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 pending in this application and have been examined in response to application filed on 08/01/2013.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 11 and 17 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1, 11 and 16 of copending Application No. 18/363,138 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
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, 11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Smith et al. (US 2012/0239164 A1).
As to INDEPENDENT claim 1, Smith discloses 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 components comprise: a configuration component configured to ([0060], a computing system with a memory and a processor is described): 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) (fig.8; [0055], [0069]; device models such as EC.1-EC.3 are interconnected).
As to claim 8, Smith discloses wherein the first model and the second model are respectively one 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 (Smith, fig.7, “PARAMETIC HYBRID MODELS”).
INDEPENDENT claim 11 is a computer-implemented method variation of claim 1, claim 11 is therefore rejected under the same rational as rejection in claim 1 above.
Claim 16 is a computer-implemented method variation of claim 8, claim 16 is therefore rejected under the same rational as rejection in claim 8 above.
INDEPENDENT claim 17 is a computer program product variation of claim 1, claim 17 is therefore rejected under the same rational as rejection in claim 1 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.
Claims 2-6, 12-15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Hams et al. (US 2017/0293418 A1).
As to claim 2, Smith discloses first level of information comprising a first model and a second model in the collection of interconnected models (fig.8, models are interconnected). Smith does not expressly disclose second level of information comprising a group of devices which combine to form the first model; and third level of information comprising operational information of a first device in the group of devices.
In the same field of endeavor, Hams discloses second level of information comprising a group of devices which combine to form the first model; and third level of information comprising operational information of a first device in the group of devices (fig.6, fig.10, fig.11; [0070]; different levels of information can be navigated hierarchically).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Smith and Hams before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the graphical modeling of industrial facilities taught by Smith to include above limitation as taught by Hams with the motivation being to gain additional insights without losing the overall picture.
As to claim 3, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the visualization component is further configured to enable navigation between the first level of information, the second level of information, and the third level of information, wherein navigation comprises interaction with the HMI (Smith, fig.8; Hams fig.6, fig.10, fig.11).
As to claim 4, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the visualization component is further configured to: in response to selection of a first model in the first level of information, present first information pertaining to the first model, wherein the first information includes at least one of a group of interconnected component blocks, connections between two or more component blocks, or parameters pertaining to at least one component block (Smith, fig.6, fig.8; when user expands the model folder, additional information is displayed);
in response to selection of the second level of information, display the respective devices combining to form the first model, wherein the second level of information includes at least one of one or more devices included in a component block, connections between two or more devices, or parameters pertaining to operation of at least one device (Hams, fig.10, “1002”; device view is displayed), and
in response to selection of the third level of information, display the operational information for the first device, wherein the first device operational information includes at least one of a configuration of the first device, specification data of the first device, on-board logic installed at the first device, one or more measurements being conducted by the first device, connection data regarding other devices connected to the first device, or object-orientated properties of the first device (Hams, fig.11; individual device data is displayed).
As to claim 5, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the graphical representation is a first graphical representation, and the configuration component is further configured to: detect a change in the operation of the process; determine whether any of the first level of information, the second level of information, or the third level of information has been affected by the change in the operation of the process; and generate a second graphical representation, wherein the second graphical representation incorporates the change into at least one of the first level of information, the second level of information, or the third level of information presented in the first graphical representation (Hams, [0071]; graphics are updated to reflect changes).
As to claim 6, the prior art as combined discloses wherein the visualization component is further configured to replace, on the HMI, the first graphical representation with the second graphical representation (Hams, [0071]; graphics are updated to reflect changes).
Claim 12 is a computer-implemented method variation of claim 2, claim 12 is therefore rejected under the same rational as rejection in claim 2 above.
Claim 13 is a computer-implemented method variation of claim 3, claim 13 is therefore rejected under the same rational as rejection in claim 3 above.
Claim 14 is a computer-implemented method variation of claim 4, claim 14 is therefore rejected under the same rational as rejection in claim 4 above.
Claim 15 is a computer-implemented method variation of claim 5, claim 15 is therefore rejected under the same rational as rejection in claim 5 above.
Claim 18 is a computer program product variation of claims 2 and 3, claim 18 is therefore rejected under the same rational as rejection in claims 2 and 3 above.
Claim 19 is a computer program product variation of claim 4, claim 19 is therefore rejected under the same rational as rejection in claim 4 above.
Claim 20 is a computer program product variation of claims 5 and 6, claim 20 is therefore rejected under the same rational as rejection in claims 5 and 6 above.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith-Hams in view of Levert et al. (US 2023/0122732 A1).
As to claim 7, the prior art as combined discloses, wherein the visualization component is further configured to: in response to selection of the first level of information, the second level of information, or the third level of information, present operational information pertaining to the first level of information, second level of information, or third level of information (Smith, fig.9; Hams, fig.11; operational information at selected levels are displayed). The prior art as combined does not expressly disclose in response to interaction with any of the first level of information, second level of information, or third level of information, extract at least a portion of the presented operational information.
In the same field of endeavor, Levert discloses extract at least a portion of the operational information ([0136], [0138]; operational information can be extracted and shared).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of the prior art as combined and Levert before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the graphical modeling of industrial facilities taught by Smith to include above limitation as taught by Levert with the motivation being to provide a convenient way to share operational data.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Didier, “Converged Plantwide Ethernet (CPwE) Design and Implementation Guide”, Sept 2011, Rockwell Automation (Dider).
As to claim 9, Smith does not expressly disclose a first level of information relating to operation of a management level system; a second level of information relating to operation of a planning level system; a third level of information relating to operation of a supervisory level component; a fourth level of information relating to operation of a control-level component; and a fifth level of information comprising operational information for field-level component.
In the same field of endeavor, Dider discloses a first level of information relating to operation of a management level system; a second level of information relating to operation of a planning level system; a third level of information relating to operation of a supervisory level component; a fourth level of information relating to operation of a control-level component; and a fifth level of information comprising operational information for field-level component (pp 2-7- 2-9, 6-13 – 6-14; the process visualization in tiered level format using the Purdue model with a top-down level structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Smith and Dider before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the graphical modeling of industrial facilities taught by Smith to include above limitation as taught by Dider with the motivation being to provide a logical framework to describe the functions of a manufacturing system.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith-Dider in view of Lawson et al. (US 20130211546 A1).
As to claim 10, the prior art as combined does not expressly disclose wherein the control-level component is a programmable logic controller (PLC) and the field-level component is a smart device configured to transmit operational data to the PLC, wherein the fifth level of information details a configuration implemented at the smart device to control at least one of data format or data sampling, wherein the configuration is implemented in response to an instruction received from the PLC.
In the same field of endeavor, Lawson discloses disclose wherein the control-level component is a programmable logic controller (PLC) and the field-level component is a smart device configured to transmit operational data to the PLC, wherein the fifth level of information details a configuration implemented at the smart device to control at least one of data format or data sampling, wherein the configuration is implemented in response to an instruction received from the PLC (fig.12, [0077], [0084], [0085], [0092], [0093], [0101]; PLCs at a control level are connected to a sensor smart device at a lower level that can self-configure to communicate data with PLCs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Smith and Lawson before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify the graphical modeling of industrial facilities taught by Smith to include above limitation as taught by Lawson with the motivation being to facilitate automated integration and management of the respective devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAOSHIAN SHIH whose telephone number is (571)270-1257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, FRED EHICHIOYA can be reached at (571) 272-4034. 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.
/HAOSHIAN SHIH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179