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 .
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
This Office Action is in response to application filed on 9/27/2023 and preliminary amendment filed on 1/4/2024, where claims 1, 3, 5, and 7-9 are amended; claim 10 is added; and claims 1-10 are currently pending.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if overcome the following rejection.
Claim 9 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 9, the primary reason that they are allowable over the US Patent Application Pub. No. 20200033839 (Messinger), the US Patent Application Pub. No. 20020116083 (Schulze), the US Patent Application Pub. No. 20190266372 (Ushiki), and the WIPO Doc. No. 2019138668 (Kono), is because the cited prior art teach similar limitations of capturing an image that includes instructions, where the image is converted to obtain the post-conversion input information, which is used to control the control object device. However, neither alone nor in combination, the cited prior art teach the input information used to generate the image includes header information comprising a date and time at which the control information has been generated, and check whether the date and the time in the pre-conversion input information is within a predetermined use period as recited in the specific combination of claims 1, 8, and 9. As such, the cited prior art do not teach every limitation as currently recited.
Remarks 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “conversion unit configured to convert”, “transmission unit configured to transmit” in claims 1, 8, and 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected to because of the following: each of the independent claims 1, 8, and 10 recites the limitations that invoke 35 USC § 112(f) as discussed above. However, the specification does not provide any disclosure as to the corresponding structure(s) that perform the recited functionalities. Therefore, it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art the necessary structure(s) that performs said functions. As such, render the claims indefinite.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-7 are rejected to as having the same deficiencies as the claim they depend from.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messinger, (US 20200033839 A1) (hereinafter Messinger) in view of Schulze, (US 20020116083 A1) (hereinafter Schulze).
Referring to claim 10, Messinger teaches a control system that controls a control object device on the basis of control information using a control device, the control system comprising:
a conversion unit configured to convert an imaging signal obtained by capturing an image generated on the basis of pre-conversion input information which is input information including the control information to input information which has the same format as the pre-conversion input information and to output post-conversion input information (¶ [0044], figs. 1 and 2, “sensor 134 is an optical sensor that is adapted to receive data packet 125 via an optical code.” ¶ [0037], “interface 136 receives data packet 125 that comprises control instructions 115.” ¶ [0036], fig. 1, “Data being transmitted in the second direction comprises control instruction 115 that allow the modification of at least a particular rule Rk (of the plurality of pre-defined rules). The modification of Rk can comprise the modification of the rule components, of the rule attributes, or of both the components and the attributes.”); and
a transmission unit configured to transmit the control information included in the post-conversion input information to the control device (¶ [0059], figs. 1 and 3, “DCS 112 receives control instruction 115 (via packet 125, cf. FIG. 1).”),
wherein the post-conversion input information includes a plurality of control parameters (¶ [0036], “Data being transmitted in the second direction comprises control instruction 115 that allow the modification of at least a particular rule Rk (of the plurality of pre-defined rules). The modification of Rk can comprise the modification of the rule components, of the rule attributes, or of both the components and the attributes.”),
wherein the control system further comprising a display device (¶ [0080], “To provide for interaction with a user, the invention can be implemented on a computer having a display device”).
Messinger teaches the limitations above. However, Messinger does not explicitly teach display a list of the plurality of…parameters, and
wherein the list at least includes a current value corresponding to each of the plurality of…parameters received from the…device, and a set value which is a value of a new…parameter…
Schulze teaches display a list of the plurality of…parameters, and wherein the list at least includes a current value corresponding to each of the plurality of…parameters received from the…device, and a set value which is a value of a new…parameter… (¶ [0219], “The valid new and old values (i.e., Changed From and Changed To values) may be presented in lists of data values 1555 as illustrated in FIG. 15E.”)
Messinger and Schulze are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with interface with an industrial plant (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Messinger and Schulze before them to modify the computer system for communicating with an industrial system of Messinger to incorporate the function of displaying list of old and new values by Schulze. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as disclosed by Schulze (¶ [0214-0220]), because the function of displaying list of old and new values does not depend on the computer system for communicating with an industrial system. That is the function of displaying list of old and new values performs the same function independent on which interface it is incorporated onto, and therefore, the result of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine would have been to improve user experience.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 10834094 (Galpin) – discloses method for operator action authentication in industrial control system.
US 20220308555 (Malm) – discloses system for commissioning a device for operation with a process automation system.
US 20220091591 (Miller) – discloses industrial information hub interface with multiple participants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONG-SHUNE CHUNG whose telephone number is (571) 270-5817. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9-5) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MONG-SHUNE CHUNG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118