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 .
Priority
Current application, US Application No. 18/258,763 filed on 09/18/2023, is a National Stage entry of PCT/EP2021/083405, International Filing Date: 11/29/2021, which claims foreign priority to DE 10 2020 134 439.2 filed on 12/21/2020.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the application filed on 09/18/2023. Claims 15-28 are currently pending. Claims 1-14 are canceled per applicant’s request.
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.
Claims 15-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As per claim 15, the limitation “the edge device is designed to simulate a multitude of virtual field devices” lacks description support from the specification because the specification is silent regarding which actual (physical) field devices are used as corresponding devices when reciting the virtual (simulated or abstract) field devices. The specification discloses confusing statements regarding which corresponding field devices that the virtual field devices represent device (see specification - The essential aspect of the invention is that the edge device simulates further field devices which are not even located in the first plant part. The edge device writes these so-called virtual field device [pg. 3 line 9-11], it is apparent … which of the field devices are actually contained in the first plant part and which field devices are simulated by the edge device [pg. 3 line 33-34]) and is silent regarding how to create virtual field devices, what the virtual field devices represents, e.g. which actual field device, and/or what is a qualifying criterion to create a virtual field.
The limitation “wherein the data of the virtual field devices are disregarded” lacks description support from the specification. The specification also recites the same phrase once (see specification - wherein the data of the virtual field devices are disregarded [pg. 3 line 6]), but fails to provide further explanation on when and why the data of the virtual devices are considered or disregarded.
As per claims 16-28, claims are also rejected because base claim 15 is rejected.
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.
Claims 15-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. As per claim 15, the limitation “simulate a multitude of virtual field devices” is ambiguous because “virtual field devices” represent an abstract representation of an actual or physical field devices, but the relationship to the actual or physical field devices are not defined and the specification provides confusing statements reciting “simulates further field devices which are not even located … these so-called virtual devices” and reciting “it is apparent … which field devices are simulated by the edge device” (see specification - [pg. 3 line 9-11, line 33-34]) and fails to clarify the relationship between the field devices and the virtual field device.
For the sake of examination, the virtual field devices are interpreted as modeled field devices having the same characteristics of the field devices in the plant, pretending to be real field devices.
As per claim 16-28, claims are also rejected because base claim 15 is rejected.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The current application includes limitations in claim 15 that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because of the following reasons:
Claim 15 includes a limitation/element that use a generic placeholder, unit, that are coupled with functional language, configured to “transmit” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The physical structure of the “higher-level unit” is interpreted as a programmable logic controller (see specification – a PLC ‘programmable logic controller’ [pg. 1 line 20-27, pg. 6 line 24-26, pg. 7 line 4-12, Fig. 1 ÜE white circle]).
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 recites subject matter which is allowable over the prior art, and would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome current objections and rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As per claim 15, the closest prior art of record, Geitner (US 20220163952 A1), hereinafter ‘Geit’, Malladi (US 20170060574 A1), hereinafter “Mall”, Battula (Battula, Sudheer Kumar, Saurabh Garg, James Montgomery, and Byeong Kang. "An efficient resource monitoring service for fog computing environments." IEEE Transactions on Services Computing 13, no. 4 (2019): 709-722), hereinafter ‘Batt’, and Aldana (Aldana, Jose Alfredo Alvarez. "A novel online functional testing methodology based on a fully distributed continuous monitoring approach applied to communicating systems." PhD diss., Université Paris Saclay (COmUE), 2018), hereinafter ‘Alda’, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious limitations
“enter identifiers of the virtual field devices and the generated data into the live list”,
“the edge device is designed to transmit the live list containing the requested or monitored data to the cloud-based service platform at regular intervals” and “the cloud-based service platform is designed to prepare or present the live list, wherein the data of the virtual field devices are disregarded” in combination with other limitations.
As per claim 15, Geit discloses
Automation system (automation system [0072, 0093-0094, Fig. 2 100]) comprising:
a first plant part (industrial installation [0094, Fig. 2 1) consisting of a multitude of field devices (machine, machine component, sensor [0094, Fig. 2 2 3]) and a higher-level unit, (controller [0096, Fig. 2 4])
wherein the field devices are designed to sense measured values of at least one physical variable of a process-engineering process (process, physical sensor, actual measurement [0095])) or to influence at least one physical variable of a process-engineering process, (Depending on the measurement principle of the physical sensor 3, signals of the sensor are forwarded to the controller 4 and converted there into a measured value, or measured values [0096])
wherein the field devices are in communication with one another and with the higher-level unit, (physical sensor, controller [0096])
wherein the field devices are designed to transmit measured values, status values or diagnostic data to the higher-level unit, and wherein the higher-level unit is designed to transmit data to the field devices; (the measurement principle of the physical sensor 3, signals of the sensor are forwarded to the controller 4 [0096], control a mechanical production [0004], engine control and diagnostics [0006], monitor and control a mechanical production [0080], implying the higher-level unit is designed to transmit data to the field devices)
an edge device, which is part of the communication network, wherein the edge device is designed to monitor at least some of the data transmitted by the field devices and by the higher-level unit or to request further data from the field devices or from the higher-level unit, (processing device, edge computing system, executable by FMU [0022-0028, Fig. 4], a measured value of a physical sensor that corresponds to a physical parameter of the industrial installation is received in a processing device of the automation system [0021, 0088-0089, Fig. 1 S20], at least one physical sensor 3 is connected to at least one controller 4 [0096], Push … a style of communication where the request for a given transaction is initiated by the sender, e.g. sensor, Pull … a style of communication where the request … is initiated by receiver, polling … the receiver … periodically inquires or cheks the sensor has data to send [0077])
wherein the edge device is designed to simulate a multitude of virtual field devices, to generate data for the virtual field devices, (virtual sensor, edge computing system [0020-0022, 0078-0087], dataset that was generated by a simulation model, physical sensor, virtual sensor [0024-0030], combines actual measurement data with simulation models with virtual sensors that can be operated directly on a higher - level machine platform in addition to the actual physical sensors , and therefore brings the advantages of simulation models to the actual factory [0034])
a service platform, (Edge device, cloud computing [0115]. service … platform [0119-0120]) wherein the edge device is in communication with the service platform via a first communication channel, (Edge device, data … processing and forwarding [0115]).
However, Geit is silent regarding the above allowable limitations.
Mall discloses the field devices are in communication with one another and with the higher-level unit via communication network (communication network [0013, 0016, 0038-0041, Fig. 1 124], interconnected industrial and commercial devices such as sensors, machinery, and computers, programmable logic controllers ‘PLCs’ [0010], control systems and physical sensors [0062, 0072]),
the edge device communicates with the cloud platform using an Internet synchronously (cloud infrastructure, Internet [0003], edge infrastructure and platform [0008], Intent of Thins [0007, 0009-0010], network, data on the client device can be synchronized with the cloud [0045], computing device in various form factors, capable of receiving or transmitting data [0047], data processing, data bus, standard format … to transmit data objects [0082]), and client system requests information from a server system (Client systems … requests information form a server system, client-server environment [0042]), but is silent regarding the above allowable limitations.
Batt discloses wherein the edge device is designed to generate a live list, which contains an identifier of each of the field devices (fog/edge monitoring, fog/edge computing [pg. 710 right col par 1-2], sensor, fog, i.e. edge, live node list [pg. 712 left col par 1 from the bottom], retrieve resource information of the fog device, predicted fog device list [pg. 712 right col par 2], push based, fog leader agent … update and maintain the live device list and resource information [pg. 714 left col par 2 from the bottom], pull based, The fog leader retrieves the list of fog devices that are registered to that particular leader and requests all fog devices to send their device resource information, fog leader will update the resource information and maintain the list [pg. 214 left col par1 from the bottom – right col par 2], Push- and Pull-based models .. hybrid model, The fog leader updates the live device list and the unregistered list by removing the devices from the live list [pg. 714 right col par 3 - par 6]),
monitoring both physical and virtual devices (source monitoring tool, virtual and physical resources [pg. 711 left col par 1 from the bottom], resource monitoring, virtual and physical resources [pg. 719 right col par 2]) and request information form the used to the sensors via edge machine (service request from the users, forwarding the request to the fog leader, sensors accept the requests form the fog leader, receives resource information requests from the fog server, To keep track of dynamic resource information, the proposed technique requests the fog devices to update their resource information for the rejoined events of fog devices [pg. 712 left col par 3 – pg. 714 right col par 4], Based on those requirements, the fog server creates the environment dynamically, ID … unique address to identify [pg. 717 left col par. 1]), but fails to explicitly recite the above allowable limitations.
Alda discloses wherein the edge device is designed to transmit the live list containing the health status of all other nodes to the parent nodes (communication, monitoring packet, state of network query and aggregate states, for each state of nodes … a set of transmitted values [pg. 36 par1 from the bottom], live list contains the health status of all the other node [pg. 17 par 1], edge nodes … query state to aggregate state and send the aggregation results to the parent node, forward the data packet [pg. 28 par. 1-2]), but is silent regarding the above allowable limitations.
As per claims 16-28, claims would be allowable because base and representative claim 15 would be allowable.
Notes with regard to Prior Art
The prior arts made of record are provided as additional references relevant to the current claims.
Li (J. -Q. Li, and et al, "Industrial Internet: A Survey on the Enabling Technologies, Applications, and Challenges," in IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 1504-1526, third quarter 2017) discloses edge and cloud computing with use of access control list (Cloud computing [abs], Network edge, edge computing [pg. 1521 left col par 3-4], Access control list, access control capability list [pg. 1525 right col]).
Nimox (US 20220078267 A1, US 20220075354 A1, US 20220078252 A1) discloses process control or factory automation field device configured with an interface and communication connection structure that enables the field device to operate as a data server that communicates with and supports multiple different applications or clients using various communication architectures while simultaneously performing standard process and factory automation control function. ([abs])
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KAY, whose telephone number is (408) 918-7569. The examiner can normally be reached on M, Th & F 8-5, T 2-7, and W 8-1.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is 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. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on 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.
/DOUGLAS KAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857