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 1-6, 8-14 are pending.
Claim 7 is cancelled.
Abstract
The objection to the Abstract has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
The objection to the Claims has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Dec 11, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant's amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billi-Duran et al, US Patent Pub US 20180088564 A1 (hereinafter Billi-Duran) in view of Peiwen et al, Chinese Patent Num CN109242176A (hereinafter Peiwen).
Claim 1
Billi-Duran discloses a method of operating a machine system comprising a plurality of machines, in particular machine tool devices with numerical control, NC, or programmable logic controller, PLC, control systems, wherein the plurality of machines are connected to a computing system of the machine system (Billi-Duran, para 32, 39-40, 120-121 – Operating a system of industrial controllers deployed throughout an industrial plant environment to monitor and control respective industrial systems for machining/”NC control systems” and PLC control systems), wherein the machine system comprises human-machine-interfaces to present machine information and wherein the machine system comprises at least one operator detection unit, wherein: the operator detection unit detects a machine operator being in the proximity of a machine of the plurality of machines and/or walking past the machine and collects operator behavior data (Billi-Duran, para 35, 90-91, 111 – The system including HMI controllers and user/”machine operator” location and detection systems that detects the user/”machine operator” actions in proximity to a control panel.), the operator detection unit sends the operator behavior data to the computing system (Billi-Duran, para 90 – Collected behavior data sent to the system.), the computing system selects information to be presented to the machine operator in dependence on the operator behavior data and on the operator behavior habits, and selects at least one of the human-machine-interfaces to present said information and the selected at least one of the human-machine-interfaces present the selected information. (Billi-Duran, para 46-47, 105-106, 108 – Determining information to present to the user/”machine operator” based on identified correlations/”operator behavior habits” between certain operator behaviors and plant process outcomes, and generate workflow data that can be used to generate a workflow presentation on a client/HMI device that can be a personal user device, or to a display based on the user’s location.)
But Billi-Duran fails to specify the operator behavior data is stored by the computing system, operator behavior habits are determined from the operator behavior data.
However, Peiwen teaches the operator behavior data is stored by the computing system, operator behavior habits are determined from the operator behavior data. (Peiwen, lines 362-397 - Collecting and storing user appliance usage behavior data that all operation behavior events of the user, and determining user behavioral habits.)
Billi-Duran and Peiwen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to methods of monitoring user behavior with equipment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above method of monitoring user behavior with equipment, as taught by Billi-Duran, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Peiwen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide control of equipment based on the user by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Peiwen (abstract).
Claim 2
The combination of Billi-Duran and Peiwen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Billi-Duran and Peiwen further teaches the plurality of machines are integrated into a middleware operating system of the computing system. (Billi-Duran, para 35, 49, Fig 4 ref(202-418) – The industrial devices and controllers/”plurality of machines” are connected/integrated into a middle level plant network/”middleware operating system”.)
Claim 3
The combination of Billi-Duran and Peiwen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Billi-Duran and Peiwen further teaches the selected at least one of the human-machine-interfaces is a panel adapted to display the selected information and/or a loudspeaker adapted to play the selected information. (Billi-Duran, para 35, 129 – The HMIs display selected information and have speakers to output audio information.)
Claim 5
The combination of Billi-Duran and Peiwen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Billi-Duran and Peiwen further teaches the operator detection unit comprises a camera, a wireless communication unit and/or a radio-frequency identification unit. (Billi-Duran, para 38, 43, 57, 91, 121 – Sensors to detect a user location using wireless client devices, RFID, and video cameras.)
Claim 6
The combination of Billi-Duran and Peiwen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Billi-Duran and Peiwen further teaches the operator behavior data includes an operator identification, an operator location, an operator velocity, directions of body movement of the operator, information about a current occupation of the operator, operator vital signs. (Billi-Duran, para 90-91, 96-97 – Detect a user identity, location, behavior actions including movement and performance of actions/”current occupation”.)
Claim 8
The combination of Billi-Duran and Peiwen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Billi-Duran and Peiwen further teaches the selected information to be presented to the machine operator is chosen among machine status information, production process information, tasks that have to be performed at machines, tasks that will have to be performed at machines in the future and/or warning messages. (Billi-Duran, para 34-35, 93-94 - Human-machine interfaces (HMIs) that allow plant personnel to view telemetry and status data/”production process and machine status” associated with the automation systems, alarms/warning, control aspects of system operation/”tasks performed at machines”, and workflows to address a current alarm condition/”future tasks”.)
Claim 9
The combination of Billi-Duran and Peiwen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Billi-Duran and Peiwen further teaches the computing system triggers an alert to alert the operator of the selected information. (Billi-Duran, para 35 – The system can visualize present states of industrial systems or their associated devices using graphical representations of the processes that display metered or calculated values, employ color or position animations based on state, render alarm notifications, or employ other such techniques for presenting relevant data to the operator.)
Claim 10
The combination of Billi-Duran and Peiwen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Billi-Duran and Peiwen further teaches the alert is visual, acoustic. (Billi-Duran, para 35, 129 – The system can visualize alarms/alerts, speaker/acoustic outputs)
Claim 11
The combination of Billi-Duran and Peiwen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Billi-Duran and Peiwen further teaches the at least one of the human-machine-interfaces selected to present the information is a primary human-machine-interface located at or close to the machine in the proximity of the operator and/or a secondary, portable human-machine-interface allocated to the operator. (Billi-Duran, para 53-55 – The HMIs can be located with the industrial controllers and activated when an operator is in proximity to the HMI, or a portable client device in possession of an operator can act as an HMI to present the data.)
Claim 12
The combination of Billi-Duran and Peiwen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Billi-Duran and Peiwen further teaches the presentation of the information is adapted in dependence on the particular human-machine-interface it is presented on, the identity of the operator and/or the distance of the operator to the particular human-machine-interface. (Billi-Duran, para 44, 54, 91 – The HMIs can be adapted based on HMI screen configuration files, the user role/identity, and the location/distance and orientation of the operator.)
Claim 13
The combination of Billi-Duran and Peiwen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Billi-Duran and Peiwen further teaches when the information presented to the operator is a task to be performed, the operator performs the task and confirms completion of the task with the selected at least one of the human-machine-interfaces or uses the selected at least one of the human-machine-interfaces to input why the task has not been completed. (Billi-Duran, para 111 – Presenting a task to the user to be performed, and monitoring completion of a workflow/task, such as transitioning of a mode switch on the control panel from a first position to a second position, the system can confirm that the user has placed the automation system in the correct mode in accordance with a current pending step of the workflow.)
Claim 14
The combination of Billi-Duran and Peiwen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Billi-Duran and Peiwen further teaches a plurality of machines, in particular machine tool devices with numerical control, NC, or programmable logic controller, PLC, control systems (Billi-Duran, para 32, 39-40, 120-121 – Operating a system of industrial controllers deployed throughout an industrial plant environment to monitor and control respective industrial systems for machining/”NC control systems” and PLC control systems), a computing system, wherein the machines are connected to the computing system, human-machine-interfaces to present machine information, and at least one operator detection unit to detect a machine operator being in the proximity of a machine of the plurality of machines and/or walking past the machine and to collect operator behavior data. (Billi-Duran, para 35, 90-91, 111 – The system including HMI controllers and user/”machine operator” location and detection systems that detects the user/”machine operator” actions in proximity to a control panel and collects user behavior actions.)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billi-Duran et al, US Patent Pub US 20180088564 A1 (hereinafter Billi-Duran) in view of Peiwen et al, Chinese Patent Num CN109242176A (hereinafter Peiwen) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-14 above, and in view of Narushima et al, US Patent Pub US 20130057894 A1 (hereinafter Narushima).
Claim 4
The combination of Billi-Duran and Peiwen teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Billi-Duran and Peiwen fails to specify any of the human-machine-interfaces that are located in areas where no operator has been detected by the operator detection unit are put in standby mode.
However, Narushima teaches any of the human-machine-interfaces that are located in areas where no operator has been detected by the operator detection unit are put in standby mode. (Narushima, para 6, 46, 136 – Activating a sleep/standby mode when an operator’s presence is no longer detected.)
Billi-Duran, Peiwen, and Narushima are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to user monitoring systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above user monitoring system, as taught by Billi-Duran, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Narushima.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide power saving functionality by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Narushima (para 46).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E OGG whose telephone number is (469) 295-9163. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Thurs 7:30 am - 5:00 pm CT.
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 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.
/DAVID EARL OGG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119