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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claim
1. Applicant's amendment dated 08/08/2025 responding to the Office Action 05/08/2025 provided in the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15 and 17-18.
2. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, 13 and 17 have been amended and claims 4, 10 and 16 have been canceled.
3. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15 and 17-18 are pending in the application, of which claims 1, 7 and 13 are in independent form and which have been fully considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
4. (A) Regarding claim interpretation 112(f): 112(f) raised in previous office action have been withdrawn in view of Applicants’ amendments.
(B) Regarding 101 rejections: 101 rejections raised in previous office action have been maintained in view of Applicants’ amendments.
(C) Regarding art rejection: Applicants’ amendment necessitated new grounds of rejections presented in the following art rejection. Please JP et al. (JP 6551565 B2 – Date Published –07/31/2019).
Examiner Notes
5. Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim objections
6. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15 and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 7 and 13 recite “that” in lines 1 and 13 of claim 1, lines 2 and 9 of claim 7 and lines 2 and 10 of claim 13 should be removed or replaced.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15 and 17-18 are also objected since they are depend on claims 1, 7 and 13.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
7. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis specific to Claims 1, 7 and 13 is being presented below.
Claims 1, 7 and 12:
Step 1 Analysis:
Claim 1 of the instant application is direct to apparatus.
Claim 7 of the instant application is direct to process.
Claim 13 of the instant application is direct to product.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 2 Analysis:
Claim 1 recites:
store a source code of the control program and a first list that declares a plurality of variables used in the source code;
a user interface for inputting an operation of a user;
(c) extract a first variable that is unused in the source code from the plurality of variables on the first list;
(d) acquire information for specifying a second variable used by the control target out of the plurality of variables in an execution state of the control program;
(e) determine that a third variable that does not correspond to the second variable out of the first variable is delible from the first list on a basis of a result of extraction by the processor and the information acquired by the processor; and
(f) delete the third variable, as the delible variable without affecting the control target when being deleted, from the first list, in response to the operation input to the user interface,
(g) wherein the control target is communicably connected to the control device by a network and controlled by the control program executed in the control device.
Step 2A — Prong 1:
The claim 1 recites the limitations of:
(c) extract a first variable that is unused in the source code from the plurality of variables on the first list;
(d) acquire information for specifying a second variable used by the control target out of the plurality of variables in an execution state of the control program;
(e) determine that a third variable that does not correspond to the second variable out of the first variable is delible from the first list on a basis of a result of extraction by the processor and the information acquired by the processor.
Limitations (c)-(e) are limitations that, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “extract”, “acquire” and “determine” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A -- Prong 2:
The claim 1 recites the additional limitations of “processor”, “memory” and “wherein the control target is communicably connected to the control device by a network and controlled by the control program executed in the control device”. The limitations of “processor”, “memory” and “wherein the control target is communicably connected to the control device by a network and controlled by the control program executed in the control device” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, limitation (a) perform as well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Limitations (b) and (f) are merely insignificant extra solution activity of output or evaluate data. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., simply adding extra-solution activity or routine, conventional activity or generic computer components does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B since the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well- understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05. Therefore, claim is ineligible.
Regarding claims 7 and 13:
Step 2 Analysis:
Claims 7 and 13 recite:
(a) receiving an operation input to a user interface by a user;
(b) extracting a first variable that is unused in a source code of the control program from a first list that declares a plurality of variables used in the source code;
(c) acquiring information for specifying a second variable used by the control target out of the plurality of variables in an execution state of the control program;
(d) determining that a third variable that does not correspond to the second variable out of the first variable is delible from the first list on a basis of a result of extraction by the extracting and the information acquired by the acquiring;
(e) deleting the third variable, as the delible variable without affecting the control target when being deleted, from the first list, in response to the operation input to the user interface,
(f) wherein the control target is communicably connected to the control device by a network and controlled by the control program executed in the control device.
Step 2A — Prong 1:
The claims 7 and 13 recite the limitations of:
(b) extracting a first variable that is unused in a source code of the control program from a first list that declares a plurality of variables used in the source code;
(c) acquiring information for specifying a second variable used by the control target out of the plurality of variables in an execution state of the control program;
(d) determining that a third variable that does not correspond to the second variable out of the first variable is delible from the first list on a basis of a result of extraction by the extracting and the information acquired by the acquiring;
Limitations (b)-(d) are limitations that, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “extract”, “acquire” and “determine” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A -- Prong 2:
The claim 1 recites the additional limitations of “a control device”, “computer”, “non-transitory storage medium” and “wherein the control target is communicably connected to the control device by a network and controlled by the control program executed in the control device”. The limitations of “a control device”, “computer”, “non-transitory storage medium” and “wherein the control target is communicably connected to the control device by a network and controlled by the control program executed in the control device” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, limitation (a) perform as well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Limitation (e) is merely insignificant extra solution activity of output data. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., simply adding extra-solution activity or routine, conventional activity or generic computer components does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B since the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well- understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05. Therefore, claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims
Additionally, claims 2, 8 and 14 recite “acquire information specifying the variable indicated on the second list from the control target via the control device or directly from the control target” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “acquire” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. The addition limitations “wherein the control target is connected to the control device by a network and configured to read out a variable indicated on a second list created in advance from the control device during execution of the control program” which perform as well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 2, 8 and 14 are ineligible.
Additionally, claims 3, 9 and 15 recite “retain a variable name read out from the control target during execution of the control program as access information, and acquire the access information from the control device as the information at time of execution of the control program” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “retain” and “acquire” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. The addition limitations “wherein the control target is connected to the control device by a network and configured to access the control target via the network and read out some variables out of the plurality of variables during execution of the control program” which perform as well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 3, 9 and 15 are ineligible.
Additionally, claims 5, 11 and 17 recite “operate in accordance with an input of a first operation that activates deletion processing of an unnecessary variable on the user interface, output a message asking the user whether to delete the third variable extracted by the determination unit from the first list, and operate in accordance with an input of a second operation that gives a command for deleting the third variable in accordance with the message on the user interface” which are merely insignificant extra solution activity of data. These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 5, 11 and 17 are ineligible.
Additionally, claims 6, 12 and 18 recite “operate after synchronization of the control program is secured between the control device and the development support device, when the first operation is input” which are merely insignificant extra solution activity of data. These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 6, 12 and 18 are ineligible.
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.
8. Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-8, 11, 13-14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (JP 2020064399 A – IDS filed on 08/29/2023) in view of JP et al. (JP 6551565 B2 – Date Published –07/31/2019 – herein after JP).
Regarding claim 1.
Arai discloses
A development support device for supporting development of a control program for a control device that controls a control target (a development tool that allows the plurality of programs executed by the control device 100 and written in different languages to be edited in one development environment – See page 2), the development support device comprising:
a memory configured to store a source code of the control program and a first list that declares a plurality of variables used in the source code (the storage 180 stores each of the programs 181 and 185 described in different languages together with the information of the variables used in the programs so that they can be executed – See page 3);
a user interface for inputting an operation of a user (an editor that edits the source code of each of the programs executed in the control device 100 by a user operation – See page 5);
extract a first variable that is unused in the source code from the plurality of variables on the first list (The shared variable list creation units 141 and 151 create a shared variable list that is a list of variables defined by each program and variables used for reading or writing. When the editor control unit 210 determines that there is no program that uses the target shared variable (NO in step S23) – See pages 7-8. Examiner respectfully notes that if no program uses the target shared variable, it means that the target shared variable is unused for program and the target shared variable is as a first variable);
acquire information for specifying a second variable used by the control target out of the plurality of variables in an execution state of the control program (The A language program 181 holds the information of the shared variable used in the program by the source code. The A language program 181 may hold the information of the shared variable used in the program in the shared variable use information file 183 in which the information is written – See page 2. Examiner respectfully noted that share available is as second variable);
when being deleted, from the first list, in response to the operation input to the user interface (it may be possible to perform a process of presenting the influence on a plurality of programs to the user. FIG. 10 is a flowchart showing the flow of processing by the terminal device 200 when the user performs an operation of deleting a shared variable – See page 7),
wherein the control target is communicably connected to the control device by a network and controlled by the control program executed in the control device (The terminal device 200 communicates with the control device 100 and editably displays each of the plurality of programs executed by the control device 100. The terminal device 200 provides the user with a development tool that allows the plurality of programs executed by the control device 100 and written in different languages to be edited in one development environment – See page 2).
Arai discloses the definitions of these conditions are held in advance in the shared variable use source presence / absence determining unit 612 of the terminal device 600 – See page 11. Arai does not disclose
determine that a third variable that does not correspond to the second variable out of the first variable is delible from the first list on a basis of a result of extraction by the processor and the information acquired by the processor; and
delete the third variable, as the delible variable without affecting the control target
JP discloses
determine that a third variable that does not correspond to the second variable out of the first variable is delible from the first list on a basis of a result of extraction by the processor and the information acquired by the processor (an edge is not formed between nodes (mechanism 31) having a weak relationship by comparing the correlation coefficient or the partial correlation coefficient with a threshold value – See page 8. The connection state between the plurality of mechanisms 31 may be expressed by the presence or absence of a relationship, a change in the relationship, or the like. The change of the relationship maybe indicated by, for example, a difference (change amount) in time series of the relationship expressed by the strength or presence of the relationship. – See page 15. Each abstract syntax tree shown in FIGS. 18A to 18D corresponds to each syntax of reference numerals 561 to 564 in FIG. The processing of steps S1402 to S1404 was applied to this abstract syntax tree to initialize the ordering of each variable corresponding to each mechanism – See page 13. The control unit 11 specifies the dependency of variables in the processing of the control program 221 based on the abstract syntax tree constructed in step S1411 in the step S1413 and the present step S1414. Then, in the next stepS1415, the control unit 11 specifies the order relation of the plurality of mechanisms 31 based on the dependence relation of the specified variables – See page 17); and
delete the third variable, as the delible variable without affecting the control target (after forming a graph in which all nodes are connected by an edge, the control unit 11 sets a correlation coefficient or a partial correlation coefficient so that the fitness index (GFI, SRMR, etc.) representing the degree of deviation does not exceed a threshold. The edges of the formed graph may be deleted in order from the smallest edge – See paragraph [0057]),
JP also discloses
when being deleted, from the first list, in response to the operation input to the user interface (the control unit 11 specifies an order (transition) in which the probability occurring in the order relation among the mechanisms 31 is lower than the threshold, and deletes the edge corresponding to the order specified from the edges constituting the undirected graph information 2223 May be. The threshold value may be a fixed value defined in the process analysis program 121 or may be a setting value that can be changed by an operator – See page 11. The control unit 11 can adopt the order relationship specified by the user as the order relationship – See page 19),
wherein the control target is communicably connected to the control device by a network and controlled by the control program executed in the control device (the control unit 11 arranges the variables and operators extracted in stepS1402 in order, and selects the part related to the variables (v1 to v4) corresponding to each mechanism 31 that is the target of specifying the causality. Limit the targets for monitoring the execution order – See page 9. The acquisition destination of the control program to be analyzed may not be limited to the control device using the control program, and may be appropriately selected – See pages 13-14).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use JP’s teaching into Arai’s invention because incorporating JP’s teaching would enhance Arai to enable to output graph information indicates the relationships between the mechanisms as suggested by JP (page 11).
Regarding claim 2, the development support device according to claim 1,
Arai discloses
wherein the control target is connected to the control device by a network (The terminal device 200 communicates with the control device 100 and editably displays each of the plurality of programs executed by the control device 100 – See page 2) and configured to read out a variable indicated on a second list created in advance from the control device during execution of the control program (The shared variable list creation unit 141 creates a shared variable list including information on whether each shared variable is used for reading or writing in the A language program 181. The program execution unit 120 reads out various programs stored in the storage 180 – See page 3), and
the processor is configured to acquire information specifying the variable indicated on the second list from the control target via the control device or directly from the control target (GROUP_1 may indicate that the variable is used in the A language program 181).
Regarding claim 5, the development support device according to claim 1,
Arai discloses
wherein
the processor is configured to operate in accordance with an input of a first operation that activates deletion processing of an unnecessary variable on the user interface (the program list display unit 212 of the terminal device 200 may be able to display a list of programs that use the shared variable to be deleted when the operation of deleting the shared variable is performed by the user – See page 7),
the user interface is configured to output a message asking the user whether to delete the third variable extracted by the determination unit from the first list (the program list display unit 212 of the terminal device 200 may be able to display a list of programs that use the shared variable to be deleted – See page 7. Determine whether or not to delete the shared variable – See page 7), and
the processor is configured to operate in accordance with an input of a second operation that gives a command for deleting the third variable in accordance with the message on the user interface (deletes the shared variable used in one or more programs, the terminal device 200 deletes the shared variable by 1Alternatively, it may be possible to perform a process of presenting the influence on a plurality of programs to the user. FIG. 10 is a flowchart showing the flow of processing by the terminal device 200when the user performs an operation of deleting a shared variable. – See page 7. Examiner respectfully notes that each of shared variables could be first, second or third variable).
Regarding claim 7.
Arai discloses
A development support method of a control program for a control device that controls a control target (a development tool that allows the plurality of programs executed by the control device 100 and written in different languages to be edited in one development environment – See page 2), the development support method being executed by a computer, the development support method comprising:
receiving an operation input to a user interface by a user (an editor that edits the source code of each of the programs executed in the control device 100 by a user operation – See page 5);
extracting a first variable that is unused in a source code of the control program from a first list that declares a plurality of variables used in the source code (the shared variable list creation units 141 and 151 create a shared variable list that is a list of variables defined by each program and variables used for reading or writing. When the editor control unit 210 determines that there is no program that uses the target shared variable (NO in step S23) – See pages 7-8. Examiner respectfully notes that if no program uses the target shared variable, it means that the target shared variable is unused for program and the target shared variable is as a first variable);
acquiring information for specifying a second variable used by the control target out of the plurality of variables in an execution state of the control program (the A language program 181 holds the information of the shared variable used in the program by the source code. The A language program 181 may hold the information of the shared variable used in the program in the shared variable use information file 183 in which the information is written – See page 2. Examiner respectfully noted that share available is as second variable);
when being deleted, from the first list, in response to the operation input to the user interface (it may be possible to perform a process of presenting the influence on a plurality of programs to the user. FIG. 10 is a flowchart showing the flow of processing by the terminal device 200 when the user performs an operation of deleting a shared variable – See page 7),
wherein the control target is communicably connected to the control device by a network and controlled by the control program executed in the control device (The terminal device 200 communicates with the control device 100 and editably displays each of the plurality of programs executed by the control device 100. The terminal device 200 provides the user with a development tool that allows the plurality of programs executed by the control device 100 and written in different languages to be edited in one development environment – See page 2).
Arai discloses the definitions of these conditions are held in advance in the shared variable use source presence / absence determining unit 612 of the terminal device 600 – See page 11. Arai does not disclose
determine that a third variable that does not correspond to the second variable out of the first variable is delible from the first list on a basis of a result of extraction by the processor and the information acquired by the processor; and
delete the third variable, as the delible variable without affecting the control target
JP discloses
determine that a third variable that does not correspond to the second variable out of the first variable is delible from the first list on a basis of a result of extraction by the processor and the information acquired by the processor (an edge is not formed between nodes (mechanism 31) having a weak relationship by comparing the correlation coefficient or the partial correlation coefficient with a threshold value – See page 8. The connection state between the plurality of mechanisms 31 may be expressed by the presence or absence of a relationship, a change in the relationship, or the like. The change of the relationship maybe indicated by, for example, a difference (change amount) in time series of the relationship expressed by the strength or presence of the relationship. – See page 15. Each abstract syntax tree shown in FIGS. 18A to 18D corresponds to each syntax of reference numerals 561 to 564 in FIG. The processing of steps S1402 to S1404 was applied to this abstract syntax tree to initialize the ordering of each variable corresponding to each mechanism – See page 13. The control unit 11 specifies the dependency of variables in the processing of the control program 221 based on the abstract syntax tree constructed in step S1411 in the step S1413 and the present step S1414. Then, in the next stepS1415, the control unit 11 specifies the order relation of the plurality of mechanisms 31 based on the dependence relation of the specified variables – See page 17); and
delete the third variable, as the delible variable without affecting the control target (after forming a graph in which all nodes are connected by an edge, the control unit 11 sets a correlation coefficient or a partial correlation coefficient so that the fitness index (GFI, SRMR, etc.) representing the degree of deviation does not exceed a threshold. The edges of the formed graph may be deleted in order from the smallest edge – See paragraph [0057]),
JP also discloses
when being deleted, from the first list, in response to the operation input to the user interface (the control unit 11 specifies an order (transition) in which the probability occurring in the order relation among the mechanisms 31 is lower than the threshold, and deletes the edge corresponding to the order specified from the edges constituting the undirected graph information 2223 May be. The threshold value may be a fixed value defined in the process analysis program 121 or may be a setting value that can be changed by an operator – See page 11. The control unit 11 can adopt the order relationship specified by the user as the order relationship – See page 19),
wherein the control target is communicably connected to the control device by a network and controlled by the control program executed in the control device (the control unit 11 arranges the variables and operators extracted in stepS1402 in order, and selects the part related to the variables (v1 to v4) corresponding to each mechanism 31 that is the target of specifying the causality. Limit the targets for monitoring the execution order – See page 9. The acquisition destination of the control program to be analyzed may not be limited to the control device using the control program, and may be appropriately selected – See pages 13-14).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use JP’s teaching into Arai’s invention because incorporating JP’s teaching would enhance Arai to enable to output graph information indicates the relationships between the mechanisms as suggested by JP (page 11).
Regarding claim 8, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 11, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 13.
A non-transitory storage medium encoded with a computer-readable development support program of a control program for a control device that controls a control target, the development support program causing one or more processors to perform a method comprising:
Regarding claim 13, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 17, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 5 above.
8. Claim(s) 3, 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aria and JP as applied to claims 1, 7 and 13 respectively above, and further in view of Miura et al. (WO 2016189689 A1 – art of record --herein after Miura).
Regarding claim 3, the development support device according to claim 1,
Arai discloses
wherein the control target is connected to the control device by a network and configured to access the control target via the network (The terminal device 200 communicates with the control device 100 and editably displays each of the plurality of programs executed by the control device 100 – See page 2) and read out some variables out of the plurality of variables during execution of the control program (The shared variable list creation unit 141 creates a shared variable list including information on whether each shared variable is used for reading or writing in the A language program 181 – See page 3. The conditions under which a variable is considered to be used as a shared variable may be grouped according to the usage status in each program, such as GROUP_1, GROUP_2, and GROUP_3. For example, GROUP_1 may indicate that the variable is used in the A language program 181 and the B language program 185. GROUP_2 may indicate that the variable is used only in the A language program 181. GROUP_3 may indicate that the variable is used only in the B language program 185 – See page 11).
Aria and JP do not disclose
the control device is configured to retain a variable name read out from the control target during execution of the control program as access information, and
the processor is configured to acquire the access information from the control device as the information at time of execution of the control program.
Miura discloses
the control device is configured to retain a variable name read out from the control target during execution of the control program as access information (The communication access program generation unit 1082 performs communication based on the variable name 202 representing the communication data 2034 in the input / output information 203stored in the management file 1071, and the device name and device number assigned to the variable name 202. Access program 10834 is generated. The communication access program generation unit1082 uses a dedicated function for generating the communication access program 10834. The dedicated function is a function dedicated to the device for reading the communication data 2034 from the communication device corresponding to the communication data 2034 – See page 4), and
the processor is configured to acquire the access information from the control device as the information at time of execution of the control program (calculates the total processing time required for executing the function that accesses each device as the recommended processing time 602 …the total processing time, it is possible to determine whether or not to change the device number assignment, and the execution performance of the control program can be further improved.– See page 15).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Miura’s teaching into Arai’s and JP’s inventions because incorporating Mirua’s teaching would enhance Arai and JP to enable to provide communicate data that represented by the variable name and calculates processing and execution time of the control program suggested by Mirua (pages 9 and 15).
Regarding claim 9, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 15, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 3 above.
9. Claim(s) 6, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aria and JP as applied to claims 5, 11 and 17 respectively above, and further in view of Miyasaka (JP 2021036479 A – Date Published – 03/04/2021--art of record -- herein after Miyasaka).
Regarding claim 6, the development support device according to claim 5,
Miyasaka discloses
wherein the processor is configured to operate after synchronization of the control program is secured between the control device and the development support device, when the first operation is input (the device value stored in the device of the expansion unit 4 is reflected in the device of the basic unit 3 by the input refresh. In this way, the device of the basic unit 3 and the device of the expansion unit 4 are synchronized by the input / output refresh. A mechanism for updating the device value between units at a timing other than refresh (synchronization between units) may be adopted.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Miyasaka’s teaching into Arai’s and JP’s inventions because incorporating Miyasaka’s teaching would enhance Arai and JP to enable to update device variables and synchronize with each other at the refresh timing suggested by Miyasaka (page 4).
Regarding claim 12, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 18, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 6 above.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rao et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0188584 A1) discloses generate a dataset containing recorded measurements for variables of the process. The methods reduce the dataset by cleansing bad quality data segments and measurements for uninformative process variables from the dataset. The methods then enrich the dataset by applying nonlinear transforms, engineering calculations and statistical measurements. The methods identify highly correlated input by performing a cross-correlation analysis on the cleansed and enriched dataset, and reduce the dataset by removing less-contributing input using a two-step feature selection procedure. The methods use the reduced dataset to build and train a failure model, which is deployed online to detect and predict failures in real-time plant operations – See Abstract.
Lombardi et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0227178 A1) discloses provide digitized ecosystem architectures connecting systems and processes within and among various entities using Internet-of-Things (IoT) to integrate physical assets of the entities. In some embodiments, one or more blockchain applications and/or smart contracts and further define and manage system integration – See Abstract and specification for more details.
Xiao et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0235691 A1) discloses automatically assigning, by at least one processor, an IEC address to an I/O binding variable for an RTU. This includes identifying a type of the I/O binding variable and identifying a size of the I/O binding variable based on the identified type. The size represents a number of memory locations to be used to store the I/O binding variable in at least one memory of the RTU. This also includes, in response to determining that the at least one memory contains a free space to store the I/O binding variable based on the identified size, assigning the IEC address identifying the free space to the I/O binding variable – See Abstract and specification for more details.
11. 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 MONGBAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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.
/MONGBAO NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2192