the rule does not apply, whereby a triggering condition of the rule no longer holds;
and
driving the at least one of the actuator or the heater based on the application modified.
1. (Currently Amended) An information processing method executed by
…at least one of an actuator or a heater included in a device (i.e. an apparatus)..
a computer system, the information processing method comprising:
(a) selecting M blocks as M selected blocks from among N blocks for driving at least one of an actuator or a heater included in a device to be controlled, in accordance with an input operation performed by an operator, where N is an integer greater than or equal to two, and M is an integer greater than or equal to one and less than or equal to N;
(b) generating an application including at least the M selected blocks by setting an order in which each of the at least M selected blocks is executed in accordance with an input operation performed by the operator;
(c) consulting a rule that when one block included in two or more given blocks is executed, prohibits at least one of remaining blocks included in the two or more given blocks from not being executed,
…8. … include a second block and a third block, the rule prohibits the third block from not being executed after the second block is executed.
and modifying the application when the rule applies to the M selected blocks included in the application; …
2. (Original) The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein in (c), the application is modified by (1) adding a new block to the M selected blocks, (2) changing the order of the M selected blocks, or (3) removing any block included in the M selected blocks.
8. …., and in (c), when the application includes the second block and does not include the third block after the second block, the application is modified by adding the third block after the second block. (the modifications have the intent and result that the rule would not apply, whereby a triggering condition of the rule no longer holds, since the modification will make the rule moot)
…and
(d) driving the at least one of the actuator or the heater based on the modified application.
The co-pending claim does not explicitly teach a rule from a database.
However, Seidl from the same or similar field of programmed control, teaches a rule from a database (a set of rules stored in a data structure (i.e. database), see C2L24-36, Seidl).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application and control as described by the co-pending claim and incorporating a rule database, as taught by Speidl.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better make rules accessible to devices needing to access rules by maintaining them in a storage (see C2L24-36, Seidl)).
The co-pending claim does not explicitly teach automatically modifying an application.
However, Hitzler from the same or similar field of sequence based programmed control of equipment, teaches automatically modifying an application (A sequential application program is checked/validated for needed conditions, and can be automatically adjusted/modified, see C7L52 to C8L7, Hitzler).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application and control as described by the combination that includes the co-pending claim and incorporating a automatically modifying an application, as taught by Hitzler.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more conveniently make changes to a program so as to properly fulfill desired needed conditions of a system without requiring direct user intervention when possible (see C7L52 to C8L7, Hitzler).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/25/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Rejections based on a newly cited reference(s) follow.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to Siedl will be addressed, except for the amended limitation, which encompasses new grounds for rejection.
Applicant states on page 9 that:
PNG
media_image1.png
734
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that:
PNG
media_image2.png
76
609
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
The Examiner notes that that the event commands of Siedl are formed as a scheduled series of commands for execution (see fig. 3, Siedl), thus it is a program comprised of blocks, where the individual commands can be interpreted as a block of one command. Nothing in the claims prohibits a “block” from being interpreted as an event or command. Furthermore, as seen in throughout Siedl, but at least in C7L10-25 and C8L13-2, the sequences are stored for scheduled execution (i.e. Pre-execution”). Furthermore, a main point of Siedl is its validation engine that validates the formed sequence for validity based on its rules, and the schedule is modified, by for example an operator, until a valid sequence is reached, and stored. This is evident from at least C4L1-20 and C11 L6-15.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that:
PNG
media_image3.png
76
636
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Examiner notes that that the sequence programming is modified, by for example an operator, until a valid sequence is reached, and stored. This is evident from C11 L6-15, and C10 L56-60 clearly stated that invalid events may be at least deleted, thus satisfying the claim limitation.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that:
PNG
media_image4.png
99
629
media_image4.png
Greyscale
First, the Examiner notes that Seidl does not appear to mention any “temporary” cancelations or suppressions, or that editing is at “runtime.” What Siedl does teach, is that the validity is enforced and programming that forms the sequence is modified, and thus meets the claim language. It is further noted that the “NullifiesCmds” and related features of Seidl are in fact rules related to certain commands that must be met when the particular command with said rule is in a sequence. When validation is carried out, if the command’s position in the sequence means the rule is invalid, then this requires an enforcement by modification (see C5, C10-C11, Siedl).
With regards to Applicant’s argument that:
PNG
media_image5.png
75
629
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
99
622
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The Examiner notes that that the claim make no mention of pre-execution, however in Siedl it is clear from C4L1-20, C11 L6-15, and Fig. 7, that the verification is performed prior to an implementation because validation must be enforced/reached and then the validated sequence program is stored. With regards to the automatic modification, the instant claims have been amended to specifically claim said feature, which necessitated new grounds of rejection, thud the argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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, 3-7, 15-21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 6,148,306 to Seidl et al., (hereinafter Seidl), in view of US Patent No. 11,363,937 to Hitzler et al., (hereinafter Hitzler).
Regarding claim 1, Seidl teaches an apparatus comprising:
at least one of an actuator or a heater (A ventilation, heating, and air conditioning used in controlling and actuating components to provide environmental conditioning such as heating, thus there is at least an actuator or heater, see C3 L20-31, C1 L15-30, Seidl); and
a controller that controls the at least one of the actuator or the heater (Control of HVAC that actuates environmental control including heating, such as through schedule, commands, etc., see C3 L20-31, C1 L15-30, Seidl), wherein
the controller:
obtains an application defined by a plurality of blocks that drive the at least one of the actuator or the heater (A schedule strategy application program is formed by a sequence of command event blocks that actuate the system, such as vents, heating/warming, etc., is obtained, such as from a database or operator programming, see C4 L1-20, C3 L20-31, C1 L15-30, Fig. 7, Fig. 6, Fig. 3, C9L14-35, Seidl), the application including information on an order of execution of the blocks of the application (A program in the form of a sequence schedule provides information on an order of execution command blocks, see C4 L1-20, C3 L20-31, C1 L15-30, Fig. 7, Fig. 6, Fig. 3, C9L14-35, Seidl);
obtains, from a rule database, a rule prohibiting, when the application includes a second block, a first block from not being executed before the second block (A data structure (i.e. database) stores rules affecting validity of commands and their sequence. One such rule can include a requirement for a specific command (i.e. first block) that is required to be active before another command (i.e. second block) can take place, thus there is a prohibition that the first command not executing before the second. For example, in the case of a RequiresCmds variable rule, indicates which other command must be active for a particular subsequent command to be valid, for example a vent on command must be executed before a vent off command can be selected, meaning there is a prohibition that vent on not be executed before vent off when vent off is included as a command, see C5 L32-59, C8L53-C9L13, C8 L13-65, Fig. 6, Seidl);
determines whether the rule applies to the blocks of the application, the rule applying when an order of execution of the blocks of the application does not include the first block being executed before the second block (A validity check based on rules is determined from schedule program command sequences, including determining whether a RequiesCmds rule is or is not being followed, meaning that includes a case were the application may not include a first block command such as vent on from executing to be active before a second selected command block, such as vent off, see C9L14-31, C8L53-C9L13, C8 L13-65, C5 L32-59, Fig. 6, Seidl);
in response to determining that the rule applies to the blocks of the application modifies the application, by at least one of inserting the first block before the second block, reordering the first block before the second block, or deleting the second block, such that the rule does not apply, whereby a triggering condition of the rule no longer holds (Validation of a program command sequence is performed based on rules, and when it is determined that a rule needs to be enforced, the command sequence must be modified and corrected (i.e. delete, sequence modified, etc. ), see C10L49-60, C11 L9-11, C10L13-20, C9L14-31, C8L53-C9L13, C8 L13-65, C5 L32-59, Fig. 6, Seidl) and
drives the at least one of the actuator or the heater based on the application modified (A validated and corrected algorithm is for environmental control, has the implication of driving actuation of an hvac based on the validated corrected command sequence, see C10L49-60, C11 L9-11, C10L13-20, C9L14-31, C8L53-C9L13, C8 L13-65, C5 L32-59, Fig. 6, Seidl).
Seidl does not explicitly teach automatically modifying an application.
However, Hitzler from the same or similar field of sequence based programmed control of equipment, teaches automatically modifying an application (A sequential application program is checked/validated for needed conditions, and can be automatically adjusted/modified, see C7L52 to C8L7, Hitzler).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application and control as described by Seidl and incorporating automatically modifying an application, as taught by Hitzler.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more conveniently make changes to a program so as to properly fulfill desired needed conditions of a system without requiring direct user intervention when possible (see C7L52 to C8L7, Hitzler).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Seidl and Hitzler teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Seidl further teaches wherein when the application includes the second block and does not include the first block before the second block, the controller modifies the application by inserting the first block before the second block (Validation of a program command sequence is performed based on rules, and when it is determined that a rule needs to be enforced, such as when a vent off command is included as a second command block, without including a first active vent on command block, then the command sequence must be modified and corrected with the implication of appropriately inserting and placed the first block, see C8L53-C9L13, C10L49-60, C11 L9-11, C10L13-20, C9L14-31, C8 L13-65, C5 L32-59, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Seidl).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Seidl and Hitzler teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Seidl further teaches wherein when the application includes the first block and the second block, and does not include the first block before the second block, the controller modifies the application by reordering the first block to come before the second block (Validation of a program command sequence is performed based on rules, and when it is determined that a rule needs to be enforced, such as when a sequence with a vent off command and vent on are not in a valid sequence, then the command sequence must be modified and corrected with the implication correct order, as enforced by a RequiresCmds that requires vent on to be ordered before vent off, see C8L52-65, C11 L9-11, C10L49-60, C10L13-20, C9L14-31, C8L53-C9L13, C8 L13-65, C5 L32-59, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Seidl).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Seidl and Hitzler teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Seidl further teaches wherein when the application includes the second block and does not include the first block before the second block, the controller modifies the application by deleting the second block (Validation of a program command sequence is performed based on rules, and when it is determined that a rule needs to be enforced, such as when a sequence with a vent off command is not preceded by a first vent on block, then the command sequence must be modified and corrected with editing or deletion, see C10L49-60, C8L52-65, C11 L9-11, C10L13-20, C9L14-31, C8L53-C9L13, C8 L13-65, C5 L32-59, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Seidl).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Seidl and Hitzler teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Seidl further teaches wherein the rule prohibits the first block from not being executed in a period from a start of the application to before the second block is executed (A rule can include a requirement for a specific command (i.e. first block) that is required to be active before another command (i.e. second block) can take place, thus there is a prohibition that the first command not executing before the second. This rule applies to a program sequence from any point from a start of the sequence up to any point afterward where the second command that requires the other command may be placed, as all the commands in a sequence are tested for validity see C8 L52-65, C5 L32-59, C7L 10-15, C8L53-C9L13, C8 L13-65, Fig. 6, Seidl).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Seidl and Hitzler teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Seidl further teaches wherein the first block is for establishing an executable environment for the second block (A first block, such as vent on, is required in order to establish an executing environment of a vent being on for a second command of vent off to turn off a vent, since a command for vent off doesn’t not make sense if there is no active on vent, see C5 L32-59, C8L53-C9L13, C8 L13-65, Fig. 6, Seidl).
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Seidl teaches an apparatus comprising: at least one of an actuator or a heater (A ventilation, heating, and air conditioning used in controlling and actuating components to provide environmental conditioning such as heating, thus there is at least an actuator or heater, see C3 L20-31, C1 L15-30, Seidl); and a controller that controls the at least one of the actuator or the heater (Control of HVAC that actuates environmental control including heating, such as through schedule, commands, etc., see C3 L20-31, C1 L15-30, Seidl), wherein the controller: obtains an application defined by a plurality of blocks that drive the at least one of the actuator or the heater (A schedule strategy application program is formed by a sequence of command event blocks that actuate the system, such as vents, heating/warming, etc., is obtained, such as from a database or operator programming, see C4 L1-20, C3 L20-31, C1 L15-30, Fig. 7, Fig. 6, Fig. 3, C9L14-35, Seidl), the application including information on an order of execution of the blocks of the application, the blocks including a first block (A program in the form of a sequence schedule provides information on an order of execution command blocks, where a sequence includes a first command block in a sequence, see C4 L1-20, C3 L20-31, C1 L15-30, Fig. 7, Fig. 6, Fig. 3, C9L14-35, Seidl); obtains, from a rule database, a rule prohibiting, when the application includes a second block, a third block from not being executed after the second block (A data structure (i.e. database) stores rules affecting validity of commands and their sequence. A program sequence can include three or more commands. One such rule can include a requirement for a specific command (e.g. second block of an at least three command sequence) that is required to be active before another subsequent command (e.g. another command of an at least three command sequence) can take place, thus the third command executes subsequently of the second, see C5 L32-59, C8L53-C9L13, C8 L13-65, Fig. 6, Seidl); determines whether the rule applies to the blocks of the application, the rule applying when an order of execution of the blocks of the application does not include the third block being executed after the second block (A validity check based on rules is determined from schedule program command sequences, see C9L14-31, C8L53-C9L13, C8 L13-65, C5 L32-59, Fig. 6, Seidl); in response to determining that the rule applies to the blocks of the application, modifies the application, by at least one of inserting the third block after the second block, reordering the third block after the second block, or deleting the second block, such that the rule does not apply, whereby a triggering condition of the rule no longer holds (Validation of a program command sequence is performed based on rules, and when it is determined that a rule needs to be enforced, the command sequence must be modified and corrected (i.e. delete, sequence modified, etc. ), see C10L49-60, C11 L9-11, C10L13-20, C9L14-31, C8L53-C9L13, C8 L13-65, C5 L32-59, Fig. 6, Seidl); and drives the at least one of the actuator or the heater based on the application modified (A validated and corrected algorithm is for environmental control, has the implication of driving actuation of an hvac based on the validated corrected command sequence, see C10L49-60, C11 L9-11, C10L13-20, C9L14-31, C8L53-C9L13, C8 L13-65, C5 L32-59, Fig. 6, Seidl).
Seidl does not explicitly teach automatically modifying an application.
However, Hitzler from the same or similar field of sequence based programmed control of equipment, teaches automatically modifying an application (A sequential application program is checked/validated for needed conditions, and can be automatically adjusted/modified, see C7L52 to C8L7, Hitzler).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application and control as described by Seidl and incorporating automatically modifying an application, as taught by Hitzler.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more conveniently make changes to a program so as to properly fulfill desired needed conditions of a system without requiring direct user intervention when possible (see C7L52 to C8L7, Hitzler).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Seidl and Hitzler teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Seidl further teaches wherein when the application includes the second block and does not include the third block after the second block, the controller modifies the application by inserting the third block after the second block (Validation of a program command sequence is performed based on rules, and when it is determined that a rule needs to be enforced, then the command sequence must be modified and corrected with the implication of appropriately inserting and placed the first block, see C8L53-C9L13, C10L49-60, C11 L9-11, C10L13-20, C9L14-31, C8 L13-65, C5 L32-59, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Seidl)
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Seidl and Hitzler teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Seidl further teaches wherein when the application includes the second block and the third block, and does not include the third block after the second block, the controller modifies the application by reordering the third block to come after the second block (Validation of a program command sequence is performed based on rules, and when it is determined that a rule needs to be enforced, then the command sequence must be modified and corrected with the implication correct order, see C8L52-65, C11 L9-11, C10L49-60, C10L13-20, C9L14-31, C8L53-C9L13, C8 L13-65, C5 L32-59, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Seidl).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Seidl and Hitzler teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Seidl further teaches wherein when the application includes the second block and does not include the third block after the second block, the controller modifies the application by deleting the second block (Validation of a program command sequence is performed based on rules, and when it is determined that a rule needs to be enforced, then the command sequence must be modified and corrected with editing or deletion, see C10L49-60, C8L52-65, C11 L9-11, C10L13-20, C9L14-31, C8L53-C9L13, C8 L13-65, C5 L32-59, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Seidl).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Seidl and Hitzler teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Seidl further teaches wherein the rule prohibits the third block from not being executed in a period from after the second block is executed to an end of the application (A rule can include a requirement for a specific command (i.e. second block) that is required to be active before another command (i.e. third block) can take place, thus there is a prohibition that the third command not executing before the second. This rule applies to a program sequence from any point from when the second command is placed in the sequence up to any point afterward where the third command may be placed up to the end of the sequence see C8 L52-65, C5 L32-59, C7L 10-15, C8L53-C9L13, C8 L13-65, Fig. 6, Seidl).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Seidl and Hitzler teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Seidl further teaches wherein the third block is for restoring an environment changed by execution of the second block to an environment before the execution of the second block (A third block, such as vent off, is for restoring a vent being to off from an on of the second command, and which would be off before the second, see C5 L32-59, C8L53-C9L13, C8 L13-65, Fig. 6, Seidl).
Claim 24 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 16.
Claims 13, 14, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidl, in view of Hitzer, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2011/0048460 to Grull et al., (hereinafter Grull).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Seidl and Hitzler teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Seidl does not explicitly teach wherein a rule is for ensuring that two or more given blocks are executed in combination to prevent at least one of an actuator or a heater from reaching a maximum withstand temperature.
However, Grull from the same or similar field of programmed control, teaches wherein a rule is for ensuring that two or more given blocks are executed in combination to prevent at least one of an actuator or a heater from reaching a maximum withstand temperature (A sequence program used in satisfying a rule to limit a temperature actuated and heated from reaching maximum that can damage, meaning to a maximum temperature that can be withstanded, see P20-22, P16, P18, Grull).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus control as described by the combination that includes Seidl and incorporating a rule to prevent reaching a maximum temperature , as taught by Grull.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better prevent damage from excessive heat to components (see P20-22, P16, P18, Grull).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Seidl and Hitzler teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Seidl further teaches an enclosure including an interior space (Controlled environmental
enclosed space of a building facility, see C1 L15-30, Seidl)
Seidl does not explicitly teach a rule is for ensuring that two or more given blocks are executed in combination to prevent an interior space from reaching a maximum withstand temperature.
However, Grull from the same or similar field of programmed control, teaches a rule is for ensuring that two or more given blocks are executed in combination to prevent an interior space from reaching a maximum withstand temperature (A sequence program used in satisfying a rule to limit a temperature actuated and heated into a dishwasher space from reaching maximum that can damage, meaning to a maximum temperature that can be withstanded, see P20-22, P16, P18, Grull).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus control as described by the combination that includes Seidl and incorporating a rule to prevent reaching a maximum temperature , as taught by Grull.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better prevent damage from excessive heat to components (see P20-22, P16, P18, Grull).
Claim 22is rejected on the same grounds as claim 13.
Claim 23is rejected on the same grounds as claim 14.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee, US. Patent No. 2002/0095483 teaches a washing machine course program and self-diagnosis service to prevent damage to clothes, etc., that may be caused by manipulation of unskilled manipulation of the washing machine..
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 EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (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, Robert E Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights