DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Claim 11 is cancelled. Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-14 are pending and are rejected.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 12/12/2025.
Claims 1 and 12-13 are amended and claim 14 is new. Accordingly, the amended claims and the new claim are being fully considered by the examiner.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 13 have overcome all the 35 USC § 112 rejections as set forth in the previous office action.
This action is MADE FINAL. Please see response to arguments section for further details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 10, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by HOOD’54 et al. (US20060259154A1) [hereinafter HOOD’54].
Regarding claim 1 (amended):
HOOD’54 disclose(s), A method of integrating modules into a hybrid modular plant comprising a discrete manufacturing part and a continuous manufacturing part, the method comprising: [(¶38) “The schema 102 can be designed in such a manner to enable data objects to correspond to a hierarchical arrangement of a plant. Furthermore, the schema 102 can be created to facilitate commonality and communication across process boundaries” “a continuous process can be associated with the batch process and the discrete process, thereby adding further complexity to an automation system.”… (¶43) “the hierarchically structured data model can be designed in a manner that enables modeling of a plant across system and/or process boundaries. The hierarchically structured data model can be implemented so that a substantially similar structure is provided with respect to a batch process, a continuous process, a discrete process”… (¶55) “a methodology 900 for implementing a hierarchically structured data model within an industrial environment is illustrated.”… (¶35) “implemented as a method, apparatus, or article of manufacture using standard programming and/or engineering techniques to produce software, firmware, hardware, or any combination thereof to control a computer to implement the disclosed subject matter.”];
integrating the discrete manufacturing part into the continuous manufacturing part by, at least in part constructing at least one module definition file mapping one or more discrete-part units of the discrete manufacturing part to a continuous-part module and importing a module definition file into an orchestration layer of the continuous manufacturing part; [(¶45) “A second hierarchy 202 can be utilized that represents each of the aforementioned hierarchical representations. The hierarchy 202 can include representations of an enterprise, a site, an area, a work center, a work unit, an equipment module, and a control module.”… (57) “FIG. 11, a methodology 1100 for implementing a hierarchically structured data model throughout an industrial automation environment is illustrated….at 1104 data structured in a flat manner is received…At 1106, templates and the schema are utilized to convert the data structured in a flat manner to data structured in accordance with the hierarchically structured data model. At 1108, a command from a requesting entity is received, and at 1110 an object conforming to the hierarchically structured data model is created.”…(¶42) “hierarchically structured data model, such model can be based at least in part upon ISA S88, ISA S95, OMAC,…The industrial automation device 100 can include a processor 106 that can be utilized to receive, execute, and/or create data objects that conform to the hierarchically structured data model. Thus, data associated with the hierarchically structured data model can be representative of particular devices, portions of device, processes, portions of processes, and the like. The industrial automation device 100, which can be utilized to control devices/processes, includes at least a portion of the schema 104 that enables such device 100 to recognize and output data that is structured in accordance with the hierarchically structured data model”];
running the hybrid modular plant. comprising performing runtime translations of communications between the discrete manufacturing part and the continuous manufacturing part, [(¶40) “placing the schema 104 within the automation device 100 enables devices to be added and/or removed from I/O ports of the device 100 and a control system to be automatically updated upon detection of the addition and/or subtraction of devices with respect to one or more ports.” “plug-and-play functionality is enabled through utilization of the schema 104 within the automation device 100.”… (¶41) “the schema 104 can be designed to correspond to a plant hierarchy—thus any data objects within the plant hierarchy can be utilized to dynamically generate views.” “a process phase represented by a “phase object” can analyze states associated with the child objects, and a user interface illustrating the phase can be dynamically generated.”
HOOD’54 discloses, performing runtime translations of communications between discrete and continuous part of the schema such as dynamically update communication between continuous and discrete parts];
wherein the discrete and continuous manufacturing parts use a common communication protocol. [(¶50) “The system 700 can further include a legacy device 710 that desirably communicates to the industrial automation device 702.” “proxy component 712 is provided, where the proxy component 712 facilitates mapping data from the legacy device 710 to data that conforms to the hierarchically structured data model. In more detail, the proxy component 712 can include a bridging component 714 that operates as a bridge between disparate networks. For example, the legacy device 710 may be adapted to send/receive data over a first network protocol, such as ProfiBus, ModBus, ASIbus, FieldBus, Foundation FieldBus, Hart, or the like, while the industrial automation device 700 may wish to receive data packaged in conformance with a disparate network protocol, such as the Common Industrial Protocol (CIP).” “The bridging component 714 can be associated with a mapping component 716 that can reformat the data so that it is in accordance with the hierarchically structured data model. For instance, the mapping component 716 can access templates associated with the schema 706 and utilize such templates to map the data to the hierarchically structured data model.”
Examiner notes that claim HOOD’54 teaches hierarchically structured data model uses Common Industrial Protocol (CIP) that conforms to the hierarchically structured data model such as the continuous and discrete process as described above].
Regarding Claim 4:
HOOD’54 disclose(s) all the elements of claim 1, and further disclose(s), wherein integrating the discrete manufacturing part into the continuous manufacturing part comprises integrating a production line of the discrete manufacturing part as a single continuous-part module within the continuous manufacturing part of the hybrid modular plant. [(¶45) “A second hierarchy 202 can be utilized that represents each of the aforementioned hierarchical representations. The hierarchy 202 can include representations of an enterprise, a site, an area, a work center, a work unit, an equipment module, and a control module. Thus, a common representation can be generated that adequately represents the hierarchy 200. For purposes of consistent terminology, data objects can be associated with metadata indicating which type of process they are associated with. Therefore, data objects can be provided to an operator in a form that is consistent with normal usage within such process. For example, batch operators can utilize different terminology than a continuous process operator (as shown by the hierarchy 200). Metadata can be employed to enable display of such data in accordance with known, conventional usage of such data. Thus, implementation of a schema in accordance with the hierarchy 202 will be seamless to operators.”… (¶38) “a continuous process can be associated with the batch process and the discrete process, thereby adding further complexity to an automation system.”… (¶39) “the schema 104 can facilitate implementation of a data model that is substantially similar with respect to a batch process, a continuous process, a discrete process, and inventory tracking.”
HOOD’54 discloses, integrating a production line of the discrete part such as equipment module of the production line as shown in the discrete section in fig. 2 as a single continuous part module within the continuous part such as the equipment module of the production unit in the continuous section as shown in fig. 2].
Regarding Claim 5:
HOOD’54 disclose(s) all the elements of claims 1 and 4, and further disclose(s), using topology information pertaining to the production line of the discrete manufacturing part to define operation states of the production line as continuous-part module states. [(¶45) “Associations between objects can be defined within the schema, as well as inheritance properties and the like. State machines can be associated with objects to indicate a state (e.g., hold, abort, and the like).”… (¶41) “an object within the industrial automation device 100 can relate to a motor, and can be state-driven (e.g., can track states of the motor, such as hold, abort, . . . ). In other words, the data object can include and/or be associated with a state machine, and such state machine can be analyzed to determine data that can be displayed. Thus, the motor can be dynamically provided as well as a state of the motor. As described above, the schema 104 can be designed to correspond to a plant hierarchy—thus any data objects within the plant hierarchy can be utilized to dynamically generate views. For example, a “control module” object can be a child of an “equipment module” object, and the “equipment module” object can be a child of a “phase” object. Thus, a process phase represented by a “phase object” can analyze states associated with the child objects, and a user interface illustrating the phase can be dynamically generated.”
HOOD’54 discloses, using topology information as shown in fig. 2 for production line of the discrete part, to define operation states of the production unit as continuous section as shown in fig. 2, states associated with equipment module of an equipment such as a motor].
Regarding Claim 10:
HOOD’54 disclose(s) all the elements of claim 1, and further disclose, wherein constructing the at least one module definition file comprises generating an HMI mapping (input/output) which maps human-machine-interface elements of the said discrete-part units to equivalent elements of a continuous-part module using either a generic placeholder or a dedicated unit-specific mapping. [(¶41) “data can be retrieved from one or more controllers to dynamically create user interfaces with respect to a control process. For example, data objects that conform to the schema 104 can relate to low-level drives, motors, and the like, and exist within the industrial automation device 100.” “the data object can include and/or be associated with a state machine, and such state machine can be analyzed to determine data that can be displayed. Thus, the motor can be dynamically provided as well as a state of the motor. As described above, the schema 104 can be designed to correspond to a plant hierarchy—thus any data objects within the plant hierarchy can be utilized to dynamically generate views. For example, a “control module” object can be a child of an “equipment module” object, and the “equipment module” object can be a child of a “phase” object. Thus, a process phase represented by a “phase object” can analyze states associated with the child objects, and a user interface illustrating the phase can be dynamically generated.”
HOOD’54 discloses, HMI input output such as user interface (i/o) to perform dedicated unit-specific mapping such as shown in fig. 2, for example mapping equipment module of discrete part to equipment module of continuous part].
Regarding Claim 12 (amended):
HOOD’54 disclose(s) all the elements of claim 1, and further disclose, wherein performing the runtime translations is based on a marker added to the module definition file. [(¶40) “placing the schema 104 within the automation device 100 enables devices to be added and/or removed from I/O ports of the device 100 and a control system to be automatically updated upon detection of the addition and/or subtraction of devices with respect to one or more ports.” “plug-and-play functionality is enabled through utilization of the schema 104 within the automation device 100.”… (¶41) “the schema 104 can be designed to correspond to a plant hierarchy—thus any data objects within the plant hierarchy can be utilized to dynamically generate views.” “a process phase represented by a “phase object” can analyze states associated with the child objects, and a user interface illustrating the phase can be dynamically generated.”
HOOD’54 discloses, performing runtime translations is based on a marker added such that as the dynamic update is performed, user interface illustrating the update can be dynamically generated].
Regarding claim 14 (new):
HOOD’54 disclose(s), A method of integrating modules into a hybrid modular plant comprising a discrete manufacturing part and a continuous manufacturing part, the method comprising: [(¶38) “The schema 102 can be designed in such a manner to enable data objects to correspond to a hierarchical arrangement of a plant. Furthermore, the schema 102 can be created to facilitate commonality and communication across process boundaries” “a continuous process can be associated with the batch process and the discrete process, thereby adding further complexity to an automation system.”… (¶43) “the hierarchically structured data model can be designed in a manner that enables modeling of a plant across system and/or process boundaries. The hierarchically structured data model can be implemented so that a substantially similar structure is provided with respect to a batch process, a continuous process, a discrete process”… (¶55) “a methodology 900 for implementing a hierarchically structured data model within an industrial environment is illustrated.”… (¶35) “implemented as a method, apparatus, or article of manufacture using standard programming and/or engineering techniques to produce software, firmware, hardware, or any combination thereof to control a computer to implement the disclosed subject matter.”];
integrating the continuous manufacturing part into the discrete manufacturing part by, at least in part, constructing one or more interfaces representing each continuous-part module as one or more respective discrete-part units; [(¶45) “A second hierarchy 202 can be utilized that represents each of the aforementioned hierarchical representations. The hierarchy 202 can include representations of an enterprise, a site, an area, a work center, a work unit, an equipment module, and a control module. Thus, a common representation can be generated that adequately represents the hierarchy 200. For purposes of consistent terminology, data objects can be associated with metadata indicating which type of process they are associated with. Therefore, data objects can be provided to an operator in a form that is consistent with normal usage within such process. For example, batch operators can utilize different terminology than a continuous process operator (as shown by the hierarchy 200). Metadata can be employed to enable display of such data in accordance with known, conventional usage of such data. Thus, implementation of a schema in accordance with the hierarchy 202 will be seamless to operators.”… (¶38) “a continuous process can be associated with the batch process and the discrete process, thereby adding further complexity to an automation system.”… (¶39) “the schema 104 can facilitate implementation of a data model that is substantially similar with respect to a batch process, a continuous process, a discrete process, and inventory tracking.” “the schema 104 can be modeled in accordance with ISA S88, ISA S95, OMAC, or any suitable combination thereof. ISA S88, in particular, is a standard that has been utilized.”
HOOD’54 discloses, second hierarchy 202 that integrates continuous process to discrete process, by constructing interfaces 200, as shown in figure 2, such as constructing one or more interfaces representing each continuous process module such as production unit, continuous unit, equipment module, control module (dig. 2, 200, continuous operator interface) as one or more respective discrete process units such as production line, work cell, respective equipment module and respective control module (fig. 2, 200, discrete operator interface)];
running the hybrid modular plant, comprising performing runtime translations of communications between the discrete manufacturing part and the continuous manufacturing part, [(¶40) “placing the schema 104 within the automation device 100 enables devices to be added and/or removed from I/O ports of the device 100 and a control system to be automatically updated upon detection of the addition and/or subtraction of devices with respect to one or more ports.” “plug-and-play functionality is enabled through utilization of the schema 104 within the automation device 100.”… (¶41) “the schema 104 can be designed to correspond to a plant hierarchy—thus any data objects within the plant hierarchy can be utilized to dynamically generate views.” “a process phase represented by a “phase object” can analyze states associated with the child objects, and a user interface illustrating the phase can be dynamically generated.”
HOOD’54 discloses, performing runtime translations of communications between discrete and continuous part of the schema such as dynamically update communication between continuous and discrete parts].
wherein the discrete and continuous manufacturing parts use a common communication protocol. [(¶50) “The system 700 can further include a legacy device 710 that desirably communicates to the industrial automation device 702.” “proxy component 712 is provided, where the proxy component 712 facilitates mapping data from the legacy device 710 to data that conforms to the hierarchically structured data model. In more detail, the proxy component 712 can include a bridging component 714 that operates as a bridge between disparate networks. For example, the legacy device 710 may be adapted to send/receive data over a first network protocol, such as ProfiBus, ModBus, ASIbus, FieldBus, Foundation FieldBus, Hart, or the like, while the industrial automation device 700 may wish to receive data packaged in conformance with a disparate network protocol, such as the Common Industrial Protocol (CIP).” “The bridging component 714 can be associated with a mapping component 716 that can reformat the data so that it is in accordance with the hierarchically structured data model. For instance, the mapping component 716 can access templates associated with the schema 706 and utilize such templates to map the data to the hierarchically structured data model.”
Examiner notes that claim HOOD’54 teaches hierarchically structured data model uses Common Industrial Protocol (CIP) that conforms to the hierarchically structured data model such as the continuous and discrete process as described above];
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOOD’54, and further in view of Krehbiel et al. (US20110301734A1) [hereinafter Krehbiel].
Regarding Claim 2:
HOOD’54 disclose(s) all the elements of claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
Krehbiel discloses, wherein integrating the discrete manufacturing part into the continuous manufacturing part comprises integrating the discrete-part units individually into the orchestration layer as respective continuous-part modules. [(¶22) “The control recipe procedure 12 includes a hierarchy of levels and may be implemented using a supervisory system, a batch management system, or a batch engine.” “the other levels of the control recipe procedure 12, namely the recipe procedure 14, the recipe unit procedure 16, and the recipe operation 18, group, organize, and direct the recipe phase or phases 20.”… (¶23) “On the right hand side of FIG. 1 is shown the equipment control system 28. As with the control recipe procedure 12, the equipment control system 28 consists of a hierarchy of levels.” “The equipment operation 25 is similar to the recipe operation 18 and represents an ordered set of equipment phases carried to completion within a single unit.” “The equipment phase 26 is similar to the recipe phase 20 and represents a sequence of steps and transitions used to perform process oriented tasks. The equipment phase 26 is connected, or linked, to the recipe phase 20, such that information sharing between them is facilitated.” “the link may occur between the recipe operation 18 and the equipment operation 25.”… (¶24) “information is shared between the recipe phase 20 and the equipment phase 26.” “information may be shared between different levels, such as between the recipe operation 18 and the equipment operation 25.”
Krehbiel discloses, integrating the control recipe procedure 12 part (i.e.; discrete part) units individually into equipment control system 28 part (i.e.; continuous part) units; such as shown in figure 2., integrating/linking recipe operation 18 unit to equipment operation 25 unit, integrating/linking recipe phase 20 to equipment phase 26 etc.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the capability of integrating the discrete-part units individually into the orchestration layer as respective continuous-part modules in order to have the advantage of more easily manage and more efficiently use the interconnections between objects taught by Krehbiel with the method taught by HOOD’54 as discussed above in order to have a reasonable expectation of success such as to have the advantage of more easily manage and more efficiently use the interconnections between objects [Blevins: (¶21) “modeling interdependencies between process data as inputs to manufacturing processes capable of being described procedurally,” “so these values are more visible within a process, more easily managed, and more efficiently used”].
Regarding Claim 3:
HOOD’54 disclose(s) all the elements of claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
Krehbiel further discloses, further comprising (i) configuring control sequences or recipes running in the continuous manufacturing part to execute services of the discrete manufacturing part, (ii) configuring control sequences or recipes running in the discrete manufacturing part to execute services of the continuous manufacturing part, or both (i) and (ii). [(¶23) “The equipment operation 25 is similar to the recipe operation 18 and represents an ordered set of equipment phases carried to completion within a single unit.” “the link may occur between the recipe operation 18 and the equipment operation 25.”… (¶24) “information is shared between the recipe phase 20 and the equipment phase 26.” “information may be shared between different levels, such as between the recipe operation 18 and the equipment operation 25.” “input parameters 22 are sent from the recipe phase 20 to the equipment phase 26. In other words, a reference is made to an equipment phase 26 at the phase level in the control recipe procedure 12 that is executed in a control system that performs a particular function.”
Examiner notes that claim requires only one of:
(i) configuring control sequences or recipes running in the continuous manufacturing part to execute services of the discrete manufacturing part, or
(ii) configuring control sequences or recipes running in the discrete manufacturing part to execute services of the continuous manufacturing part, or
both (i) and (ii).
Krehbiel discloses, (ii) configuring control sequences or recipes running in the discrete manufacturing part to execute services of the continuous manufacturing part.
Such that Krehbiel discloses, configuring recipes running on discrete part such as recipe operation 18 running on control recipe procedure 12 as shown in fig. 2, to execute services of the continuous part such as equipment operation 25 of the equipment control system 28;
Also discloses, input parameters 22 are sent from the recipe phase 20 to the equipment phase 26, a reference is made to an equipment phase 26 at the phase level in the control recipe procedure 12 that is executed in a control system that performs a particular function. ].
Regarding Claim 6:
HOOD’54 disclose(s) all the elements of claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
Krehbiel further discloses, wherein constructing the at least one module definition file comprises generating a service mapping which maps at least one unit operation mode of a said discrete-part unit to a continuous-part module service. [(¶24) “information is shared between the recipe phase 20 and the equipment phase 26.” “information may be shared between different levels, such as between the recipe operation 18 and the equipment operation 25.” “input parameters 22 are sent from the recipe phase 20 to the equipment phase 26. In other words, a reference is made to an equipment phase 26 at the phase level in the control recipe procedure 12 that is executed in a control system that performs a particular function.”
Krehbiel discloses, constructing linking file comprises generating a service mapping which maps recipe phase 20 of control recipe procedure 20 to equipment phase 26 of equipment control system 28 such as input parameters 22 are sent from the recipe phase 20 to the equipment phase 26. In other words, a reference is made to an equipment phase 26 at the phase level in the control recipe procedure 12 that is executed in a control system that performs a particular function.].
Regarding Claim 7:
HOOD’54 and Krehbiel disclose(s) all the elements of claims 1 and 6, and
Krehbiel further discloses, generating the service mapping as a one-to-one mapping of a single said unit operation mode of the said discrete-part unit to the continuous-part module service. [(¶22) “The control recipe procedure 12 includes a hierarchy of levels and may be implemented using a supervisory system, a batch management system, or a batch engine.” “the other levels of the control recipe procedure 12, namely the recipe procedure 14, the recipe unit procedure 16, and the recipe operation 18, group, organize, and direct the recipe phase or phases 20.”… (¶23) “On the right hand side of FIG. 1 is shown the equipment control system 28. As with the control recipe procedure 12, the equipment control system 28 consists of a hierarchy of levels.” “The equipment operation 25 is similar to the recipe operation 18 and represents an ordered set of equipment phases carried to completion within a single unit.” “The equipment phase 26 is similar to the recipe phase 20 and represents a sequence of steps and transitions used to perform process oriented tasks. The equipment phase 26 is connected, or linked, to the recipe phase 20, such that information sharing between them is facilitated.” “the link may occur between the recipe operation 18 and the equipment operation 25.”… (¶24) “information is shared between the recipe phase 20 and the equipment phase 26.” “information may be shared between different levels, such as between the recipe operation 18 and the equipment operation 25.”
Krehbiel discloses, one-to-one mapping of single said unit operation mode of the said discrete unit to the continuous module service such as mapping recipe operation 18 unit to equipment operation 25 unit, integrating/linking recipe phase 20 to equipment phase 26 etc.].
Regarding Claim 8:
HOOD’54 and Krehbiel disclose, all the elements of claims 1 and 6, and
HOOD’54 further disclose(s), comprising generating the service mapping as a complex mapping of multiple said unit operation modes to the continuous-part module service. [(¶41) “the schema 104 can be designed to correspond to a plant hierarchy—thus any data objects within the plant hierarchy can be utilized to dynamically generate views. For example, a “control module” object can be a child of an “equipment module” object, and the “equipment module” object can be a child of a “phase” object. Thus, a process phase represented by a “phase object” can analyze states associated with the child objects, and a user interface illustrating the phase can be dynamically generated.”… (¶46) “A unit (such as a work unit described in FIG. 2) can be associated with an equipment procedure, an equipment unit procedure, an equipment operation, and an equipment phase. Thus, the procedures, operation, and phase can be associated with a particular work unit. An equipment module can be associated with one or more equipment phases, and can be above a control module in the hierarchy.”
Examiner notes that, also see fig. 2; complex mapping of the continues part objects (production unit, continuous unit, equipment module, control module) to discrete part objects (production line, work cell, equipment module, control module) that includes such that it includes complex mapping of units with operation such as a unit (such as a work unit described in FIG. 2) can be associated with an equipment procedure, an equipment unit procedure, an equipment operation, and an equipment phase].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOOD’54, and further in view of Blevins et al. (US20050096872A1) [hereinafter Blevins].
Regarding Claim 9:
HOOD’54 disclose(s) all the elements of claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
Blevins discloses, wherein constructing the at least one module definition file comprises generating a data assembly mapping tags or labels for parameters of the discrete manufacturing part to equivalent tags or labels in the continuous manufacturing part. [(¶38) “the engine 48 implements the communications defined by the inputs 54 and outputs 56 to each of the smart process objects in the graphic display 35 or process module 39 and may implement the methods 60 for each of those objects to perform the functionality provided by the methods 60. As noted above, the functionality of the methods 60 may be located in programming within the smart process object or defined by a set of rules within the rule database 50 that the engine 48 executes, based on the type, class, identification, tag name, etc. of a smart process object, to implement the functionality defined by those rules.”… (¶98) “FIGS. 7A and 7B illustrate the integration of a control module 29, a process module 39 and a graphic display 35 in more detail. In particular, the graphic display 35 includes a valve 180 connected to an input of a recycle tank 182 and a pump 184 along with a valve 186 connected in series with an output of the recycle tank 182. The elements 180-186 are connected together via piping connection elements (not labeled) and stream elements are provided at the inputs and outputs of the graphic display 35 to define the streams of materials at those points.”
Examiner notes that, Blevins discloses, as shown in figure 7A data tags for parameters in discrete part such as parameters 180a, 182a, 184a, 186a etc. of process module 39 to equivalent tags of continuous parts such as 180, 182, 184, 186]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the capability of mapping tags of parameters of discrete part to tags of parameters of continuous part in order to have the ability to quickly navigate to related/interested information related to processes taught by Blevins with the method taught by HOOD’54 as discussed above in order to have a reasonable expectation of success such as to provide user configurable or changeable hot links to provide the ability to add knowledge links to objects in the an operator interface, to provide for quick navigation to appropriate information [Blevins: (¶44) “these hot links may be user configurable or changeable to provide the ability to add knowledge links to objects in the an operator interface, to provide for quick navigation to appropriate information associated with the object”].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOOD’54, and further in view of Grüner et al., (Grüner, Sten et al., Cross-Industry State of the Art Analysis of Modular Automation. ResearchGate. July 2020, [online], [retrieved on 25 September 2025]. Retrieved from the Internet.) [hereinafter Grüner].
Regarding Claim 13 (amended):
HOOD’54 disclose(s) all the elements of claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
Grüner discloses, wherein the discrete manufacturing part comprises a PackML part, wherein the continuous manufacturing part comprises an MTP part, and wherein the communication protocol is open platform communication (OPC) UA. [(page 3, ¶4-¶5) “This paper focuses on process control interfaces that are typically deployed on the module itself and are reachable via OPC UA.”… “Along with existing standards like MTP and PackML we also discuss the AAS-enabled process control approach that was developed in scope of BaSys 4.0 and BaSys 4.2 publicly funded projects and validated in a demonstrator.”… (page 7, ¶4) “MTP standard defines a set of criteria for physical module units for process plant modules [9] and narrows the scope down to integrated, i.e. not multi-level, modules with integrated intelligence that are modeled as a gray box, i.e. exposing some internal details. PackML assumes a physical production machine to correspond to the unit equipment hierarchy level of IEC 61512 [8] and focuses on its black box model, i.e. internal equipment or implementation details are hidden.”… (page 13, ¶5) “The last comparison category is the OPC UA runtime representation of all approaches. MTP uses OPC UA”… (page 14. ¶2) “PackML imposes the highest requirements as it prescribes method calls, custom types and events to be implemented by the OPC UA server.”
Examiner notes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection due to claim not reciting the full form of abbreviation OPC. As stated in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, for the examination purpose, the abbreviation OPC is construed as Open Platform Communication.
Further, examiner notes that, for the examination purpose, the abbreviations MTP and PackML are interpreted as Modular Type Package (MTP) and Packaging Machine Language (PackML) based on the full form described in the applicant’s specification ¶3, and the abbreviation UA is interpreted as Unified Architecture as described in the applicant’s specification ¶13.
Grüner discloses, MTP and PackML standards that use OPC UA based communication protocol].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the capability of using MTP and PackML standards with OPC UA based communication protocol to quicker plant construction and greater flexibility in the case of changes during the life cycle of the plant taught by Grüner with the method taught by HOOD’54 as discussed above in order to have reasonable expectation of success such as to use these MTP and PackML standards with OPC UA based communication protocol to have the advantage of quicker plant construction and greater flexibility in the case of changes during the life cycle of the plant [Grüner: (page 4, ¶5) “quicker plant construction and greater flexibility in the case of changes during the life cycle of the plant, the plant capacity can be gradually expanded at a later stage by numbering up the modules to the required production volume.”].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 has been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant responds
(a) Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102
However, Hood'54 is silent regarding to performing translations of communications between the discrete manufacturing part and the continuous manufacturing part.
But Hood'54 makes no mention of translating communications between the industrial automation device 100 and the ERP systems in order to facilitate communication, let alone performing runtime translations. Therefore, Hood'54 does not show or suggest performing runtime translations of communications between the discrete manufacturing part and the continuous manufacturing part, as recited in amended independent claim 1.
Krehbiel, Blevins, and Gruner do not remedy the deficiencies of Hood'54 with respect to amended independent claim 1.
(Page: 6-7)
With respect to (a) above, Examiner appreciates the interpretative description given by Applicant in response.
The limitation, performing translations of communications between the discrete manufacturing part and the continuous manufacturing part is broad. In broadest reasonable interpretation, performing translation of communication can be any translation.
As described in the claim 1 and 14 rejections, Hood'54 discloses, dynamically updating any communication between the discrete and continuous part.
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, but for the above described reasons, they are not persuasive; therefore, claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 USC § 102 as set forth in the current office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited document.
Rajasekaran et al. (US20150262095A1) - Intelligent Decision Synchronization in Real Time for both Discrete and Continuous Process Industries:
(¶12): The RETINA technology system is a versatile platform, which is diverse in utility value, application and usage across several process industries: continuous, discrete and batch such as oil and gas, power plants, cement, chemical, automotive, aluminum plants and pharmaceuticals facilities. RETINA is unique in enabling real time integration, diagnostics, decision support, prognostic and analytic dash boarding of Key Performance Indicator on demand.
HOOD’34 et al. (US20060259634A1) - Tracking and tracing across process boundaries in an industrial automation environment:
(¶12): To enable tracking and tracing between processes, a common data structure is utilized—thus, data is structured in a substantially similar manner regardless of whether such data is associated with a batch process, a discrete process, a continuous process, or a process associated with inventory. This common data structure provides operators an ability to share data across process boundaries and utilize such data for tracking and tracing purposes with respect to a product. In one example, the common data structure can be a hierarchically structured data model, which can be based at least in part upon ISA S95, ISA S88, OMAC, or any suitable combination thereof.
Weatherhead et al. (US20080097623A1) - Standard mes interface for discrete manufacturing:
(¶44): FIG. 4 illustrates a system 400 that facilitates implementing discrete manufacturing in accordance with the subject innovation. The system 400 can include a production line 402 that can include at least one work cell. It is to be appreciated that there can be any suitable number of work cells associated with the production line 402 such as work cell 1 to work cell N, where N is a positive integer. Moreover, it is to be understood that the depiction of six (6) work cells in FIG. 400 is only for the sake of brevity and any suitable number of work cells is to be considered within the scope of the claimed innovation. The flow of assemblies between work cells can be performed, for example, by a conveyor system; however the flow of assemblies can also be a manual function performed to certain Standard Operating Procedures (SOP).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOHAMMED SHAFAYET whose telephone number is (571)272-8239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/M.S./
Patent Examiner,
Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116