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
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Oath/Declaration
3. For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that the Oath/Declaration submitted on 05/09/2023 has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/09/2023 and 10/14/2024 have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, an initialed and dated copy of Applicant's IDS form SB08 filed 05/09/2023 and 10/14/2024 are attached to the instant Office action.
Drawings
5. The drawings FIG 2-4 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because it failed to show the structural details as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
The drawings FIG 2-4 is objected to because of the quality of the lines and characters. 37 CFR 1.84(l) requires that all drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Applicants are recommended to provide specific or required information related to different components: A, B, C, D, E, F and G in FIG. 2-4 according to Specification of current Application para [0025-0028].
Examiner Notes
6. Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures 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 their 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. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “first electrical component has a first electrical rating, and the second electrical component has a second electrical rating, …”. Applicants didn’t provide any specific information or meaning regarding the claim element “electrical rating” in Specification of current Application, which makes the scope of claim indefinite. Therefore, proper correction is required.
In order to perform compact prosecution and as per conventional meaning in the art Examiner would construe the claim element “electrical rating” as ‘safety rating’ related to electrical component.
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 set forth in Graham, v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.1.148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
8. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auh et al. (Pub. No. US2021/0150081A1) (hereinafter Auh, IDS provided dated 05/09/2023) and in view of Stump et al. (Pub. No. US2022/0222623A1) (hereinafter Stump, IDS provided dated 10/14/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Auh teaches a method for crowdsourcing engineering designs, (Examiner would construe the claim element “crowdsourcing” according to Specification of current Application para [0051] stated: “the crowdsourcing functionality discussed herein can apply beyond receiving placed orders (e.g., confirmed purchases)”.
Auh disclosed in page 3 para [0040]: “The embodiments herein provide techniques to streamline the process for generating the base designs (e.g., the motor control lineup), desired layouts, and diagrams (e.g., single-line diagram, elevation drawings, editable engineering drawings) by reducing customer input. … By selecting the particular base design, the customer bypasses having to define each specification and answering numerous questions related to an industrial device assembly to submit a purchase order for a particular industrial device assembly. Using an intelligent, knowledge based algorithm, the computing system may provide, via a graphical user interface (GUI), various selectable base designs and option packs to the customer based on customer inputs.”).
Auh teaches the method comprising: receiving a first order for a first industrial control product, the first industrial control product associated with a base design and including a first option pack that is a first variation to the base design; (Auh disclosed in page 3 para [0040]: “Using an intelligent, knowledge based algorithm, the computing system may provide, via a graphical user interface (GUI), various selectable base designs and option packs to the customer based on customer inputs.” In page 11 para [0117]: “the customer may submit an electrical load list, industry data, and location data as inputs to a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computing system … Based on such customer inputs, the computing system may determine numerous parameters (e.g., 100 parameters, 200 parameters) related to a number of levels of operations for various components of the industrial device assembly to generate customer-specific base designs. The parameters may include safety attributes (e.g., arc containment), intelligence attributes (e.g., processing power), system attributes (e.g., control voltage), communication attributes (e.g., available number of ports), unit attributes (e.g., withdrawable units), and the like related to the industrial device assembly.”).
Auh teaches determining that the first option pack is new responsive to determining that engineering design files for the first option pack do not exist in an industrial design library; (Auh disclosed in page 13 para [0137]: “The processor 126 may use the previously mentioned machine learning algorithm to select the set of base designs. For example, the processor 126 may employ decision tree logic to determine the set of base designs from the base designs in the database or the design library that likely match the client data and the identified parameters. That is, the processor 126 uses the decision tree logic to filter out base designs that do not meet specifications of the client data and the identified parameters. For example, a decision tree may provide respective probabilities for each base design meeting the specifications of the client data and the identified parameters. If the probability of the base design is greater than a threshold percentage (e.g. 75%, 85%, 95%), then the processor 126 may select the base design to be a part of the set of base design that are client-specific.”).
Auh teaches receiving engineering design files for the first option pack that were created manually based on the first variation to the base design; (Auh disclosed in page 4 para [0051]: “The input data from the customer and the data in the database 110 may be in various formats. Thus, the intake engine 114 may include a programmatic interface that interprets and converts the data into a format which can be used in determining the recommended motor control lineup.” In page 5 para [0062-0063]: “If the input data is updated or modified by the customer, the computing system 108 may dynamically update the recommended motor control lineup and corresponding features, the layout of the motor control lineup, the graphical representation of the layout of the motor control lineup, and the single-line diagram based on the updates/modifications provided by the user. … The single - line engine 124 may also generate a new or updated graphical object to be included in the single-line diagram ... The flow chart 150 begins at operation 152 where input data associated with a first client (i.e., the customer) is received. The input data may be obtained directly from the first client (e.g., input via a graphical user interface) or from a database”. Further, in page 8 para [0097] discussed that single-line diagrams are typically manually generated by a user using a computer-aided design (CAD) program or some other suitable tool.
The disclosures above “input data from the customer and the data in the database; input data is updated or modified by the customer; input data may be obtained directly from the first client (e.g., input via a graphical user interface) or from a database;” teaches the claim element “receiving engineering design files”. Further the disclosures “layout of the motor control lineup, the graphical representation of the layout of the motor control lineup, and the single-line diagram based on the updates/modifications provided by the user” corresponds to claim limitation “the first option pack that were created manually based on the first variation to the base design”).
Auh teaches storing the engineering design files for the first option pack that were created manually based on the first variation to the base design in the industrial design library; (Auh disclosed in page 9 para [0101]: “In some embodiments, the load list is generated by the customer directly on the server using a web-based application. … As the graphics objects are generated, the computing system may update the single -line diagram presented on the display. That is, as additional pieces of electrical equipment are added to the load list, the single-line diagram is updated by the computing system. Thus, a current view of the single-line diagram in the web browser or application corresponds to the current electrical load list.” In page 9-10 para [0107]: “Once the single-line diagram is generated, the graphical objects may be stored in one or more databases, such as the databases 110 discussed with respect to FIG. 1. Further, the graphical objects and the single-line diagram may be stored and used to train a machine learning model.”).
Auh teaches receiving a second order for a second industrial control product, the second industrial control product associated with the base design and including a second option pack that is a second variation to the base design; (Auh disclosed in page 11 para [0122-0123]: “Using a machine-based processing and algorithms and a database of historical data related to client information, client preferences, and previous industrial device assemblies, the computing system may identify the parameters and subsequently identify a set of base designs and corresponding supporting modules based on the identified parameters. For example, supporting modules and the base design may be identified based on customer preferences such as for a particular type of drive product. … The supporting modules may assist the operation of at least one the electrical components within the industrial device assembly or base design. For example, a supporting module may include a fan to a cool a unit within the industrial device assembly. While the fan does not control a motor of the industrial device assembly (e.g., MCC), the fan maintains a safe operating environment for the electrical components. … Using machine-learning algorithms or other suitable algorithms that account for the load list, geographic location of the client, and/or historical data associated with the client, the processor 126 may select a type and size of one or more main switches and corresponding power structures to support the entire MCC and other connected components. In turn, the computing system may display the set of base designs to the client. After reviewing the set of base designs, the client may select a particular base design. By selecting the particular base design, the customer may bypass defining each parameter and completing numerous questions related to an industrial device assembly to submit a purchase order for a particular industrial device assembly”.
The disclosures above “a database of historical data related to client information, client preferences, and previous industrial device assemblies; a supporting module may include a fan to a cool a unit within the industrial device assembly (MCC), the fan maintains a safe operating environment for the electrical components”; relates to claim limitation “the second order for a second industrial control product, the second industrial control product associated with the base design and including a second option pack that is a second variation to the base design”. Further, the disclosure above “processor 126 may select a type and size of one or more main switches and corresponding power structures to support the entire MCC; the computing system may display the set of base designs to the client” teaches the limitation “receiving a second order for a second industrial control product”).
Auh teaches determining that the second option pack is new responsive to determining that engineering design files for the second option pack do not exist in the industrial design library; (Auh disclosed in page 15 para [0154]: “After determining the parameters in block 424, the processor 126 may determine whether any of the available base designs meet any of the parameters based on the client data (block 426). That is, the processor 126 may query the design library to identify existing base designs that correspond to the parameters determined at block 424. If the processor 126 is able to find a set of base designs that has more than a threshold percentage of the parameters (e.g., threshold percentage such as 75%, 85%, or 95%, … However, if the processor 126 is unable to find a set of base designs that meets the parameters, then the processor 126 may identify and provide the user with predefined base designs (block 430) to manage the industrial device assembly (e.g., MCC))”.
Auh teaches receiving engineering design files for the second option pack that were created manually based on the second variation to the base design; (Auh disclosed in page 13-14 para [0141 and 0143]: “the processor 126 may determine an appropriate motor management approach (e.g., use of starter, drive, soft start), appropriate sizes of components that may be used to meet the control and output voltage based on a region, an industry or other input parameters that correspond to a particular base design. For instance, the processor 126 may make a selection regarding a type of overload that may be used for a particular motor starter. The selected overload may cause the processor 126 to change the corresponding base design selection. In this way, the algorithm for selecting components and base designs may use customer history, geographic location, industry and application information, and other input parameters to select the correct overload, which then may be used to select the proper motor starter base design. … the processor 126 may receive a selection of a base design as input from the client (block 312). Based on the selected base design, the processor 126 may dynamically generate a layout associated with the base design (block 314).” This disclosure teaches the limitation “receiving engineering design files for the second option pack”.
In page 14 para [0144]: “the layout may be a graphical representation of the positioning of each electrical component within the physical industrial device assembly based on the selected base design. In some embodiments, the layout may include, a single-line view, and an elevation view of the electrical components. The processor 126 may dynamically display the layout to the user via the GUI (block 316) with the selection of the base design. In additional and/or alternative embodiments, the processor 126 may receive input from the user to generate a particular layout.” This disclosure teaches the limitation “receiving engineering design files that were created manually based on the second variation to the base design”).
Auh teaches storing the engineering design files for the second option pack that were created manually based on the second variation to the base design in the industrial design library; (Auh disclosed in page 15 para [0149-0150]: “if the processor 126 receives an input of modification to an electrical component from the electrical load list, the processor 126 may update the electrical component within the base design, the layout, the single-line drawing, the elevation drawing, the engineering proposal document, … . Furthermore, a change to an electrical component within the layout, the single-line drawing, the elevation drawing, the engineering proposal document also be automatically applied to other visualizations. … Selecting a respective widget from the set of widgets 362 may result in generating a summary of information related to the base design, saving information displayed on the GUI 360, generating the single-line drawing, generating the elevation drawing, generating the engineering proposal.”).
Auh teaches receiving a third order for a third industrial control product, the third industrial control product associated with the base design and including the first option pack and the second option pack; (Auh disclosed in page 16 para [0158-0159]: “As such, FIG. 13 illustrates a flow chart of a process 450 for generating Ethernet power modules based on the selected base design, according to one embodiment. The process 450 may be performed by any suitable system that may instruct a processor to determine a quantity and location of Ethernet modules to be placed within the layout. … After receiving the selected base design, the processor 126 may calculate the electrical load limits based on physical dimensions (e.g., length, width, height), number, and location of sections and units in the selected base design (block 454).” In para [0162]: “the processor 126 may determine the number and location of the Ethernet switch devices and Ethernet power supply units to be placed in each section and unit of the physical industrial device assembly (block 456). The processor 126 may also take into consideration which electrical components are Ethernet-enables when determining the number and location of the Ethernet switch devices and Ethernet power supply units for placement within each unit of a section.”
The disclosure above teaches the limitation “receiving a third order for a third industrial control product, the third industrial control product associated with the base design”, since the order has been received by the processor (e.g., “after receiving the selected base design, the processor calculate the electrical load limits based on physical dimensions; processor 126 may determine the number and location of the Ethernet switch devices and Ethernet power supply units”)).
Auh teaches automatically generating engineering design files for the third industrial control product using the engineering design files for the first option pack that were created manually on the first variation to the base design and the engineering design files for the second option pack that were created manually based on the second variation to the base design stored in the industrial design library; (Auh disclosed in page 16 para [0163-0164]: “In turn, the processor 126 may display the Ethernet switch devices and Ethernet power supply units placed in respective sections and units with respect to the selected base design on a layout (block 458). As mentioned above, the layout is a graphical representation of the positioning of each electrical component within the physical industrial device assembly based on the selected base design. … If the processor 126 identifies a modification to an Ethernet switch device or Ethernet power supply, the processor 126 may update the base design, the layout, the single-line drawing, the elevation drawing, the engineering proposal document, and the like to reflect the modification. Furthermore, a change to an Ethernet switch device or an Ethernet power device in one graphical representation may also automatically applied to other visualizations. For example, a change to an Ethernet switch device within the single-line drawing may be automatically reflected as a similar change to the Ethernet switch device in the elevation drawing. This change or update can be seen by the user in response to the processor 126 receiving an input for generating the single-line drawing and/or the elevation drawing.”).
However, Auh doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation “providing the engineering design files for the third industrial control product to a manufacturing system such that the engineering design files for the third industrial control product can be used to manufacture the third industrial control product”.
and Stump teaches providing the engineering design files for the third industrial control product to a manufacturing system such that the engineering design files for the third industrial control product can be used to manufacture the third industrial control product. (Stump disclosed in page 9-10 para [0085]: “project deployment component 208 can translate the visualization definitions and motor drive a parameter definitions to a visualization application 704 and a device configuration file 708, respectively, and deploy these files to their respective target devices for execution and/or device configuration.” In page 17 para [0133]: “In an example scenario, a developer may choose to modify an existing system project 302 in order to adapt the project 302 for deployment on an automation system having characteristics that deviate from a typical installation, and which necessitate modifications to the system project 302. … A new installation of this automation system may deviate from standard installations of the system in a number of ways, including but not limited to replacement of one or more devices of the automation system with devices provided by an alternative vendor, addition or omission of a workstation, installation modifications to accommodate physical constraints of the installation location, special control requirements that deviate from standard requirements (e.g., differences in product design, control modifications to accommodate differences in materials or parts used to manufacture the product), …”
The disclosure above “project deployment component 208 can translate the visualization definitions and motor drive a parameter definitions to a visualization application 704 and a device configuration file; deploy these files to their respective target devices for execution and/or device configuration” corresponds to claim limitation “providing the engineering design files for the third industrial control product”. Further, the disclosure above “developer may choose to modify an existing system project 302 in order to adapt the project 302 for deployment on an automation system having characteristics that deviate from a typical installation, and which necessitate modifications to the system project; control modifications to accommodate differences in materials or parts used to manufacture the product” corresponds to claim limitation “providing control product to a manufacturing system such that the engineering design files for the third industrial control product can be used to manufacture the third industrial control product”).
Auh and Stump are analogous art because they are related to facilitating crowdsourced development assistance. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Auh and Stump, to modify generating engineering design files for the industrial control product based on variation or modification to the base design in Auh’s teaching, to include providing control product to a manufacturing system to manufacture the industrial control product in Stump’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Stump because “IDE system 202 can reside on cloud platform 806 and execute as a set of cloud-based IDE service 802 that are accessible to authorized remote client devices 504. This allows multiple end users to access and utilize the industrial IDE services 802 for development of industrial a system projects 302. Using this architecture, multiple remote developers can submit design input 512 to a common industrial automation system project 302, facilitating parallel development by multiple remote designers. The industrial IDE system 202 can support collaborative design tools that manage and regulate these diverse sets of design input 512 to ensure consistency and optimization of the system project 302” (Stump disclosed in page 10 para [0092]).
Regarding Claim 2, Auh and Stump teach the method of claim 1, wherein: Auh teaches the base design comprises a base design for a motor control center; (Auh disclosed in page 2 para [0038]: “an electrical load list (e.g., motor load list) provides electrical parameters for various electrical equipment of an electrical power system (e.g., an industrial automation system), … a base design (e.g., motor control lineup) may be generated. The base design specifies attributes, model, components, lead time, catalog number, cost, description, name, related industry, and so forth associated with an industrial device assembly. … The motor control lineup may include a motor control center (MCC) or inverters …”).
However, Auh doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation “the first variation to the base design comprises a first component that is added to the base design; the second variation to the base design comprises a second component that is moved within the base design”.
Stump teaches the first variation to the base design comprises a first component that is added to the base design; (Stump disclosed in page 9 para [0082]: “the attributes of each automation object 222 are default properties defined by the IDE system 202 based on encoded industry expertise pertaining to the asset represented by the objects. Other properties can be modified or added by the developer as needed (via design input 512 ) to customize the object 222 for the particular asset and/or industrial application for which the system projects 302 is being developed” In page 15-16 para [0126]: “Within the IDE environment, industrial assets added or moved in this manner can be represented by automation objects 222 corresponding to those assts … When a user adds a new industrial asset to the VR environment, project generation component 206 can identify the newly added asset and add an appropriate automation object 222 corresponding to the asset to the system project 302. As in other examples described above, the automation object 222 can be selected from the library 502 of standard automation objects maintained by the IDE system 202. Project generation component 206 can also generate sequencing control code for these assets as they are added and linked together within the virtual design environment, …”.
The disclosure above “IDE system 202” relates to base design. The disclosures “properties can be modified or added by the developer as needed to customize the object 222 for the particular asset and/or industrial application for which the system projects 302 is being developed; industrial assets added or moved in this manner can be represented by automation objects” corresponds to claim limitation “the first variation to the base design a first component that is added to the base design”).
and Stump teaches the second variation to the base design comprises a second component that is moved within the base design. (Under BRI, Examiner would construe the claim element “move” as change or update. Stump disclosed in page 12 para [0103-0104]: “Simulation component 212 can be configured to execute and monitor this simulation and to quantify one or more performance criteria based on results of the simulation that will be used by the collaboration management component 210 to select a preferred version of the control code 1102 for inclusion in system project 302. ... In some embodiments, if two or more of the different versions of control code 1102 are not necessarily mutually exclusive but overlap in some areas, collaboration management component 210 can manage comparing and merging the two or more versions within the master copy of the system project 302. This can include, for example, identifying and deleting redundant or identical code portions of the two or more versions, … identifying conflicting control actions defined by two or more versions and either recommending a modification to resolve the conflict or automatically implementing the modification, ...”.
The disclosure above “simulation component” which executes and monitors simulation to one or more performance criteria, further the simulation result used by the collaboration management component to select a preferred version of the control code. Also, the collaboration management component manage comparing and merging the identical code portions of two or more versions and deleted redundant, i.e., a modification or component is recommended to move (or deleted) within the base design (e.g., system project 302) in order to resolve the conflict or automatically implementing the modification, as discussed above).
Auh and Stump are analogous art because they are related to facilitating crowdsourced development assistance. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Auh and Stump, to modify generating engineering design files for the industrial control product based on variation or modification to the base design in Auh’s teaching, to include providing control product to a manufacturing system to manufacture the industrial control product in Stump’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Stump because “IDE system 202 can reside on cloud platform 806 and execute as a set of cloud-based IDE service 802 that are accessible to authorized remote client devices 504. This allows multiple end users to access and utilize the industrial IDE services 802 for development of industrial a system projects 302. Using this architecture, multiple remote developers can submit design input 512 to a common industrial automation system project 302, facilitating parallel development by multiple remote designers. The industrial IDE system 202 can support collaborative design tools that manage and regulate these diverse sets of design input 512 to ensure consistency and optimization of the system project 302” (Stump disclosed in page 10 para [0092]).
Regarding Claim 3, Auh and Stump teach the method of claim 1, wherein: Auh teaches the base design comprises a base design for a motor control center; (Auh disclosed in page 2 para [0038]: “an electrical load list (e.g., motor load list) provides electrical parameters for various electrical equipment of an electrical power system (e.g., an industrial automation system), … a base design (e.g., motor control lineup) may be generated. The base design specifies attributes, model, components, lead time, catalog number, cost, description, name, related industry, and so forth associated with an industrial device assembly. … The motor control lineup may include a motor control center (MCC) or inverters …”).
Auh teaches the first variation to the base design comprises a different line voltage that is used to power the motor control center. (Auh disclosed in page 6 para [0072]: “The physical motor control lineup may include one or more vertical sections. Each of the one or more vertical sections may include one or more of the control devices. … the computing system may identify a power common to one or more of the control devices of the selected lineup. For example, one section of the selected motor control lineup may include control devices with a common control voltage of about 24 volts. Another section of the selected lineup may include control devices having a common control voltage of about 12 volts. As another example, one section of the selected motor control lineup may include various control devices having a common bus voltage of about 220 volts.”
In page 7 para [0078-0079]: “The first input portion 180 also includes data fields for electrical power requirements of the customer or the industrial automation project including a line voltage 192, … a control voltage 200, … the line voltage 192 may be input by the customer if known to indicate a voltage of the area or region where the industrial automation project site, and thus the motor control lineup, is or will be located.”).
Regarding Claim 4, Auh and Stump teach the method of claim 1, wherein Auh teaches the base design is associated with base engineering design files for the motor control center, the method further comprising: processing the engineering design files for the first option pack that were created manually using difference detection logic in order to identify a difference between the engineering design files for the first option pack and the base engineering design files; (Auh disclosed in page 8-9 para [0096-0097]: “The single-line diagram 270 may be dynamically generated by the computing system at any time during the MCC recommendation process described herein. For example, the single-line diagram may be generated when the customer inputs data including an electrical load list into the GUI 175, ... As any changes are made to the input data or preferences of the customer, the computing system may update the single-line diagram to reflect those changes. Thus, the single-line diagram is a visual representation of the motor control lineup as modified by the customer. Single-line diagrams are typically manually generated by a user using a computer-aided design (CAD) program … Further, any changes or corrections made to the single-line diagram adds to the process … the embodiments described herein provide techniques to dynamically generate a single-line diagram for viewing in real-time during a design phase of an industrial automation project as the electrical load items or customer preferences are changed or added to the design in real-time. The single-line diagram may be dynamically modified while the electrical load list is generated, modified, …”).
and Auh teaches storing data indicative of the difference between the engineering design files for the first option pack and the base engineering design files in the industrial design library. (Auh disclosed in page 9-10 para [0107]: “Once the single - line diagram is generated, the graphical objects may be stored in one or more databases, such as the databases 110 discussed with respect to FIG. 1. Further, the graphical objects and the single-line diagram may be stored and used to train a machine learning model. For example, the machine learning model may include historical single-line diagrams (including corrections or changes made to the single-line diagram by an associated customer) ...”. In page 10 para [0110]: “one or more recommended motor control lineups and a single-line diagram may be dynamically generated from an electrical load list. Regarding the recommended motor control lineup, the computing system analyzes organization data … The organization data may be received via a web browser or retrieved from a database. The recommended motor control lineup is presented to the customer via a GUI (displayed in a native application or a web browser) in an elevation view where the user can modify the lineup as desired.”).
Regarding Claim 5, Auh and Stump teach the method of claim 1, wherein Auh teaches the difference between the engineering design files for the first option pack and the base engineering design files comprises a second electrical component in the engineering design files for the first option pack that replaces a first electrical component in the base engineering design files in accordance with the different line voltage that is used to power the motor control center. (Under BRI, Examiner would construe the claim element “replace” as “modify or change”.
Auh disclosed in page 11 para [0122]: “Additional examples of the supporting modules may include main switches, Ethernet switches, power supplies, Ethernet power supplies. As used herein, main switches may refer to switching devices such as a primary circuit breaker that provides power to the entire industrial device assembly and downstream devices. As such, the main switches protect the MCC from over current faults and control providing power to the MCC. Using machine-learning algorithms or other suitable algorithms that account for the load list, geographic location of the client, and/or historical data associated with the client, the processor 126 may select a type and size of one or more main switches and corresponding power structures to support the entire MCC and other connected components.”
In page 16 para [0164]: “If the processor 126 identifies a modification to an Ethernet switch device or Ethernet power supply, the processor 126 may update the base design, the layout, the single-line drawing, the elevation drawing, the engineering proposal document, and the like to reflect the modification. … For example, a change to an Ethernet switch device within the single-line drawing may be automatically reflected as a similar change to the Ethernet switch device in the elevation drawing.”
It has been discussed in above disclosure that main switches may refer to switching devices such as a primary circuit breaker that provides power to the entire industrial device assembly and main switches protect the MCC from over current faults and control providing power to the MCC. The disclosure “processor 126 identifies a modification to an Ethernet switch device or Ethernet power supply, the processor 126 may update the base design” teaches the claim limitation “a second electrical component (Ethernet switch device or Ethernet power supply) in the engineering design files for the first option pack that replaces a first electrical component (main switches referred as switching devices such as a primary circuit breaker) in the base engineering design files)).
Regarding Claim 7, Auh and Stump teach the method of claim 1, wherein Auh teaches the engineering design files for the first option pack comprise at least one of electrical wiring files, mechanical modeling files, or computer numerical control files. (Examiner notes that the claim language includes three optional embodiments, a first embodiment “electrical wiring files” “or” second embodiment “mechanical modeling files” “or” third embodiment “computer numerical control files”. The claim term “at least one of” would be interpreted as, only one of the three embodiments need to be taught by the reference.
Auh disclosed in page 10 para [0114]: “, the motor control lineup is an example of a base design generated based on the electrical load list and client data (e.g., industry data, location data). The base design may be a list of electrical components designated in a hierarchical fashion, such that the electrical components (e.g., industrial equipment, network equipment), mechanical components, and the like are used in coordination with each other to perform industrial automation operations.” In page 15 para [0155]: “the predefined base design may be defined by a load type and size and may be further refined by core components that affect components of a corresponding electrical designs (e.g., voltage, maximum current) and mechanical designs (e.g., dimensions). As such, base design may also include electrical and mechanical engineering documentation that detail the electrical design and the mechanical design aspects of the industrial equipment assembly.”).
Regarding Claim 8, Auh and Stump teach the method of claim 1, wherein Auh teaches receiving the third order for the third industrial control product comprises receiving the third order for the third industrial control product based on input provided by a user via a user interface. (Auh disclosed in page 11 para [0117]: “the customer may submit an electrical load list, industry data, and location data as inputs to a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computing system.” In page 16 para [0158-0159]: “The process 450 may be performed by any suitable system that may instruct a processor to determine a quantity and location of Ethernet modules to be placed within the layout. … After receiving the selected base design, the processor 126 may calculate the electrical load limits based on physical dimensions (e.g., length, width, height), number, and location of sections and units in the selected base design (block 454).”).
Regarding Claim 9, the same ground of rejection is made as discussed in claim 1 for substantially similar rationale, therefore claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auh and Stump as discussed above for substantially similar rationale. In addition, claim 9 recites following limitations:
Auh teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to implement operations (Auh disclosed in page 2 para [0014]: “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions are provided. When executed by a processor, the instructions cause the processor to perform operations that include receiving client data indicative of an electrical load list, industry data, and location data.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Auh and Stump teach the computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein: Auh teaches the base design comprises a base design for a motor control center; (Auh disclosed in page 2 para [0038]: “an electrical load list (e.g., motor load list) provides electrical parameters for various electrical equipment of an electrical power system (e.g., an industrial automation system), … a base design (e.g., motor control lineup) may be generated. The base design specifies attributes, model, components, lead time, catalog number, cost, description, name, related industry, and so forth associated with an industrial device assembly. … The motor control lineup may include a motor control center (MCC) or inverters …”).
However, Auh doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation “the first variation to the base design comprises a first component that is added to the base design; the second variation to the base design comprises a second component that is deleted from the base design”.
Stump teaches the first variation to the base design comprises a first component that is added to the base design; (Stump disclosed in page 9 para [0082]: “the attributes of each automation object 222 are default properties defined by the IDE system 202 based on encoded industry expertise pertaining to the asset represented by the objects. Other properties can be modified or added by the developer as needed (via design input 512 ) to customize the object 222 for the particular asset and/or industrial application for which the system projects 302 is being developed” In page 15-16 para [0126]: “Within the IDE environment, industrial assets added or moved in this manner can be represented by automation objects 222 corresponding to those assts … When a user adds a new industrial asset to the VR environment, project generation component 206 can identify the newly added asset and add an appropriate automation object 222 corresponding to the asset to the system project 302. As in other examples described above, the automation object 222 can be selected from the library 502 of standard automation objects maintained by the IDE system 202. Project generation component 206 can also generate sequencing control code for these assets as they are added and linked together within the virtual design environment, …”.
The disclosure above “IDE system 202” relates to base design. The disclosures “properties can be modified or added by the developer as needed to customize the object 222 for the particular asset and/or industrial application for which the system projects 302 is being developed; industrial assets added or moved in this manner can be represented by automation objects” corresponds to claim limitation “the first variation to the base design a first component that is added to the base design”).
and Stump teaches the second variation to the base design comprises a second component that is deleted from the base design. (Stump disclosed in page 12 para [0103-0104]: “Simulation component 212 can be configured to execute and monitor this simulation and to quantify one or more performance criteria based on results of the simulation that will be used by the collaboration management component 210 to select a preferred version of the control code 1102 for inclusion in system project 302. ... In some embodiments, if two or more of the different versions of control code 1102 are not necessarily mutually exclusive but overlap in some areas, collaboration management component 210 can manage comparing and merging the two or more versions within the master copy of the system project 302. This can include, for example, identifying and deleting redundant or identical code portions of the two or more versions, … identifying conflicting control actions defined by two or more versions and either recommending a modification to resolve the conflict or automatically implementing the modification, ...”.
The disclosure above “simulation component” which executes and monitors simulation to one or more performance criteria, further the simulation result used by the collaboration management component to select a preferred version of the control code. Also, the collaboration management component manage comparing and merging the identical code portions of two or more versions and deleted redundant components, i.e., a modification or component is recommended to delete within the base design (e.g., system project 302) in order to resolve the conflict or automatically implementing the modification, as discussed above).
Auh and Stump are analogous art because they are related to facilitating crowdsourced development assistance. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Auh and Stump, to modify generating engineering design files for the industrial control product based on variation or modification to the base design in Auh’s teaching, to include providing control product to a manufacturing system to manufacture the industrial control product in Stump’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Stump because “IDE system 202 can reside on cloud platform 806 and execute as a set of cloud-based IDE service 802 that are accessible to authorized remote client devices 504. This allows multiple end users to access and utilize the industrial IDE services 802 for development of industrial a system projects 302. Using this architecture, multiple remote developers can submit design input 512 to a common industrial automation system project 302, facilitating parallel development by multiple remote designers. The industrial IDE system 202 can support collaborative design tools that manage and regulate these diverse sets of design input 512 to ensure consistency and optimization of the system project 302” (Stump disclosed in page 10 para [0092]).
Regarding Claim 11, Auh and Stump teach the computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein: Auh teaches the base design comprises a base design for a motor control center; (Auh disclosed in page 2 para [0038]: “an electrical load list (e.g., motor load list) provides electrical parameters for various electrical equipment of an electrical power system (e.g., an industrial automation system), … a base design (e.g., motor control lineup) may be generated. The base design specifies attributes, model, components, lead time, catalog number, cost, description, name, related industry, and so forth associated with an industrial device assembly. … The motor control lineup may include a motor control center (MCC) or inverters …”).
and Auh teaches the first variation to the base design comprises a different control voltage used by the motor control center. (Auh disclosed in page 6 para [0072]: “At operation 166, the computing system determines a layout of the selected motor control lineup. The layout may include a position of each control device within the physical motor control lineup. The physical motor control lineup may include one or more vertical sections. Each of the one or more vertical sections may include one or more of the control devices. Each section of the selected lineup may include various control devices having a common power. Thus, the computing system may identify a power common to one or more of the control devices of the selected lineup. For example, one section of the selected motor control lineup may include control devices with a common control voltage of about 24 volts. Another section of the selected lineup may include control devices having a common control voltage of about 12 volts. As another example, one section of the selected motor control lineup may include various control devices having a common bus voltage of about 220 volts.”).
Regarding Claims 12-14, Auh and Stump teach the computer-readable medium of claim 9, are incorporating the rejections of claims 7,8 and 4 respectively, because claims 12-14 have substantially similar claim language as claims 7,8 and 4, therefore claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auh and Stump as discussed above for substantially similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 15, the same ground of rejection is made as discussed in claim 1 for substantially similar rationale, therefore claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auh and Stump as discussed above for substantially similar rationale. In addition, claim 15 recites following limitations:
Auh teaches a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement operations (Auh disclosed in page 2 para [0013]: “a system for generating a base design is provided. The system may include a processor, a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations.”).
Regarding Claim 16, Auh and Stump teach the system of claim 15, wherein: Auh teaches the base design comprises a base design for a motor control center; (Auh disclosed in page 2 para [0038]: “an electrical load list (e.g., motor load list) provides electrical parameters for various electrical equipment of an electrical power system (e.g., an industrial automation system), … a base design (e.g., motor control lineup) may be generated. The base design specifies attributes, model, components, lead time, catalog number, cost, description, name, related industry, and so forth associated with an industrial device assembly. … The motor control lineup may include a motor control center (MCC) or inverters …”).
Auh teaches the variation to the base design comprises a different line voltage used by the motor control center. (Auh disclosed in page 6 para [0072]: “The physical motor control lineup may include one or more vertical sections. Each of the one or more vertical sections may include one or more of the control devices. … the computing system may identify a power common to one or more of the control devices of the selected lineup. For example, one section of the selected motor control lineup may include control devices with a common control voltage of about 24 volts. Another section of the selected lineup may include control devices having a common control voltage of about 12 volts. As another example, one section of the selected motor control lineup may include various control devices having a common bus voltage of about 220 volts.”
In page 7 para [0078-0079]: “The first input portion 180 also includes data fields for electrical power requirements of the customer or the industrial automation project including a line voltage 192, … a control voltage 200, … the line voltage 192 may be input by the customer if known to indicate a voltage of the area or region where the industrial automation project site, and thus the motor control lineup, is or will be located.”).
Regarding Claim 17, Auh and Stump teach the system of claim 15, even the prior art Auh teaches the claim element “human machine interface system”, which is a part/element of computer system (in para [0041 and 0133]. However, Auh doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation “the base design comprises a base design for a human machine interface system; and the variation to the base design comprises a component that is added to the base design”.
wherein: Stump teaches the base design comprises a base design for a human machine interface system; (Stump disclosed in page 3 para [0042]: “Industrial automation systems often include one or more human-machine interface (HMI) terminals 114 that allow plant personnel to view telemetry and status data associated with the automation systems, and to control some aspects of system operation.” In page 10 para [0089]: “FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating an example architecture in which cloud based IDE services 802 are used to develop and deploy industrial applications to a plant environment. In this example, the industrial environment includes one or more industrial controllers 118, HMI terminals 114, motor drives …”
The disclosure “industrial automation system; cloud based IDE services 802 are used to develop and deploy industrial applications to a plant environment” correspond to claim element “base design” which includes one or more HMI (human machine interface) system).
and Stump teaches the variation to the base design comprises a component that is added to the base design. (Stump disclosed in page 9 para [0082]: “the attributes of each automation object 222 are default properties defined by the IDE system 202 based on encoded industry expertise pertaining to the asset represented by the objects. Other properties can be modified or added by the developer as needed (via design input 512 ) to customize the object 222 for the particular asset and/or industrial application for which the system projects 302 is being developed” In page 15-16 para [0126]: “Within the IDE environment, industrial assets added or moved in this manner can be represented by automation objects 222 corresponding to those assts … When a user adds a new industrial asset to the VR environment, project generation component 206 can identify the newly added asset and add an appropriate automation object 222 corresponding to the asset to the system project 302. As in other examples described above, the automation object 222 can be selected from the library 502 of standard automation objects maintained by the IDE system 202. Project generation component 206 can also generate sequencing control code for these assets as they are added and linked together within the virtual design environment, …”.
The disclosure above “IDE system 202” relates to base design. The disclosures “properties can be modified or added by the developer as needed to customize the object 222 for the particular asset and/or industrial application for which the system projects 302 is being developed; industrial assets added or moved in this manner can be represented by automation objects” correspond to claim limitation “variation to the base design comprises a component that is added to the base design”).
Auh and Stump are analogous art because they are related to facilitating crowdsourced development assistance. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Auh and Stump, to modify generating engineering design files for the industrial control product based on variation or modification to the base design in Auh’s teaching, to include providing control product to a manufacturing system to manufacture the industrial control product in Stump’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Stump because “IDE system 202 can reside on cloud platform 806 and execute as a set of cloud-based IDE service 802 that are accessible to authorized remote client devices 504. This allows multiple end users to access and utilize the industrial IDE services 802 for development of industrial a system projects 302. Using this architecture, multiple remote developers can submit design input 512 to a common industrial automation system project 302, facilitating parallel development by multiple remote designers. The industrial IDE system 202 can support collaborative design tools that manage and regulate these diverse sets of design input 512 to ensure consistency and optimization of the system project 302” (Stump disclosed in page 10 para [0092]).
Regarding Claim 18, Auh and Stump teach the system of claim 15, is incorporating the rejections of claim 4, because claims 18 has substantially similar claim language as claim 4, therefore claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auh and Stump as discussed above for substantially similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 19, Auh and Stump teach the system of claim 15, however, Auh doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation “the difference between the engineering design files for the option pack and the base engineering design files comprises a component that is added, deleted, or moved”.
wherein Stump teaches the difference between the engineering design files for the option pack and the base engineering design files comprises a component that is added, deleted, or moved. (Stump disclosed in page 12 para [0103-0104]: “Simulation component 212 can be configured to execute and monitor this simulation and to quantify one or more performance criteria based on results of the simulation that will be used by the collaboration management component 210 to select a preferred version of the control code 1102 for inclusion in system project 302. ... In some embodiments, if two or more of the different versions of control code 1102 are not necessarily mutually exclusive but overlap in some areas, collaboration management component 210 can manage comparing and merging the two or more versions within the master copy of the system project 302. This can include, for example, identifying and deleting redundant or identical code portions of the two or more versions, … identifying conflicting control actions defined by two or more versions and either recommending a modification to resolve the conflict or automatically implementing the modification, ...”. This disclosure teaches the limitation “the difference between the engineering design files for the option pack and the base engineering design files comprises a component that is deleted or moved”.
In page 20 para [0154]: “In some embodiments, a developer may also classify a submitted edit record 1802a as a crucial edit that is believed to be globally applicable to all local versions 3022 of the system project 302. … In some embodiments, collaboration management component 210 can be configured to automatically synchronize edit records 1802 flagged as crucial to all local versions 3022 of the system project 302 without awaiting receipt of an edit request 2002 approving synchronization of the edits. Alternatively, some embodiments of the collaboration management component 210 may still require receipt of an edit request 2002 from a developer before synchronizing these critical edit records 1802 to the developer's local version 3022.” This disclosure teaches the limitation “the difference between the engineering design files for the option pack and the base engineering design files comprises a component that is added).
Auh and Stump are analogous art because they are related to facilitating crowdsourced development assistance. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Auh and Stump, to modify generating engineering design files for the industrial control product based on variation or modification to the base design in Auh’s teaching, to include providing control product to a manufacturing system to manufacture the industrial control product in Stump’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Stump because “IDE system 202 can reside on cloud platform 806 and execute as a set of cloud-based IDE service 802 that are accessible to authorized remote client devices 504. This allows multiple end users to access and utilize the industrial IDE services 802 for development of industrial a system projects 302. Using this architecture, multiple remote developers can submit design input 512 to a common industrial automation system project 302, facilitating parallel development by multiple remote designers. The industrial IDE system 202 can support collaborative design tools that manage and regulate these diverse sets of design input 512 to ensure consistency and optimization of the system project 302” (Stump disclosed in page 10 para [0092]).
Regarding Claim 20, Auh and Stump teach the system of claim 15, the operations further comprising: wherein Auh teaches storing the engineering design files for the option pack that were created manually by the engineer based on the variation to the base design in the industrial design library comprises storing the engineering design files for the option pack that were created manually by the engineer based on the variation to the base design in the industrial design library (Auh disclosed in page 15 para [0149-0150]: “if the processor 126 receives an input of modification to an electrical component from the electrical load list, the processor 126 may update the electrical component within the base design, the layout, the single-line drawing, the elevation drawing, the engineering proposal document, … . Furthermore, a change to an electrical component within the layout, the single-line drawing, the elevation drawing, the engineering proposal document also be automatically applied to other visualizations. … Selecting a respective widget from the set of widgets 362 may result in generating a summary of information related to the base design, saving information displayed on the GUI 360, generating the single-line drawing, generating the elevation drawing, generating the engineering proposal.”).
However, Auh doesn’t explicitly teach the limitations “submitting the engineering design files for the option pack that were created manually by the engineer based on the variation to the base design for governance review; and receiving an indication that the engineering design files for the option pack that were created manually by the engineer based on the variation to the base design were approved based on the governance review; wherein storing the engineering design files for the option pack that were created manually by the engineer based on the variation to the base design in the industrial design library responsive to receiving the indication that the engineering design files for the option pack that were created manually by the engineer based on the variation to the base design were approved based on the governance review.
Stump teaches submitting the engineering design files for the option pack that were created manually by the engineer based on the variation to the base design for governance review; (Stump disclosed in page 18 para [0141]: “In some embodiments , edit notification 1902 can record the edits made by the first developer in a granular manner, such that second developer's IDE client 514b can render each modification individually based on data contained in the edit notification 1902, either by displaying an itemized browsable list of the edits or by displaying information about each edit one at a time. The second developer can review the edits identified in the edit notification 1902 and make a determination as to whether the edits submitted by the first developer should be synchronized to the second developer's own local version 3022 of the system project 302. … the IDE client 514 can navigate to the portion of the local version 3022 of the system project 302 (e.g., a rung of a ladder logic program, a device parameter setting window, a visualization display screen ) affected by an edit recorded in the edit notification 1902, and render information about the proposed edit relative to the displayed portion of the project.”
and Stump teaches receiving an indication that the engineering design files for the option pack that were created manually by the engineer based on the variation to the base design were approved based on the governance review; (Stump disclosed in page 13 para [0108]: “In embodiments in which different developers or groups of developers have been assigned to work on respective different portions or aspects of the system project 302, collaboration management component 210 can also identify the developers or groups who have been assigned to the affected portions of the system project 302, and user interface component 204 can send update notifications 1302 to the development interfaces 1004 associated with these affected portions (e.g., interfaces associated with client devices 504b and 504c in the illustrated example). These update notifications 1302 can include descriptions of the proposed modification 1304, an indication of a possible impact on the recipient's portion of the project 302, or other such information. In some embodiments, collaboration management component 210 may be configured to integrate the proposed design modification 1304 into the system project 302 only if all notification recipients submit an approval for the design modification, based on their own determinations that the proposed modification will not adversely affect their portions of the system project 302”).
Stump teaches storing the engineering design files for the option pack that were created manually by the engineer based on the variation to the base design in the industrial design library responsive to receiving the indication that the engineering design files for the option pack that were created manually by the engineer based on the variation to the base design were approved based on the governance review. (Stump disclosed in page 20 para [0153]: “Classifying and storing edit records 1802 in association with a cloud-based version of system project 302 effectively yields multiple versions of the system project 302, which can be selectively synchronized to a local client device 504. Developers can browse these versions by reviewing the distinct groups of edit records 1802 and their associated development notes or classification information, make a determination as to whether a given set of edit records 1802 address the developer's local needs, and selectively synchronize potentially beneficial edit records 1802 to their local versions of the system project 302.” Further, in para [0156]: “Embodiments of the IDE system 202 that support selective distribution of project edits or modifications to locally stored versions of system project 302 as described above can serve as a platform for organized collaboration between industrial project developers who are working on individual locally stored versions of a system project 302.”).
Auh and Stump are analogous art because they are related to facilitating crowdsourced development assistance. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Auh and Stump, to modify generating engineering design files for the industrial control product based on variation or modification to the base design in Auh’s teaching, to include providing control product to a manufacturing system to manufacture the industrial control product in Stump’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Stump because “IDE system 202 can reside on cloud platform 806 and execute as a set of cloud-based IDE service 802 that are accessible to authorized remote client devices 504. This allows multiple end users to access and utilize the industrial IDE services 802 for development of industrial a system projects 302. Using this architecture, multiple remote developers can submit design input 512 to a common industrial automation system project 302, facilitating parallel development by multiple remote designers. The industrial IDE system 202 can support collaborative design tools that manage and regulate these diverse sets of design input 512 to ensure consistency and optimization of the system project 302” (Stump disclosed in page 10 para [0092]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auh and Stump and further in view of a journal “Substations SF6 circuit breakers: Reliability evaluation based on equipment condition” by Elaine A.L. Vianna et al. (hereinafter Vianna, journal available online on 2016).
Regarding Claim 6, Auh and Stump teach the method of claim 5, however Auh and Stump do not explicitly teach the limitation “the first electrical component has a first electrical rating, and the second electrical component has a second electrical rating, the first electrical rating being different from the second electrical rating”.
wherein Vianna teaches the first electrical component has a first electrical rating, and the second electrical component has a second electrical rating, the first electrical rating being different from the second electrical rating. (Vianna disclosed in page 36 under ‘Abstract’: “This paper presents a new methodology to define a priority scale for maintenance actions in substations, based on the development of a Composite Risk Index (CRI) associated with each device. … The methodology is verified through an SF6 circuit breaker CRI assessment, and its priority scale for maintenance planning. The method for evaluating the SF6 circuit breakers reliability is validated through a comparison with a statistical approach, using real data collected from equipment …”. In page 44 section 4.1: “the failure probability of the “Pumping fault in air compressor” is considered higher than the failure probability of the “SF6 leakage fault in cb”. It is due to the higher occurrence of such failures than SF6 leakage failures, … As shown in Table 5, the proposed method establishes a higher OC value, and consequently a higher CRI value, for “SF6 leakage defect” (cb III and IV) than for “Pumping defect in air compressor” (cb I and II).”
In Table 5, the disclosure “Pumping fault in air compressor” (cb I and II) and “SF6 leakage fault in cb” (cb III and IV) are two first and second electrical components respectively, has different scaling or Composite Risk Index (CRI) values (0.60 and 0.90 respectively as per the Table 5)).
Auh, Stump and Vianna are analogous art because they are related to evaluating electrical system or design reliability. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Auh, Stump and Vianna, to modify electrical component replacement in base design to power motor control center in Auh’s teaching, to include evaluating electrical component’s rating or safety margin maintenance performed on equipment/component, beyond its physical characteristics in Vianna’s teaching. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Vianna because “The distinguishing feature of this paper, with respect to previous literature, is to define the robustness and reliability, or a tendency to fail, through the measurements of a set of wear points, identified in each type of equipment. Each piece presents different wear point measurements, which suggest the appropriate time to launch maintenance actions. In the proposed model, various types of defects in the equipment are analyzed and classified according to their severity, considering several parameters, so that the maintenance of the equipment with more wear and tear and with the most serious defects is prioritized. Beyond this, the proposed method is adjustable; it is suitable for each equipment/system, according to its regional and systemic characteristics.” (Vianna disclosed in page 36-37 under ‘Introduction’ and in page 45 under ‘Conclusion’).
Conclusion
9. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. An NPL paper “Data-Driven Many-Objective Crowd Worker Selection for Mobile Crowdsourcing in Industrial IoT” by Zhuoran Lu et al. studied the problem of least workers selection to make large MCS (mobile crowd sensing) system perform sensing tasks more effective and achieve certain coverage with certain constraints being meeting. Aiming at the complexity of mobile crowdsourcing, the many-objective worker selection method (MaOWS) in MCS systems is proposed and proved to be NP-hard. In order to optimize the selection of crowd workers, a many-objective optimization mechanism based on enhanced differential evolution algorithm (EDEA) is proposed, which could achieve better balance among multiple objectives and achieve overall. In addition, the optimal crowd workers set is selected to maximize the role of the platform. MCS is regarded as an intelligent data management model, which creates a bright future for building a strong industrial system and improving industrial services.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NUPUR DEBNATH whose telephone number is (571)272-8161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am -4:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee D Chavez can be reached on (571)270-1104. 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.
/NUPUR DEBNATH/Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights