DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to papers filed on 29 May 2023.
Claims 1 and 9 are pending and presented for examination. Claims 2-8 were canceled by a Preliminary amendment.
Applicant's submission of references on form PTO-1449, filed on January 9, October 2, and October 31, all in 2024, have been considered. A signed copy of each form is attached.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification of the instant invention includes acronyms which include, IEC, CDD, LoP, OPC, and more. The first use of the acronym should also include the full name of the element. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The instant disclosure fails to sufficiently provide a proper written description of the intended invention. The elements as recited in claim 1 are not fully explained in the specification or the claims. The specification introduces the elements of claim 1 but does not provide further information regarding the functionality of the disclosed element. A definition of the element and its connectivity as used is stated. This does not allow one of skill to reproduce the claimed instrument classification methodology without undue experimentation. The steps of the claim language are stated in the specification but some instances where the data comes from is not detailed. Additionally, the specification discusses the use of classification symbols and states in paragraph [0017] that “the instrument classification symbols indicat[es] classification of instruments are defined” but a definition is not found. Moreover, the disclosure does not provide insight as to what the protocol of classification denotes nor does it define what a symbol represents, (i.e. a character, an uppercase letter, a number, or a combination thereof). Then, the use of characteristics of a target is presented. But what the target represents, is not specified. The term “target”, in itself, can have many uses or connotations. With regard to the terminology, what is specifically considered a target needs to be properly identified. Later the instrument information is to be described; however, the information of the instrument is stated as included in the industrial facility. This “definition” does not provide proper and complete explanation of the instrument information. Nor does it provide evidence of where the information of each instrument is gathered or provided made of record. These are a few examples of the material without proper definition/explanation in the specification and/or claims so that one of skill can reproduce the instant invention without undue experimentation.
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 and 9 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.
The claim language of claim 1 includes “classification symbols”, “instrument information”, “characteristics of the instrument and target” but does not provide proper explanation of the subject matter.
Claim 9 is included as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the information model" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US U.S. Patent No. US 4,947,335 to Blitchington in view of U.S. Patent No. US 7,437,212 B2 to Farchmin et al.
The claims are examined having been given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the above stated rejection under 35 USC §112(a).
The patented invention of Blitchington teaches of a method and apparatus for identifying the lot codes of workpieces. In doing so, elements of the claimed limitations are taught and/or fairly suggested as follows.
Regarding claim 1, an instrument classification symbol specifying device comprising: (taught by Blitchington at column 2 lines 6-8 as relating “to accessing information, such as lot code numbers, from workpieces as they move down a manufacturing line.” Blitchington establishes the environment to process the intended action.)
Although Blitchington establishes the environment of the instant invention, the patented reference does not specifically include all the elements recited. It is for this reason, the patented invention of Farchmin et al. (herein after “Farchmin”) is relied on.
a processor coupled to a memory and configured to (taught by Farchmin in column 32 at lines 7-15 wherein “components include a display screen 82, a memory 89, a transmitter 48 and a speaker 151. WID processor 87 is linked to each of screen 82, the input devices, memory 89, transmitter 48 and speaker 151” is stated.);
acquire instrument information and a standardized information model, the instrument information being related to an instrument included in an industrial facility, the standardized information model including instrument classification symbols of a plurality of instruments ( taught by Farchmin in column 11 at lines 40-45 and 55-59 wherein “Labels R3, R4 and R1b are each used twice to indicate instances of the same resources type that have identical characteristics” is stated. See Fig. 1a);
specify, on the basis of the instrument information, characteristics of the instrument and characteristics of a target to be measured or controlled by the instrument (taught by Farchmin in column 11 at lines 59-63 wherein “labels R1a and R1b are used to earmark PCB insertion machines where the "a" and "b" qualifiers indicate that the each of the machines has machine characteristics that are distinct form the other” with reference to Fig. 1a is stated;
determine an instrument classification symbol corresponding to the instrument, the instrument classification symbol being determined from the instrument classification symbols included in the information model on the basis of (taught by Farchmin in column 12 at lines 22-24 wherein “each sub-set includes at least some instances of the same resource types where instances of the same type may have different characteristics” and the symbol aspect explained in column 17 at lines 28-37 where the process of assigning letters (lowercase or uppercase) to indicate a process js explained.
determination information in which the characteristics of the instrument and the characteristics of the target to be measured or controlled by the instrument are associated with the instrument classification symbol, and (taught by Farchmin in column 35 at lines 28-49 wherein “the resource R101a controller program code is altered or supplemented with the location of resource R7a so that the resource R101a controller monitors the network for the cycle complete signal from transfer line R7a at the specific location” is stated);
the specified characteristics of the instrument and the specified characteristics of the target to be measured or controlled by the instrument (taught by Farchmin in column 33 at lines 55-58 wherein “a system operator may be required to manually determine relative juxtapositions of resources (e.g., manually measure distances between sensors, actuators, etc.) In some cases some locations may be determined automatically via a controller while other locations have to be determined manually”) the aspect of measuring is stated;
when the processor succeeds in specifying the characteristics of the instrument and the characteristics of the target to be measured or controlled by the instrument, output a result of mapping between the instrument and the determined instrument classification symbol and (“taught by Farchmin in column 28 at lines 62-64 as “… Fig. 8 … I/O mapping information is illustrated which includes an instruction box 282, a juxtaposition map 284 and an I/O mapping table 286”);
when the processor has difficulty in specifying the characteristics of the instrument and the characteristics of the target to be measured or controlled by the instrument, cause a display device to display candidates of the characteristics of the instrument or candidates of the characteristics of the target to be measured or controlled by the instrument (“taught by Farchmin in column 39 at lines 47-49 as “all fault conditions associated with any resource within process zone PZ3d be displayed on a WID display when the WID is located within machine zone MZ3d”.
As per claim 9, the instrument classification symbol specifying device according unit claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to receive user's selection for the candidates of the characteristics of the instrument or the candidates of the characteristics of the target to be measured or controlled by the instrument displayed on the display device. The provision of a display device to enable a user’s selection is taught in column 15 at lines 45-48 of Farchmin as “… controller 38 may run programs designed to support interfacing with facility operators (e.g., maintenance personnel, process engineers, etc.) thereby providing control capabilities and system monitoring capabilities. To this end, controller 38 may include its own input and output interfacing devices such as a display screen, a keyboard, a pointing and selecting device such as a mouse or trackball or any other types of interfacing devices known in the art. Other interfacing devices (e.g., resources R4) are provided within facility 10 to enable monitoring and control”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the above mentioned invention of Blitchington (an industrial facility) to have included the features of Farchmin (automated devices) so as to provide a more interoperable facilities and a smooth classification process.
For the reasons stated above, the limitations of the instant invention are taught and/or fairly suggested by the prior arts of record; thereby, rendering the instant claims unpatentable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. US 11,7098,481 B2 Sayyarrodsari, et al.
relates generally to industrial automation systems, and, for example, to application of analytics to extract business value from industrial data
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sheela Rao whose telephone number is (571) 272- 3751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday from 7:00 am to 1:00 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, Mohammad Ali, can be reached on (571) 272-4105. The fax number for the organization where this application or any proceeding papers has been assigned is (571) 273- 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. It should be noted that status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http:// pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should any questions arise regarding access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sheela Rao/Examiner, Art Unit 2119 September 15, 2025
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119