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
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 17 of copending Application No. 18/363154. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim the same invention of a configuration component configured to construct a graphical representation of an industrial process and a visualization component configured to present the graphical representation of the industrial process on a human machine interface (HMI). A comparison between independent claim 1 of the current application and the independent claim 1 of the copending application is provided below for example.
Current Application 18/363138
Copending Application 18/363154
Claim 1. A system comprising:
a memory that stores computer executable components; and
a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable component comprises:
a configuration component configured to:
construct a graphical representation of an industrial process, wherein the graphical representation comprises a group of interconnected models; and
a visualization component configured to present the graphical representation of the process on a human machine interface (HMI).
Claim 1. A computer comprising:
a memory that stores computer executable components; and
a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable component comprises:
a configuration component configured to:
construct a graphical representation of an industrial process, wherein the graphical representation comprises a collection of interconnected models; and
a visualization component configured to present the graphical representation of the industrial process on a human machine interface (HMI).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the process” should have been “the industrial process” in line 9. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the component” should have been “the configuration component” in line 9. 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.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 16 recites “a computer readable storage medium” where the presented specification by applicants does not disclose anywhere about a computer readable storage medium. In this instance, applicants have failed to provide antecedent basis for the claim terminology “a computer readable storage medium.” Therefore, the question becomes whether non-statutory embodiments would be fairly conveyed to one of ordinary skill given the terminology utilized. In this instance, it would appear to be reasonable to interpret medium for “carrying” as fairly conveying signals and other forms of propagation or transmission media to one of ordinary skill. Applicant may amend the claim as “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium” to overcome the rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim 1 recites a system for modelling information about an industrial process and constructing/presenting a visualization of the modelled industrial process. The limitation of modelling an industrial process and constructing/presenting a visualization of the modelled industrial process, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a manual modelling and writing the outputs of the industrial process but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor” and “a memory” (as recited in the system claim 1), nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by a user manually modelling the industrial process using mathematical equations, determining the outputs of the model and writing the output of the model. For example, but for the “processor” and “memory” language, the modelling and constructing/presenting in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually modelling the industrial process using mathematical equations. Similarly, the step of constructing/presenting a visualization, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the user manually determining the outputs of the model using the mathematical equations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites two additional elements – using a processor and memory to perform the modeling, constructing and presenting steps. The processors and memories in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processors and memories performing a generic computer function of modelling an industrial process and constructing/presenting its outputs) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using processors and memories to perform the steps of modelling, constructing and presenting amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Similarly, claims 11 and 16 fall under 101 abstract idea and rejected.
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.
Claims 1-3, 11-12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baier et al (US Pub. 2010/03066921; hereinafter Baier).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
As per claim 1, Baier discloses a system comprising:
a memory that stores computer executable components [para 0023; storage system 204]; and
a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory [Abstract; para 0003, 0024; processor; processing system 202], wherein the computer executable components comprise:
a configuration component configured to: construct a graphical representation of an industrial process, wherein the graphical representation comprises a group of interconnected models [Abstract; Fig. 3-7; para 0015, 0025-0026, 0028, 0030, 0032, 0034, 0036; “The processor is configured to process the machine data to produce first graphical data …”; “… an industrial automation system 100 configured for the display of graphical representations of industrial automation environments.”; a group of interconnected models of machine systems shown in figures 5-7]; and
a visualization component configured to present the graphical representation of the process on a human-machine interface (HMI) [Abstract; Fig. 1; para 0001-0005, 0015-0018; human-machine interface (HMI) systems].
As per claim 11, Baier discloses a computer-implemented method for visualizing an industrial process, comprising:
constructing, by a device comprising a processor, a graphical representation of a process, wherein the graphical representation comprises a group of interconnected models [Abstract; Fig. 3-7; para 0015, 0025-0026, 0028, 0030, 0032, 0034, 0036; “The processor is configured to process the machine data to produce first graphical data …”; “… an industrial automation system 100 configured for the display of graphical representations of industrial automation environments.”; a group of interconnected models of machine systems shown in figures 5-7]; and
presenting, by the device, the graphical representation of the industrial process on a human-machine interface (HMI) [Abstract; Fig. 1; para 0001-0005, 0015-0018; human-machine interface (HMI) systems].
As per claim 16, Baier discloses a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to:
construct a graphical representation of an industrial process, wherein the graphical representation comprises a group of interconnected models [Abstract; Fig. 3-7; para 0015, 0025-0026, 0028, 0030, 0032, 0034, 0036; “The processor is configured to process the machine data to produce first graphical data …”; “… an industrial automation system 100 configured for the display of graphical representations of industrial automation environments.”; a group of interconnected models of machine systems shown in figures 5-7]; and
present the graphical representation of the industrial process on a human-machine interface (HMI) [Abstract; Fig. 1; para 0001-0005, 0015-0018; human-machine interface (HMI) systems].
As per claim 2, Baier discloses wherein the collection of interconnected models comprise: a first model representing operation of a first sub-group of devices in the industrial process [Abstract; Fig. 5-7; para 0003-0005; first graphical data]; and a second model representing operation of a second sub-group of devices in the industrial process [Abstract; Fig. 5-7; para 0003-0005; second graphical data].
As per claims 3, 12, and 17, Baier discloses wherein: the first model has a first input and a first output, wherein the first output represents a first parameter [Abstract; Fig. 5-7; para 0003-0005; clearly the first model of the first machine will have a first input and a first output]; the second model has a second input and a second output, wherein the first output of the first model is connected to the second input of the second model, the connection of the first output to the second input is represented by a first node [Abstract; Fig. 5-7; para 0003-0005; similarly the second model of the second machine will have an input and an output and as shown in figures 5-7, these models are connected to each other and a node is inherent between two machine models].
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.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Baier et al (US Pub. 2010/03066921; hereinafter Baier) in view of Hams et al (US Pub. 2017/02934181; hereinafter Hams).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
As per claim 4, Baier discloses the invention substantially. Baier does not specifically disclose regarding requirement, parameters, and adjustments. But these are very common in an industrial process. However, Hams (in the same field of endeavor, i.e., generating industrial process graphics) discloses receiving requirements [para 0071], parameters [para 0048, 0065, 0069], and potential adjustment [para 0071]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cited references as both are directed to generate industrial process graphics and provide to human-machine interfaces (HMIs).
As per claim 10, Baier discloses the invention substantially. Baier does not specifically disclose regarding that a model represents a device comprising one of a sensor, an actuator, a valve, an industrial controller, a motor drive, a sensor, a telemetry device, a meter, a smart device, a device configured to monitor operation of a component/equipment included in the industrial process, or a device configured to control operation of a component/equipment included in the industrial process. But these are well known in an industrial process. However, Hams (in the same field of endeavor, i.e., generating industrial process graphics) discloses that an industrial process routinely include sensors, actuators, and controllers [para 0004, 0019-0020]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cited references as both are directed to generate industrial process graphics and provide to human-machine interfaces (HMIs).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Baier et al (US Pub. 2010/03066921; hereinafter Baier) in view of Smith et al (US Pub. 2012/02391641; hereinafter Smith).
As per claim 9, Baier discloses the invention substantially. Baier does not specifically disclose regarding model(s) being any of a parametric model, a parametric hybrid model, a linear model, a non-linear model, a kinetic model, a first principles reasoning model, a solver, a historical data model, a cost function analysis model, a regression cost function model, a binary classification cost function model, a multi-class classification cost function model, a mixed-integer non-liner program model, a deep learning-based model, a backpropagation model, a static backpropagation model, a recurrent backpropagation model, a gradient computation model, a chain rule model, an error determination model, or a mathematical model configured to represent operation of a component in the process, wherein the component is a device, a group of devices, or a component block. But these models are well known in an industrial process. However, Smith (in the same field of endeavor, i.e., graphically modeling and displaying industrial process) discloses that a model may be a parametric hybrid model [Abstract; para 0038, 0040]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cited references as both are directed to graphically modeling and displaying an industrial process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5-8, 13-15, and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A. US-20240142344 discloses a color coded visualization of the industrial process and provide this visualization through a human-machine interface (HMI).
B. US-20140225895 discloses an automatic visualization configuration in an industrial process.
C. US-20120173006 discloses visualization systems that interact with industrial control systems based in part on collecting and archiving operator solutions to production and operational problems.
D. US-20100079488 discloses a visualization system utilizing preconfigured overlay models and data models to create overlay displays representing different views of the same data or a single view of different data.
N. EP-4064144 discloses methods for identifying KPI tags from existing industrial process control and automation system data and Human Machine Interface (HMI) display files.
O. EP-3929685 discloses a human-machine interface (HMI) development platform simplifies generation of an industrial visualization application by generating at least a portion of the visualization application based on analysis of digital engineering drawings of an automation system to be monitored and controlled.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SURESH K SURYAWANSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-3668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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 M Lo can be reached at 5712729774. 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.
/SURESH SURYAWANSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
1 Prior art cited by applicant in submitted information discloser statement.