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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is a non-final First Office Action.
This action is in response to communications filed on 03/02/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception, an abstract idea (mental process), without significantly more.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 14-17, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by SolidPlant 3D https://www.solidplant3d.com/en/ ( “SP3”)
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SP3 in view of US 20060247902 A1 , Rourke (“ ROU”)
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SP3 in view of JP 2002063294 A, Shibata (“SHI”)
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SP3 in view of SHI in further view of CN-211041490-U Chen (“CHE”)
Claims 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SP3 in view From P&ID to 3D Piping to Isometrics: SOLIDWORKS and Smap3D Plant Design, 2015 (11 years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVPvGu8mkBw (“PID”)
Priority
The application is a continuation of PCT/JP2021/032282 filed 09/02/2021, and it claims priority to the Application Japan J2020-148543, Filing Date 09/03/2030. Foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/02/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Notations, Abbreviations and Conventions used.
The number in the parenthesis, following next to a claim number, when used, is the number of the parent claim.
The following abbreviations are used:
BRI = Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
POSITA = Person of Ordinary Skill in The Art
101 - 35 USC § 101
102 or 103 = 35 USC § 102 or 335 USC § 103
(S1)/(S2A1)/(S2A2) (S2B) = Steps 1, 2AProng , 2AProng2, and 2B of the multi-step eligibility analysis in the Alice/Mayo framework
WURC = Well Understood, Routine, Conventional
{ } text from the reference
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 directed to an ineligible judicial exception.
Claims are analyzed under the Alice/Mayo framework to determine whether the claims are directed to an ineligible judicial exception. Recitation of judicial exceptions are highlighted in bold font. Paraphrased language, shown in italics, is used to simplify reference. Claims with similar limitations, although not verbatim identical, that share the same rationale under Alice/Mayo steps Step 1 (S1) and Steps 2 Prongs A1, A2 and B (S2A1, S2A2, S2B) are grouped. The analysis is performed on a representative claim of each group. An additional analysis is performed if any claims in the group includes additional limitations.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception (abstract idea, mental process) without significantly more.
(S1) Prima facie, claims 1-20 are each directed to a statutory category of invention: process (Claim 20 directed to a method), machine (claims 1-19 directed to an apparatus).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
Regarding claims 1,
(S2A1)
Claim 1, representative for claim 20, recites recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] a three-dimensional space design apparatus provided with a processing circuitry configured to execute processing relating to three-dimensional space design of a plant, wherein the processing circuitry executes: (preamble)
[B] receiving from a user an object allocation operation for designating a position in a virtual space to allocate a first object, which is an object in which a pipe is preset for a device constituting the plant; (data gathering)
[C] allocating the first object in the virtual space in response to the object allocation operation from a user; (if the words “virtual space” would not be in the limitation, as indicative, in view of the specification, of a digital design environment, the interpretation would be of a mental process – for example place an equipment at the NE corner of the plot may be performed mentally; as drafted, the limitation is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity, which will be proven to be WURC – allocating an object;
[D] receiving a routing operation from a user; and (data gathering)
[E] performing pipe routing for connection to an end of the pipe of the allocated first object in response to the routing operation. (a process that can be performed in the mind or with pen and paper).
In broadest reasonable interpretation and in view of the specification the claim recites a process of “routing to an end of a pipe of an allocated object”. This is a process that can be performed by a person in the mind or with the use of a pen while examining a paper where an object is allocated, and has been done long before the computers were used.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation it covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement and decision-making. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Accordingly, claims 1, 20 recite an abstract idea.
(S2A2)
The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the claims only amount to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity limitations (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional claim elements also recite: [B], [C], [D]. When considered individually, each amounts to nothing more than “Insignificant Extra-Solution (Pre-Solution) Activity”, i.e. activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Specifically, the claim elements in [B] and [D] are considered pre-solution activity because they are mere gathering or pre-processing data/information in conjunction with the abstract idea, (see MPEP §2106.05(d); which the courts have identified did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Step [C] merely applies the user’s object-placement instruction in the virtual space, and does not improve the functioning of the computer or the routing technology.
The additional elements, taken individually or in combination, fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application when evaluated using the considerations in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) because these do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, nor do they effect an improvement to any technology or technical field. Therefore, the claim remains directed to a judicial exception.
(S2B) Claims do not include additional elements, which individually or in combination amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As analyzed in step S2A2 the additional elements Insignificant Extra (Pre-Solution) Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), which for situations substantially similar to those here, these additional elements, including data gathering, data manipulation recited at high level of generality were found by the courts to be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)).
When considered as a whole, with additional elements in an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim only amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and Insignificant Extra Activities. Additional elements elaborate on the identified abstract idea but do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing about the computing environment or the additional steps that is significant or meaningful to the underlying judicial exception because the identified abstract idea could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. There is no inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, it is concluded that claims 1, 20 are ineligible.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Claims 2-19 further recite as follows.
Claim 2(1) further recites:
wherein in the receiving from a user the object allocation operation, an operation for designating a type of the first object or a second object, which is a device constituting the plant, and a position in the virtual space to allocate the first object or the second object is received; and
in the allocating in response to the object allocation operation, the first object or the second object is allocated at the designated position.
Claim 3(2) further recites:
Wherein the processing circuitry further executes:
receiving from a user an object edit operation for editing the first object or the second object allocated in the virtual space, and allocating the edited first object or the edited second object in the virtual space.
Claim 4(3) further recites:
Wherein in the receiving from a user the object edit operation, the editing includes receiving an input of a parameter set for the first object or the second object; and
in the allocating the edited first object or the edited second object, in response to an input of the parameter, the first object or the second object corresponding to the parameter is allocated in the virtual space.
Claim 5(4) further recites:
Wherein in the allocating the edited first object or the edited second
object, the edited first object or the edited second object is allocated in the virtual space based on the parameter and information of a preset functional requirement.
Claim 6(3) further recites:
Wherein in the receiving from a user the object edit operation, the editing includes receiving an input operation to edit according to one or more of usability, operability, ease-of-construction, and accessibility of the device in the plant.
Claim 7(3) further recites:
Wherein in the receiving from a user the object edit operation, the editing includes receiving an input operation to edit a length and an installed angle of a pipe preset for the first object.
Claim 8(7) further recites:
wherein the pipe preset for the first object includes an intake for fluid supplied to the pipe and/or an outlet for the fluid.
Claim 9(8) further recites:
Wherein in the receiving from a user the object edit operation, the editing includes receiving an input operation for changing the intake or the outlet for the fluid in the pipe.
Claim 10(3) further recites:
Wherein the first object includes one or a plurality of the devices.
Claim 11(10) further recites:
wherein a pipe is preset for each of the one or the plurality of the devices of the first object.
Claim 12(1) further recites:
wherein in the receiving from a user the object edit operation, the editing includes receiving an input operation for editing the number of the devices.
Claim 13(12) further recites:
wherein in a case where the number of the devices is more than one, a plurality of intakes or outlets allocated on each of the devices are integrated.
Claim 14(3) further recites:
wherein the device includes one or more of a pump, a heat exchanger, a filter, a valve, a piping member, an instrument, a heating furnace, a tower tank, an agitator, and other facilities used in a chemical plant.
Claim 15(14) further recites:
wherein one or a plurality of the valves are allocated on the pipe preset for the first object.
Claim 16(14) further recites:
wherein in the receiving from a user the object edit operation, in a case where the device is a pump, the editing includes receiving an edit input for editing a type of the pump.
Claim 17(14) further recites:
wherein in the receiving from a user the object edit operation, in a case where the device is a heat exchanger, the editing includes receiving an edit input for editing a type of the heat exchanger and/or a type of a layout for the heat exchanger.
Claim 18(14) further recites:
wherein in the receiving from a user the object edit operation, in a case where the device is a filter, the editing includes receiving an edit input for editing a type of the filter.
Claim 19(14) further recites:
wherein in the receiving from a user the object edit operation, in a case where the device is a valve, the editing includes receiving an edit input for editing a type of the valve and/or a type of an arrangement of the valve.
Each of the claims 2-19 continues to recite, and further reinforce/elaborate on the abstract idea in the parent claim. These further elements in the dependent claims only limit other claim elements, specifically: receiving, pipe preset, first object, and devices, by describing their nature, structure and/or content, thus further limiting the form of the transactions that are acted upon in the parent claim. The nature, form or structure of these elements themselves do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed.
The analysis for each of them is similar to that of the parent claim. The additional elements further recited by the claim are of the same nature as those identified in the parent claim, specifically Insignificant Extra (Pre-Solution) Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) limitations of data gathering, data manipulation, recited at high level of generality were found by the courts to be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)) - data manipulation and mere instructions to apply an exception ((MPEP 2106.05(f) ).
For each of the above claims, when considered individually or in combination, the additional elements do not provide any specific improvements and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. Therefore, these claim elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Each of the claims is thus directed to a judicial exception.
For each of the above claims, when considered individually and in combination, the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Claims are thus found ineligible under 35 USC 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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 14-17, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by SolidPlant 3D https://www.solidplant3d.com/en/ ( “SP3”)
In BRI the independent claim recites a computer aided design tool for 3D pipe routing that allows a user to indicate a position/location of an equipment, which has predetermined information to it including for pipe connections, and the software allocates/places it in the design at desired position/location; then a routing information is received from the user, and the software performs the routing to any target point specified, including to the pipe connection of placed equipment.
Regarding claims 1, 20 SP3 teaches a three-dimensional space design apparatus provided with a processing circuitry configured to execute processing relating to three-dimensional space design of a plant, wherein the processing circuitry executes:
{SolidPlant 3D} computer-aided design tool for plant design in 3D, an industry standard tool from SolidWorks.
receiving from a user an object allocation operation for designating a position in a virtual space to allocate a first object, which is an object in which a pipe is preset for a device constituting the plant; allocating the first object in the virtual space in response to the object allocation operation from a user; receiving a routing operation from a user; and performing pipe routing for connection to an end of the pipe of the allocated first object in response to the routing operation. {Video Section A 2:55, Fig. 1 See Location in Menu for Equipment, for pumps, tanks, vessels and more. Fig. 2 Edit Equipment shows pump with preset values, dimensions, indicating pipe connection info to the pump (nozzle/intake/inlet/outlet); Section B Fig. 3 Equipment such as pumps… 3:03 All templates can be modified and dragged into the drawing. Section C 3:32 Fig. 5 User is prompted and indicates start and end and routing is made automatically; From manual pipe drawing to full automated multi-line routing; Uses the list; To determine the start and end of the xxx line and then route them automatically. Fig, 6} The video shows a library of predetermined components, which are editable and can be modified, including a pump to which connections to pipe are indicated, the menu shows a button for editing equipment nozzle, then how the software allows editing/modifying routing information, after which routing is performed, e.g. automatically.
PNG
media_image1.png
528
1249
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2(1) SP3 teaches
wherein in the receiving from a user the object allocation operation, an operation for designating a type of the first object or a second object, which is a device constituting the plant, and a position in the virtual space to allocate the first object or the second object is received; and in the allocating in response to the object allocation operation, the first object or the second object is allocated at the designated position. {see at least section A Equipment. Fig 1.} The type of equipment can be selected from the Equipment menu – The screenshot shows how selection of a Pump opens a new menu on which a number of characteristics are displayed, on of which is Location. Position is interpreted as location.
Regarding claim 3(2) SP3 teaches
receiving from a user an object edit operation for editing the first object or the second object allocated in the virtual space, and allocating the edited first object or the edited second object in the virtual space. {see at least section A Equipment. Fig 1. } The type of equipment can be selected from the Equipment menu – The screenshot shows how selection of a Pump opens a new menu on which a number of characteristics are displayed, one of which is Location. Position is interpreted as location. A POSITA would understand yhat an allocation to that position is thus made prior to pipe routing.
Regarding claim 4(3) SP3 teaches
Wherein in the receiving from a user the object edit operation, the editing includes receiving an input of a parameter set for the first object or the second object; and
in the allocating the edited first object or the edited second object, in response to an input of the parameter, the first object or the second object corresponding to the parameter is allocated in the virtual space. {see at least section A Equipment. Fig 1. And Fig 2} The type of equipment can be selected from the Equipment menu – The screenshot in Fig 2 also shows a variety of pump parameters including a number of dimensions. } A POSITA would understand that an allocation of the object with those specified dimensions/parameters is made.
Regarding claim 5(4) SP3 teaches
wherein in the allocating the edited first object or the edited second
object, the edited first object or the edited second object is allocated in the virtual space based on the parameter and information of a preset functional requirement.{ . {see at least section A Equipment. Fig 1. Fig 2, Fig 3.} The type of equipment can be selected from the Equipment menu – The screenshot in Fig 1(a) and (b) illustrates a number of preset information such as installation, location, etc, properties and values The screenshot in Fig 2 also shows a variety of pump parameters including a number of dimensions. } A POSITA would understand that an allocation of the object is based with those specified parameters and information.
Regarding claim 7(3)
Wherein in the receiving from a user the object edit operation, the editing includes receiving an input operation to edit a length and an installed angle of a pipe preset for the first object. {Video: see slope/angle in the menu below); Manual: See angle and Distance
PNG
media_image2.png
893
352
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
140
714
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Length interpreted as distance.
Regarding claim 8(7)
, wherein the pipe preset for the first object includes an intake for fluid supplied to the pipe and/or an outlet for the fluid. {Video Fig 1d. Manual pg 45 Fig 5 – same pump, see the Nozzles
PNG
media_image4.png
447
538
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In BRI the 2 nozzles of the pump are inlet/outlet
Regarding claim 9(8)
Wherein in the receiving from a user the object edit operation, the editing includes receiving an input operation for changing the intake or the outlet for the fluid in the pipe.
{Manual p45}
PNG
media_image5.png
149
766
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Changing the inake or the outlet for the fluid in the pipe is interpreted as editing the properties of the nozzles
Regarding claim 10(3)
Wherein the first object includes one or a plurality of the devices.
. {see at least section A Equipment. Fig 1.} The type of equipment can be selected from the Equipment menu – The screenshot shows how selection of a Pump opens a new menu on which a number of characteristics are displayed} one device, a pump
Regarding claim 11(10)
Wherein a pipe is preset for each of the one or the plurality of the devices of the first object. {Video Section A 2:55, Fig. 1 See Location in Menu for Equipment, for pumps, tanks, vessels and more. Fig. 2 Edit Equipment shows pump with preset values, dimensions, indicating pipe connection info to the pump (nozzle/intake/inlet/outlet); Section B Fig. 3 Equipment such as pumps… 3:03 All templates can be modified and dragged into the drawing. Section C 3:32 Fig. 5 User is prompted and indicates start and end and routing is made automatically; From manual pipe drawing to full automated multi-line routing; Uses the list; To determine the start and end of the xxx line and then route them automatically. Fig, 6}
Regarding claim 14(3)
wherein the device includes one or more of a pump, a heat exchanger, a filter, a valve, a piping member, an instrument, a heating furnace, a tower tank, an agitator, and other facilities used in a chemical plant. . {see at least section A Equipment. Fig 1.} The type of equipment can be selected from the Equipment menu – The screenshot shows how selection of a Pump opens a new menu on which a number of characteristics are displayed} one device, a pump
Regarding claim 15(14)
Wherein one or a plurality of the valves are allocated on the pipe preset for the first object.{Figs 2D 2E; determine the start and end nozzles of 3:48 the lines and then route them
…automatically components such as valves}
Regarding claim 16(14) l
wherein in the receiving from a user the object edit operation, in a case where the device is a pump, the editing includes receiving an edit input for editing a type of the pump.{2:56}
PNG
media_image6.png
429
826
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17(14) SP3 teaches
Wherein in the receiving from a user the object edit operation, in a case where the device is a heat exchanger, the editing includes receiving an edit input for editing a type of the heat exchanger and/or a type of a layout for the heat exchanger. {sec 2:55)
PNG
media_image7.png
389
709
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19(14)
wherein in the receiving from a user the object edit operation, in a case where the device is a valve, the editing includes receiving an edit input for editing a type of the valve and/or a type of an arrangement of the valve. { Fig 2d Edit Valve; Type =}
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims that share substantially similar limitations (even though not verbatim) are grouped and analyzed together; the analysis is done on the claim with most comprehensive limitations. The parenthesis following a claim number indicates the parent claim.
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SP3 in view of US 20060247902 A1 , Rourke (“ ROU”)
Regarding claim 6(3) SP3 teaches the limitations of the parent claim . It does not teach, however ROU teaches
Wherein in the receiving from a user the object edit operation, the editing includes receiving an input operation to edit according to one or more of usability, operability, ease-of-construction, and accessibility of the device in the plant.{{ROU [0065] For a new path, the designer specifies the dimension size and shape of the object to be routed (pipe diameter, for example), and references the operability, manufacturing and installation rules to be followed such as but not limited to those listed in Tables 1, 2 and 3 below, using the Router User Interface 120.}
In addition it would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teaching of SP3 with the criteria for routing taught by ROU. It would have been motivated to do so to have the advantage of providing criteria for routing which would be used by the routing optimizer.
The claim is thus obvious over SP3/ROU
Claims 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SP3 in view of JP 2002063294 A Shibata (“SHI”)
Regarding claim 12(1) SP3 teaches the limitations of the parent claim . It does not teach, however SHI teaches
Wherein in the receiving from a user the object edit operation, the editing includes receiving an input operation for editing the number of the devices. {21) At the same time, the equipment list 56, which is a list of equipment installed in the displayed drawing display unit 54, is also displayed on the display device of the terminal to prompt the user to specify the number of the equipment to be updated (step S22). }
In addition it would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teaching of SP3 with the criteria for routing taught by ROU. It would have been motivated to do so to have the advantage of providing criteria for routing which would be used by the routing optimizer.
The claim is thus obvious over SP3/ROU
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SP3 in view of SHI in further view of CN-211041490-U Chen (“CHE”)
Regarding claim 13(12) SP3/SHI teaches the limitations of the parent claim. It does not teach, however CHE teaches
wherein in a case where the number of the devices is more than one, a plurality of intakes or outlets allocated on each of the devices are integrated. { Claim1. A refrigerating house BIM chunks based on modelling, comprising an integrated type refrigerating block (1), freezing water pump (2), cooling water pump (3) and water replenishing block (4), wherein the integrated type refrigerating block (1) comprises refrigerating host machine (5), freezing water supply pipe (7) and freezing water return pipe (15), a cooling water supply pipe (17) and the cooling return pipe (16);
it only needs to change the pipeline according to the design paper requirement, small amounts, pipe fitting and pipe attachment to finish the subject part design of the refrigerator room, which can greatly reduce the workload and improve the modelling efficiency;}
In addition it would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teaching of SP3/SHI with the criteria for routing taught by CHE. It would have been motivated to do so to have the advantage of providing criteria for routing which would be used by the routing optimizer.
The claim is thus obvious over SP3/SHI/CHE
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SP3 in view From P&ID to 3D Piping to Isometrics: SOLIDWORKS and Smap3D Plant Design, 2015 (11 years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVPvGu8mkBw (“PID”)
Regarding claim 18(14) SP3 teaches the limitations of the parent claim. It does not teach, however PID teaches
wherein in the receiving from a user the object edit operation, in a case where the device is a filter, the editing includes receiving an edit input for editing a type of the filter.
PNG
media_image8.png
1125
1307
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
243
471
media_image9.png
Greyscale
See filters as one component in Component Database, number 4 from top
Each component has component data which is edited as in screen below
PNG
media_image10.png
928
660
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In addition it would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teaching of SP3 with the specifics for filter as taught by PID. It would have been motivated to do so to have the advantage of providing the details for all types of equipment and devices and filters are a common device in plants – similar to all other edits which can be seen in SP3. The claim is thus obvious over SP3/PID
Prior art made of record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
JP H10275169 A
JP 2018112862 A
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN STOICA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. -5 p.m. PT.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights