DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 12/16/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-12 of the amendment, filed 12/16/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mabote (US 2021/0278960).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blevins et al. (US 2005/0096872), hereinafter Blevins, in view of Nixon et al. (US 2014/0282227), hereinafter Nixon, in view of Nixon et al. (US 2017/0103103), hereinafter ‘103, in view of Mabote.
As per claim 1, Blevins teaches the following:
a computer-implemented method for generating a process flow diagram that digitally represents one or more assets of a process or subprocess within an industrial environment, (see abstract), the method comprising:
receiving a first graphic representation of the process or subprocess and the one or more assets of the process or subprocess. As Blevins teaches in paragraph [0068], and corresponding Fig. 3, an operator may utilize configuration application 38 to create one or more process modules or graphic displays for implantation during operation of a process or for implementation in a simulations. Blevins further gives the examples of a “valve, two tanks, two pumps”, etc., which are interpreted as encompassing “one or more assets of a process”;
accessing a data model database corresponding to the process or subprocess and the one or more assets of the process or subprocess, th As Blevins teaches in paragraph [0030], an execution engine implements the graphic display and process modules to create on ore more process displays to implement simulation functionality associated with the process module. The execution engine may use a rules database 50 defining the logic to be implemented on the process modules as a whole and the smart process objects within those modules in particular. Further see paragraph [0040] where the smart objects may provide varying data over the course of runtime;
converting the first graphic representation into a second graphic representation of the process or subprocess and the one or more assets of the process or subprocess, the second graphic representation linked to the data model database and including values from the data model database for one or more of the attributes corresponding to the one or more assets of the process or subprocess, the second graphic representation formatted to enable web browser access, . As Blevins teaches in paragraphs [0099] and [0100], and corresponding Figs. 7A and 7B, PID control bloc of a loop may provide information to the graphic display to display current flow setpoints being used by the control element, i.e., the first representation is “converted” with newly calculated values, thus forming a second representation. Further see above where a rules database may be accessed to determine object behavior and would thus be utilized in updating the display with simulation values; and
storing the second graphic representation i As Blevins teaches in paragraph [0029], a created process module made up of one or more smart process objects and may include one or more process flow or simulation algorithms, are stored in a process module memory.
While Blevins teaches in paragraph [0023], of a “data historian” that collects and stores parameter, status, and other data associated with controllers and field devices within the plants and/or as a configuration database that stores the current configuration of the process control system with the plant, and in paragraph [0009], smart process objects are linked to stored data received from actual plant devices, Blevins does not explicitly teach of the database comprising time series data of values corresponding to assets at a plurality of different times. In a similar field of endeavor, Nixon teaches of a data modeling studio for a process plant (see abstract). Nixon further teaches in paragraph [0040] that logical data storage area may store all or most process control related data, where observations are stored and referred to as “time-series data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the historical data of Blevins with the time-series data of Nixon. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modifications because Blevins suggests such data in the discussion of a “data historian”. Furthermore, as Nixon teaches in paragraph [0016], such time series data may benefit a user in allowing the user to create and run data models on historical data to check if the created model operates appropriately.
Furthermore, while Blevins mentions use of the WWW in paragraph [0111] and Nixon teaches of a Data Modelling studio being in a separate server 109 of Fig. 2, neither Blevins nor Nixon explicitly teaches of storing the second graphic in a server or a cloud and providing said graphic to a web browser. In a similar field of endeavor, ‘103 teaches of a method of monitoring a processing plant (see abstract). ‘103 further teaches in paragraph [0285] that the DDE user interface application is a web-based application. ‘103 further teaches in paragraph [0352] and [0353] that transformer entity 530 manipulates a submitted model by a user at a web client. Finally, ‘103 teaches in paragraph [0256] that data analytics system 100 provides the ability to access data that has been stored at any DDE, and provides a centralized system for analytics configuration, diagnostics, and monitoring, thus, at least suggesting, submitted models are stored for future viewing via a web browser. Further see paragraph [0293] for cloud storage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have further modified the diagrams of Blevins in view of Nixon, with the web server upload and viewing of ‘103. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such further modification because as ‘103 teaches in paragraph [0005] and [0010], such server techniques would benefit a user in collaborating/troubleshooting a process without requiring the user to be on-site at the processing plant.
Still further, while Blevins teaches of uniquely tagging each object in paragraph [0039], Blevins does not explicitly teach of automatically mapping graphical elements of the representation to corresponding assets and attributes in the database. In a similar field of endeavor, Mabote teaches of a method of generating HMI displays for piping and instrumentation similar to a processing plant (see abstract). Mabote further teaches in paragraph [0018] that in response to an engineer designating a section of a device network, a tool automatically maps instruments and devices onto user-defined displays using files. Mabote teaches in paragraph [0022] that the files utilize tags (similar to Blevins) to identify objects for mapping.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have further modified the object value assignments of Blevins with the automatic mapping of Mabote. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such further modification because Blevins shows a desire for such mappings in paragraph [0095]. Furthermore, as Mabote teaches in paragraph [0004], such object mapping benefits users in seeing correct values on HMIs.
Regarding claim 2, modified Blevins teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Blevins further teaches the following:
the one or more assets of the process or subprocess comprise equipment, streams, measurement instruments, calculated values, inputs and/or outputs. As Blevins teaches in paragraph [0068], and corresponding Fig. 3, an operator may utilize configuration application 38 to create one or more process modules or graphic displays for implantation during operation of a process or for implementation in a simulations. Blevins further gives the examples of a “valve, two tanks, two pumps”, etc., which are interpreted as encompassing “equipment”
Regarding claim 3, modified Blevins teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Blevins further teaches the following:
the first graphic representation comprises a training simulator graphic representation of the process or subprocess or a distributed control system console graphic representation of the process or subprocess. As Blevins teaches in the abstract, process simulation modules are created.
Regarding claim 4, modified Blevins teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Blevins further teaches the following:
the displayed values from the data model database comprise live data from the industrial environment and/or calculated data. As Blevins teaches in paragraphs [0099] and [0100], and corresponding Fig. 7B, the different modules calculate data which is utilized by the interface display.
Regarding claim 5, modified Blevins teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, as described above, Blevins does not explicitly teach of a time series database comprising values for one or more attributes. Nixon further teaches the following:
at least some of the one or more attributes enable preprocessing calculations, postprocessing calculations, storing inputs to the preprocessing and/or postprocessing calculations, storing results from the preprocessing and/or postprocessing calculations, measurement values from the industrial environment, parameter values to support the preprocessing and/or postprocessing calculations, and/or simulation results. As Nixon teaches in paragraph [0016], time series data may benefit a user in allowing the user to create and run data models on historical data (simulation)to check if the created model operates appropriately.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the historical data of Blevins with the time-series data of Nixon. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modifications because Blevins suggests such data in the discussion of a “data historian”.
As per claim 8, Blevins teaches the following:
an apparatus for generating a process flow diagram that digitally represents one or more assets of a process or subprocess within an industrial environment, (see abstract), the apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory comprising program code, wherein the at least one non-transitory memory and the program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, (see paragraph [0025]).
The remaining limitations of claim 8 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Regarding claims 9-12, modified Blevins teaches the apparatus of claim 8 as described above. The remaining limitations of claims 9-12 are substantially similar to those of claims 2-5 respectively, and are rejected using the same reasoning.
As per claim 15, Blevins teaches the following:
a computer program product for generating a process flow diagram that digitally represents one or more assets of a process or subprocess within an industrial environment, (see abstract), the computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code portions stored therein, (see paragraph [0025]).
The remaining limitations of claim 15 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Regarding claims 16-19, modified Blevins teaches the product of claim 15 as described above. The remaining limitations of claims 16-19 are substantially similar to those of claims 2-5 respectively, and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blevins in view of Nixon in view of ‘103 in view of Mabote as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Maturana et al. (US 2015/0134313), hereinafter Maturana.
Regarding claim 6, modified Blevins teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Blevins does not explicitly teach of the graphic being linked to the database via an API. In a similar field of endeavor, Maturana teaches of a method of simulating machines used in industrial automation (see abstract). Maturana further teaches the following:
the second graphic representation is linked to the data model database via an application program interface. As Maturana teaches in the abstract, an API is utilized to link a simulation model with an industrial control system outside of the model for data exchange.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the second graphic of Blevins with the API of Maturana. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such further modifications because as Maturana teaches in paragraph [0004], such modification would benefit a user in synchronizing a simulation and industrial controller.
Regarding claim 13, modified Blevins teaches the apparatus of claim 8 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 13 are substantially similar to those of claim 6 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 20, modified Blevins teaches the product of claim 15 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 20 are substantially similar to those of claim 6 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blevins in view of Nixon in view of ‘103 in view of Mabote as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Kostadinov et al. (US 2011/0093098), hereinafter Kostadinov.
Regarding claim 7, modified Blevins teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Blevins does not explicitly teach of the second graphic being user-editable. In a similar field of endeavor, Kostadinov teaches of a method of monitoring a process plant (see abstract). Kostadinov further teaches the following:
the second graphic representation is user-editable. As Kostadinov teaches in paragraph [0078], a user may define or modify parameter values using an editor (after model creation), which causes updating of model objects.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have further modified the modelling of Blevins with the parameter updating of Kostadinov. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such further modification because Blevins shows a clear desire to modify displayable values as may be seen in paragraph [0082]. Furthermore, the editing of values of Kostadinov would benefit a user of Blevins in allowing the user to comprehend impacts of different modifications for comparison.
Regarding claim 14, modified Blevins teaches the apparatus of claim 8 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 14 are substantially similar to those of claim 7 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Blevins et al. (US 2015/0261215), see Fig. 3
Bharadwaj et al. (US 2023/0213922), see abstract
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A DISTEFANO whose telephone number is (571)270-1644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9 am - 5 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, William Bashore can be reached at 5712424088. 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.
/GREGORY A. DISTEFANO/
Examiner
Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174