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 1-14 are pending.
Claim 15 is cancelled.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inari et al. JP 2009/25881 (hereinafter “Inari”) in view of IWAMURA et al. USPGPUB 20160125037 A1 (hereinafter “IWAMURA”).
As to claim 1, Inari teaches a development assistance device for assisting a user in creating(claim 1 “input of tabular data in which processes that are units of work are ordered and arranged for a work including a plurality of hierarchized work”, paragraph 0006 “automatically generate the business program based on the analyzed process”, paragraph 0009 and 0091 “computer device realizes various functions as described above”), the plurality of sections is respectively and sequentially executed from a top description position to a bottom description position according to description positions in the program (paragraph 0036-0038 “input is a process order table format (step S3). When it is determined that the input format is the process sequence table format (step S3: Yes route), the input unit 1 notifies the process sequence table hierarchy formation processing unit 11 that the process sequence table format is selected as the input format. Output to. And the process sequence table hierarchy formation process part 11 which received the said notification produces | generates the data of the input screen of a process sequence table format, and displays it on a display apparatus. An example of the input screen in the process sequence table format is shown in FIG. In the example of FIG. 6, an input field 601 and a registration button 602 are provided on the input screen in the process order table format. The input column 601 includes a process type column, a qualifier column, a function column, a branch condition column, and an input screen column, and is a table in which the steps are arranged in the order in which they should be executed”), and the development assistance device comprises: a reception part configured to receive a user operation for setting a hierarchical relationship among the plurality of sections; and a hierarchy management part configured to assign information for specifying a hierarchy to which each of the plurality of sections belongs, to each of the plurality of sections, according to the hierarchical relationship (claim 1 “Identifying the process type of the process and storing the process type in the storage device, and for each of the processes, the hierarchical level of the process specified based on the process type related to the process ordered before the process And a process hierarchy sequence number assigning step for assigning a process hierarchy sequence number representing an order in the hierarchy level and storing it in the storage device, and a first display mode for displaying the process in the table format from the user, A process including designation of a second display mode for displaying processes one by one or a third display mode for displaying connection relations between the processes in a predetermined diagram format. A process setting support process for causing a computer to execute a presentation step of generating display data corresponding to an aspect related to the process display instruction and presenting it to the user based on the process hierarchy number when a display instruction is received program. For work consisting of a plurality of hierarchized work, the input of the process data that is a unit of work is sequentially received, and the input receiving step of storing in the storage device, and each of the plurality of processes received in the input receiving step, According to a predetermined rule, a process type of the process is specified and stored in the storage device, and each of the plurality of processes received in the input receiving step is related to a process received before the process. Assigning a process hierarchy sequence number indicating a hierarchy level of the process specified based on the process type and an order in the hierarchy level, and storing the process hierarchy sequence number in the storage device”).
Inari does not explicitly teach a user in creating a program to be executed by a control device.
However, IWAMURA teaches a user in creating a program to be executed by a control device (paragraph 0045-0053 “user programs, motion computing programs, and sequence instruction computing programs. A user program is generated in accordance with a user's control target (e.g., a target line and a target process). To generate a user program, the support apparatus 100 compiles a ladder program (source program), which is written with the ladder logic (ladder language). The ladder logic, which is a technique for describing a logic circuit, is a programming language used by many PLCs. A user program is generated, for example, in the format of an object program executable by a microprocessor included in the CPU unit 21”).
Inari and IWAMURA are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to apparatus for generating a project.
Therefore at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above apparatus for generating a project, as taught by Inari, and incorporating program to be executed by a control device, as taught by IWAMURA.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve monitoring, an apparatus that is connected to a controller for controlling the operations of machines or devices, and generates projects including data to be used in the controller, as suggested by IWAMURA (paragraph 0001).
Claim 13, is related to claim 1 with similar limitations also rejected by same relations.
Claim 14, is related to claim 1 with similar limitations also rejected by same rations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and listed on the attached PTO Form 892 but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIAUL KARIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-4:00 PM EST.
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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119