DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 filed on 6/26/2023 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0176133, filed on 12/15/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 6/26/2023 has been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 6/26/2023 have been reviewed and are considered acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 6/26/2023 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
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.
Claims 1-11 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “…wherein the relay module is configured to connect the PLC system and the intellectualizing service module to each other via the communication.”. Here it is unclear what the “communication” is referring to. Is the communication a protocol? Is the communication a physical wired connection? The term “communication” is confusing and further context is required to better ascertain what is meant by this term. In order to further prosecution, any form of communication, physical, protocol, wireless, etc., will be interpreted to read on this claim until corrected.
Claims 2-11 depend upon rejected claim 1 and are thus rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim 3 recites, “…wherein the intellectualizing service module is further configured to define coordinate values for respective processes and
to define an index corresponding to each of the coordinate values, and wherein the index is defined as an index distinguished corresponding to actions of a travel area and a storage area.”
Here, the claims recite defining “coordinate values”, providing an index, and wherein the values represent a travel area and a storage area, which provides confusion as to whether the data is coordinates for say, a robots process or if the coordinates represent a location within memory? By combining these two elements, the claims are confusing as to what the index is referring back to. In order to further prosecution, any system providing indexing of values that can be used to determine location of a program or storage area will be interpreted to read upon the claim. Appropriate correction required.
Claims 4 and 14 recite, “…identify the current state and a target state transmitted from the PLC system and identify a shortest path;”. It is unclear what the shortest path is referring to? Is this a sequence of steps resulting the fastest transition? Or a sequence of steps that result in the least amount of operations? Is this referring to a computation of a result? In order to further prosecution, any prior art that determines an optimal solution will be interpreted as reading upon the claim.
Claim 15 depends up rejected claim 14 and is thus rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claims 7 and 13 recites, “…transmit data on the current state including a bogie type and a bogie number for each cell to the intellectualizing service module;”. What is meant by each cell? This is potentially an antecedent basis issue if there are cells, say in a program sequence, which needs to be clarified in the claim. However, in order to further prosecution, any act of creating any kind of data based on received current state and device data will be interpreted to read upon this claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8-10 all depend upon claim 7 and are thus rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites, “an intellectualizing service module configured for identifying information transmitted from the PLC system to define an action and transmitting information on the action to the PLC system; and”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations of simply identifying information transmitted by a PLC system, which is an act that can reasonably be performed in the human mind and thus, falls within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional limitations of, “a programmable logic controller (PLC) system configured for managing line operation;”, “a relay module configured for providing an interface by establishing communication between the PLC system and the intellectualizing service module, wherein the information transmitted from the PLC system is data about a current state, and the information on the action is data about a recommended action for the current state, and”, and “wherein the relay module is configured to connect the PLC system and the intellectualizing service module to each other via the communication.”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, simply add limitations describing various components and how they are connected as well as types of data transferred between them which merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Finally, the limitations of, “a PLC”, “an intellectualizing service module”, and “a relay module”, as generally recited represent merely generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering PLC data of for line operations and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Dependent claims 3-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 3 and 4, recite further actions of defining data and identifying a shortest path, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, include limitations that can be reasonably be performed in the human mind and thus fall within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 4 and 8, each include limitations in which data is being transmitted/transferred, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, claims 2, 5-6, and 9-11, include various limitations describing system connections between devices, types of algorithms used, data structures, where sequence chart data is loaded, and types of communications used, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, all add limitations which just generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering PLC data of for line operations and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
***Examiner’s Note: in order to overcome the current 101 rejection, the office recommends amending claim 1 to incorporated all limitations of dependent claim 7, as this claim discloses utilizing determined action data by the intellectualizing service module to positively perform the action by the PLC device. This shows the system performing a task that is significantly more than the abstract idea and would overcome the current rejection if incorporated in its entirety.***
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu (CN 201710807226A).
Regarding Claims 1 and 12; Liu teaches; An apparatus for performing an intellectualizing process, the apparatus comprising: a programmable logic controller (PLC) system configured for managing line operation; (Liu; at least page 2; paragraphs 1-2; disclose a PLC for managing a plurality of industrial internet of things equipment)
an intellectualizing service module configured for identifying information transmitted from the PLC system to define an action and transmitting information on the action to the PLC system; and (Liu; at least page 2; disclose an application platform (i.e. intellectualizing service module) for identifying information based on received device data from a PLC, and further generating control information to be sent back to the PLC to use for operating the internet of things equipment)
a relay module configured for providing an interface by establishing communication between the PLC system and the intellectualizing service module, wherein the information transmitted from the PLC system is data about a current state, and the information on the action is data about a recommended action for the current state, and (Liu; at least page 2; disclose a device adapter for gathering the data regarding the PLC connected device from the PLC, including information about the running status (i.e. state) of the system, and further provides a communication link between the PLC and application platform)
wherein the relay module is configured to connect the PLC system and the intellectualizing service module to each other via the communication. (Liu; at least page 2; disclose wherein the device adapter provides a communicative connection between the PLC system and the application platform).
Claim 12 differs from claim 1 in that claim 12 includes the additional limitation of, “transmitting, by the intellectualizing service module, accuracy information on a result of the action to the PLC system corresponding to the action identification information.”, however, Liu also discloses this, see page 9, paragraph 15).
Regarding Claim 2; Liu teaches; The apparatus of The apparatus of wherein the relay module is configured to utilize a program for performing supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) to transfer the data between the PLC system and the intellectualizing service module, wherein the relay module and the intellectualizing service module are in communication with each other via Modbus, and wherein the relay module becomes a server of the Modbus and the intellectualizing service module becomes a client of the Modbus. (Liu; at least page 2; page 11 last paragraph).
Regarding Claims 6 and 18; Liu teaches; The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the intellectualizing service module is further configured to operate at least one of Python algorithms, C++ algorithms, and advanced algorithms considering application of an advanced automation system and an artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) technology. (Liu; at least page 11, last paragraph).
Regarding Claims 7 and 13; Liu teaches; The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the PLC system is configured to: transmit data on the current state including a bogie type and a bogie number for each cell to the intellectualizing service module; receive the recommended action corresponding to the data on the current state from the intellectualizing service module; add the recommended action to a ladder; and perform the action. (Liu; at least page 2).
Regarding Claim 8; Liu teaches; The apparatus of claim 7, wherein the PLC system is configured to receive sequence indication data via a manufacturing execution system (MES). (Liu; at least pages 2 and 3).
Regarding Claim 9; Liu teaches; The apparatus of The apparatus of wherein the PLC system is connected to a peripheral facility and a robot via a communication card, and wherein an input card is connected to a sensor and an output card is connected to a solenoid valve and a motor. (Liu; at least page 8, last two paragraphs; page 14, paragraph 3).
Regarding Claim 10; Liu teaches; The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the PLC system is configured to load the ladder and a sequential function chart (SFC) program to control the robot, the peripheral facility, the solenoid valve, and the motor based on the sequence indication data. (Liu; at least page 4, paragraph 4).
Regarding Claim 11; Liu teaches; The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the communication includes Ethernet communication and Modbus. (Liu; at least page 11, last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 17; Liu teaches; The method of claim 12, further including: identifying, by the PLC system, that the current state matches the target state by identifying the accuracy information on a result of the action transmitted from the intellectualizing service module. (Liu; at least page 9, paragraph 15).
Regarding Claim 19; Liu teaches; The method of claim 12, further including: connecting the PLC system and the intellectualizing service module to each other via communication, wherein the communication includes Ethernet communication and Modbus, wherein the connecting of the PLC system and the intellectualizing service module to each other involves a relay module to transfer data between the PLC system and the intellectualizing service module, and wherein the relay module is configured to utilize a program for performing supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA), wherein the relay module and the intellectualizing service module are in communication with each other via Modbus, wherein the relay module becomes a server of the Modbus and the intellectualizing service module becomes a client of the Modbus. (Liu; at least page 2; page 11, last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 20; Liu teaches; The method of claim 19, further including: writing, by the PLC system, a PLC address; generating, by the relay module, an address of the relay module from the PLC address; and transmitting the address of the relay module, wherein the intellectualizing service module becomes the client of the Modbus and reads data on the address of the relay module to identify the PLC address. (Liu; at least pages 2-3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 201710807226A) in view of Yang (WO 2015069788).
Regarding Claims 3 and 16; Liu appears to be silent on; The apparatus of The apparatus of wherein the intellectualizing service module is further configured to define coordinate values for respective processes and to define an index corresponding to each of the coordinate values, and wherein the index is defined as an index distinguished corresponding to actions of a travel area and a storage area.
However, Yang teaches; The apparatus of The apparatus of wherein the intellectualizing service module is further configured to define coordinate values for respective processes and to define an index corresponding to each of the coordinate values, and wherein the index is defined as an index distinguished corresponding to actions of a travel area and a storage area. (Yang; at least paragraphs [0007] and [0064]; disclose a system and method for defining coordinate values of log data (i.e. PLC data of Liu) for particular addresses in a storage area wherein the system further includes indexing the address data).
Liu and Yang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or problem solving area of, information processing and control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of tracking coordinates and providing indexing of log information as taught by Yang with the known system of an industrial communication and control system as taught by Liu in order to provide a method in which an improvement is made in the efficiency of log storage operations as taught by Yang (paragraph [0123]).
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 201710807226A) in view of Tenorth (US PGPUB 20190086894).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14; Liu appears to be silent on; The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the intellectualizing service module is configured to: identify the current state and a target state transmitted from the PLC system and identify a shortest path; and deliver an index suitable for corresponding states to the PLC system.
However, Tenorth teaches; The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the intellectualizing service module is configured to: identify the current state and a target state transmitted from the PLC system and identify a shortest path; and deliver an index suitable for corresponding states to the PLC system. (Tenorth; at least paragraphs [0276]-[0278]; disclose a system and method for using a behavior tree architecture for assisting a robot perform a task including wherein based on a current state and a target state, determining for instance, the fastest route).
Liu and Tenorth are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or problem solving area of, robot processing and control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of determining the fastest route using a state behavior tress as taught by Tenorth with the known system of an industrial communication and control system as taught by Liu in order to provide a method for improving recovery during complex operations as taught by Tenorth (paragraph [0075]).
Regarding Claim 5 and 15; the combination of Liu and Tenorth teach; The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the intellectualizing service module is further configured to construct a tree structure for actions and states for the current state and to identify a shortest path. (Tenorth; at least paragraphs [0276]-[0278]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reitinger et al. (US PGPUB 20220350308): disclose as system and method for generating behavior trees for control of PLC’s in an industrial system.
Feng (CN114629948A): disclose a PLC communication system and method in which a PLC communicates through an intermediate relay module with a database server, providing device information to the server, which processes and provides control data back to the PLC in response through the intermediate module.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117