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 .
This office action is in response to application 18368406 filed on September 14, 2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated December 14, 2023 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609, a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the claim should be interpreted as written or as supported by the instant specification. That is, determining a type of visualization content based properties and presenting a recommendation of the type for approval by a user is not supported by the instant specification. Instead, the closest support is for a user defining a type of visualization content “the user may define the type of visualization content 22 to display or remove via a user interface and software presented to the user via the visualization manager 40” ([0065]) and generating match condition recommendations “the visualization manager 40 may employ certain machine learning algorithms to identify patterns and/or correlations between users, machines, industrial systems, event-based triggers, and other aspects described above. Using the identified patterns and correlations, the visualization manager 40 may generate recommendations to users for match condition” ([0082]). For the purposes of examination the limitations will be interpreted as “a user defining a type of visualization content” and “generating match condition recommendations” as supported by the instant specification.
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 1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eryurek et al. (US20050197803A1) in further view of Dillon (US20040172147A1).
Regarding claim 1, Eryurek teaches a system comprising:
one or more devices, each of the one or more devices comprising a respective electronic display (as illustrated in FIG. 46, the interface device 410 may be connected via one or more wireless communication connections to a web browser 440 and to a handheld computing device 450, such as a telephone, a personal data assistant (PDA), a laptop computer, etc.)([0203]; computing devices (e.g., PDA) include an electronic display);
a computing system communicatively coupled to the one or more devices (the rules engine application 42 (or portions thereof such as the rules engine 290 of FIG. 37) may be stored in and executed by the interface device 410 … the interface device 410 may include a web server therein and may communicate with any other device, such as the devices 430, 440, 450, and 460)([0203]; a computing system (i.e., interface device such as a server) communicates with connected devices), wherein the computing system is configured to:
receive a request to define an event-based trigger for deploying visualization content (a rules development application or routine 298 enables a user to develop one or more expert system rules ... the engineer can use the rules definition routine 298 to define a rule to detect this situation knowing that the application of the rule will trigger the alarm if that set of conditions occurs)([0181] and [0184]; personal (e.g., engineer) interacts with an application to define event-based trigger (i.e., rules) for deploying visualization content (i.e., alarm));
present a graphical user interface for receiving one or more inputs defining one or more properties of the event-based trigger (the rules definition application 298 may create a configuration screen that enables the user to create one or more IF-THEN or Boolean type rules to be stored in the rules database 292. An example of one possible such configuration screen 300 is illustrated in FIG. 38)([0184]), wherein the one or more properties comprise:
a type of the visualization content (As illustrated in FIG. 38, the action section 306 includes ... a severity definition section 332)([0187]; severity is a type of alarm);
one or more match conditions for deploying the visualization content (a condition section 304 that enables a user to define the “IF” condition for an IF-THEN type rule)([0184]); and
monitor one or more communication channels for the one or more match conditions (SPM blocks ... may be made available to an external client ... through the bus or communication network 76 … the expert engine development and execution system 42 may be used to automatically detect process abnormalities based on data … returned by the SPM blocks within the process plant during operation of the process plant)([0085] and [0188]; SPM data channels are monitored);
generate the visualization content in response to detecting the one or more match conditions via the one or more communication channels based on the type of the visualization content (an alert that is generated if the condition section 304 is found to be true)([0187]; a severity based alert is generated if a condition matches (i.e., found true)).
Although Eryurek discloses of transmitting the visualization content to devices for presentation (to generate an alarm or alert or to take some other action based on the detected existence of this condition … an alert can be displayed to a plant operator, or sent to another appropriate person)([0181] and [0182]). Eryurek differs from the claim in that Eryurek fails to teach receiving input defining devices to receive the visualization content (i.e., notifications) and transmitting the notifications to the defined devices. However, receiving input defining devices to receive notifications and transmitting the notifications to the defined devices is taught by Dillon (an operator may receive numerous notifications (e.g., alerts or alarms) on his or her workstation ... the user interface of the configuration subsystem 170 may permit specifying one or more delivery modes. For example, a user may specify that notifications delivered to a certain operator should be delivered to the operator's PDA ... Specifying a delivery mode may also include indicating an identifier of a device to which the notification should be delivered ... At block 316, the notification is sent to the destination or destinations according to the appropriate delivery method or method)([0009], [0053], and [0077]).
The examiner notes Eryurek and Dillon teach monitoring and processing data. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Eryurek to include the receiving and transmitting of Dillon such that the system receives input defining devices to receive notifications and transmits notifications to the defined devices. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of addressing notifications in an optimal manner by delivering them to specifiable persons.
Regarding claim 2, Eryurek-Dillon teach the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one device is configured to present the visualization content via the at least one electronic display without generating the visualization content (Eryurek - an alert that is generated if the condition section 304 is found to be true ... after a set of rules has been created and stored in the rules database 292 ... the expert engine development and execution system 42 may be used to automatically detect process abnormalities based on data)([0187] and [0188]; the alert is generated on the server and delivered to computing devices).
Regarding claim 3, Eryurek-Dillon teach the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more properties comprise one or more permission fields for identifying one or more users authorized to view the visualization content (although Eryurek does not disclose of fields indicating authorized users to view content, said fields is taught by Dillon (the user interface may permit specifying to whom a notification or group of notifications should be delivered. For example, a user may specify a person, a group of persons)([0052]). The examiner notes Eryurek and Dillon teach a system for monitoring and processing data. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Eryurek to include the fields of Dillon such that the system includes fields indicating authorized users to view content. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of addressing notifications in an optimal manner by delivering them to specifiable persons).
Regarding claim 8, Eryurek-Dillon teach the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more communication channels receive data from one or more applications external to the computing system (Eryurek - FIG. 46 includes a set of field devices 405)([0202]; external field devices provide data that is monitored).
Regarding claim 10, Eryurek teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause at least one processor to perform operations (the elements described herein may be implemented in a standard multi-purpose CPU ... software routine may be stored in any computer readable memory)([0209]) comprising:
presenting a graphical user interface for receiving one or more inputs defining one or more properties of an event-based trigger to display visualization content (the engineer can use the rules definition routine 298 to define a rule to detect this situation knowing that the application of the rule will trigger the alarm if that set of conditions occur … the rules definition application 298 may create a configuration screen that enables the user to create one or more IF-THEN or Boolean type rules to be stored in the rules database 292. An example of one possible such configuration screen 300 is illustrated in FIG. 38)([0184]; personal (e.g., engineer) interacts with an interface to define event-based trigger (i.e., rules) for deploying visualization content (i.e., alarm)), wherein the one or more properties comprise:
a type of the visualization content (As illustrated in FIG. 38, the action section 306 includes ... a severity definition section 332)([0187]; severity is a type of alarm);
one or more match conditions for deploying the visualization content (a condition section 304 that enables a user to define the “IF” condition for an IF-THEN type rule)([0184]); and
monitoring one or more communication channels for the one or more match conditions (SPM blocks ... may be made available to an external client ... through the bus or communication network 76 … the expert engine development and execution system 42 may be used to automatically detect process abnormalities based on data … returned by the SPM blocks within the process plant during operation of the process plant)([0085] and [0188]; SPM data channels are monitored);
generating the visualization content in response to detecting the one or more match conditions via the one or more communication channels based on the type of the visualization content (an alert that is generated if the condition section 304 is found to be true)([0187]; a severity based alert is generated if a condition matches (i.e., found true)).
Although Eryurek discloses of transmitting the visualization content to devices for presentation (to generate an alarm or alert or to take some other action based on the detected existence of this condition … an alert can be displayed to a plant operator, or sent to another appropriate person)([0181] and [0182]). Eryurek differs from the claim in that Eryurek fails to teach receiving input defining devices to receive the visualization content (i.e., notifications) and transmitting the notifications to the defined devices. However, receiving input defining devices to receive notifications and transmitting the notifications to the defined devices is taught by Dillon (an operator may receive numerous notifications (e.g., alerts or alarms) on his or her workstation ... the user interface of the configuration subsystem 170 may permit specifying one or more delivery modes. For example, a user may specify that notifications delivered to a certain operator should be delivered to the operator's PDA ... Specifying a delivery mode may also include indicating an identifier of a device to which the notification should be delivered ... At block 316, the notification is sent to the destination or destinations according to the appropriate delivery method or method)([0009], [0053], and [0077]).
The examiner notes Eryurek and Dillon teach monitoring and processing data. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medium of Eryurek to include the receiving and transmitting of Dillon such that the medium receives input defining devices to receive notifications and transmits notifications to the defined devices. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of addressing notifications in an optimal manner by delivering them to specifiable persons.
Regarding claim 12, Eryurek-Dillon teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the one or more match conditions comprise a property name, a compare operation, a value type, a compare value, a logical operator, or any combination thereof (Eryurek - The buttons 374 may include or allow a user to specify a type or a particular parameter ... the Boolean operator, numbers and mathematical equivalent statements to used in creating a more complex IF statement)([0192]).
Regarding claim 13, Eryurek-Dillon teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 10, where the one or more properties comprise one or more indications of one or more types of the one or more communication channels (Eryurek - as illustrated in FIG. 38, the condition section 304 includes ... an SPM block name 312 ... an SPM data type 314)([0185]).
Claims 4, 5, 7, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eryurek, Dillon, and in further view of Saunders et al. (US11451611B1).
Regarding claim 4, Eryurek-Dillon teach the system as applied above, wherein data is transmitted to devices of authorized users based on users specified in permission fields (Dillon - the user interface may permit specifying to whom a notification or group of notifications should be delivered. For example, a user may specify a person, a group of persons … an IP address or email account associated with the PDA may be specified)([0052] and [0054]). Eryurek-Dillon differs from the claim in that Eryurek-Dillon fails to teach sending a request for authorization and transmitting the visual content to the user in response to receiving authorization data. However, sending a request for authorization and transmitting visual content to a user in response to receiving authorization data is taught by Saunders (receipt of the alert and/or notification may cause a browser to open and be redirected to a login page generated by the system so that the user can log in to the system and view the alert and/or notification)(column 25 lines 58-61; a notification including a request for authorization (i.e., login page) is transmitted to a user, upon entry of credentials a user is presented with visual content (i.e., alert information)).
The examiner notes Eryurek, Dillon, and Saunders teach monitoring and processing data. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Eryurek-Dillon to include the sending and the transmitting of Saunders such that the system sends a request for authorization and transmits visual content to a user in response to receiving authorization data. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of preventing unauthorized access to content.
Regarding claim 5, Eryurek-Dillon-Saunders teach the system of claim 4, wherein the authentication data comprises a manual login data, card reader data, biometric data, or any combination thereof (Saunders - receipt of the alert and/or notification may cause a browser to open and be redirected to a login page generated by the system so that the user can log in to the system and view the alert and/or notification)(column 25 lines 58-61; a login page comprises login data).
Regarding claim 7, Eryurek-Dillon teach the system as applied above, wherein visualization content is presented (Eryurek - FIG. 42 illustrates an example screen display 380 of a portion of a process plant and an alarm display 382)([0196]). Eryurek-Dillon differs from the claim in that Eryurek-Dillon fails to teach presenting measurement visualizations. However, presenting measurement visualizations is taught by Saunders (an active alert 1132 may be generated when, for example, the rate of water flow coming out from the water pump satisfies a threshold ... the active alert 1132 may include the rate of water flow coming out from the water pump)(column 33 lines 13-17).
The examiner notes Eryurek, Dillon, and Saunders teach monitoring and processing data. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Eryurek-Dillon to include the presenting of Saunders such that the system presents measurement visualizations. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of allowing users to better understand of an operation of an asset.
Regarding claim 15, Eryurek-Dillon teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium as applied above, wherein visualization content is presented (Eryurek - FIG. 42 illustrates an example screen display 380 of a portion of a process plant and an alarm display 382)([0196]). Eryurek-Dillon differs from the claim in that Eryurek-Dillon fails to teach presenting real time data of an industrial device. However, presenting real time data of an industrial device is taught by Saunders (an active alert 1132 may be generated when, for example, the rate of water flow coming out from the water pump satisfies a threshold ... the active alert 1132 may include the rate of water flow coming out from the water pump)(column 33 lines 13-17).
The examiner notes Eryurek, Dillon, and Saunders teach monitoring and processing data. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify medium of Eryurek-Dillon to include the presenting of Saunders such that the medium presents real time data of an industrial device. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of allowing users to better understand of an operation of an asset.
Regarding claim 16, Eryurek-Dillon teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium as applied above, wherein data is transmitted to devices of authorized users based on users specified in permission fields (Dillon - the user interface may permit specifying to whom a notification or group of notifications should be delivered. For example, a user may specify a person, a group of persons … an IP address or email account associated with the PDA may be specified)([0052] and [0054]). Eryurek-Dillon differs from the claim in that Eryurek-Dillon fails to teach transmitting a request for authorization and transmitting the visual content to the user in response to receiving authorization data. However, transmitting a request for authorization and transmitting visual content to a user in response to receiving authorization data is taught by Saunders (receipt of the alert and/or notification may cause a browser to open and be redirected to a login page generated by the system so that the user can log in to the system and view the alert and/or notification)(column 25 lines 58-61; a notification including a request for authorization (i.e., login page) is transmitted to a user, upon entry of credentials a user is presented with visual content (i.e., alert information)).
The examiner notes Eryurek, Dillon, and Saunders teach monitoring and processing data. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medium of Eryurek-Dillon to include the transmitting of Saunders such that the medium sends a request for authorization and transmits visual content to a user in response to receiving authorization data. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of preventing unauthorized access to content.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eryurek, Dillon, and in further view of Enver et al. (US20220300502A1).
Regarding claim 6, Eryurek-Dillon teach the system as applied above, wherein communication channels are monitored (Eryurek - SPM blocks ... may be made available to an external client ... through the bus or communication network 76 … the expert engine development and execution system 42 may be used to automatically detect process abnormalities based on data … returned by the SPM blocks within the process plant during operation of the process plant)([0085] and [0188]). Eryurek-Dillon differs from the claim in that Eryurek-Dillon fails to teach WebSocket communication channels. However, WebSocket communication channels is taught by Enver (Each of the data sources 602 may be associated with a different system in a plant or plants ... The data sources 602 can send or stream data to the system 600 using any desired or common format and data structure ... including ... WebSockets)([0096] and [0097]).
The examiner notes Eryurek, Dillon, and Enver teach monitoring and processing data. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Eryurek-Dillon to include the WebSocket communication channels of Enver such that the system uses WebSocket communication channels to communicate. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of sending data in an efficient manner.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eryurek, Dillon, and in further view of Sturrock et al. (US20090089227A1).
Regarding claim 9, Eryurek-Dillon teach the system as applied above, wherein a plurality of properties associated with presenting a plurality of visualization content is received and a user defining a type of visualization content (Eryurek - FIGS. 40 and 41 illustrate other examples of rule creation or definition screens ... having a first element 352 that specifies a variable or SPM parameter to be tested, a testing or comparison condition 354 ... a severity definition section)([0191] and [0192]). Eryurek-Dillon differs from the claim in that Eryurek-Dillon fails to teach generating match condition recommendations. However, generating match condition recommendations is taught by Sturrock (The manufacturing models 430 can include one or more suggested alarm parameters ... For example, a fill operation for a selected model tank and given fluid may be modeled ... the suggested alarm parameter may be four minutes and 10 seconds)([0042]).
The examiner notes Eryurek, Dillon, and Sturrock teach monitoring and processing data. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Eryurek-Dillon to include the generating of Sturrock such that the system generates match condition recommendations. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of facilitating parameter creation.
Regarding claim 11, Eryurek-Dillon teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium as applied above, wherein a user interface is presented for defining triggers (Eryurek - In the particular example of FIG. 38, the rule being created ... a box 320 allows a user to select or define a Boolean logic operator, such as an AND operator or an OR operator, to be applied between each set of condition statements)([0185]). Eryurek-Dillon differs from the claim in that Eryurek-Dillon fails to teach identifying pre-defined event triggers using machine learning. However, identifying pre-defined event triggers using machine learning is taught by Sturrock (The manufacturing models 430 can include one or more suggested alarm parameters ... For example, a fill operation for a selected model tank and given fluid may be modeled ... the suggested alarm parameter may be four minutes and 10 seconds)([0042]).
The examiner notes Eryurek, Dillon, and Sturrock teach monitoring and processing data. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medium of Eryurek-Dillon to include the identifying of Sturrock such that the medium includes pre-defined event triggers identified by machine learning. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of facilitating parameter creation.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eryurek, Dillon, and in further view of Hokeness (US20190294158A1).
Regarding claim 14, Eryurek-Dillon teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium as applied above, wherein the type of visualization content is received for presenting visualization content (Eryurek - As illustrated in FIG. 38, the action section 306 includes ... a severity definition section 332 … the action section 306 of FIG. 38 defines an alert to be generated)([0187]). Eryurek-Dillon differs from the claim in that Eryurek-Dillon fails to teach removing (i.e., suppressing) the visualization content. However, suppressing visualization content is taught by Hokeness (if an alert is suppressed, then the alert may be prevented from being presented ... For example, alert B may be low severity and/or may be redundant ... subsequent alerts from field device B 410 should be suppressed (i.e., should be moved to a storage location associated with alert suppression))([0061] and [0066]).
The examiner notes Eryurek, Dillon, and Hokeness teach monitoring and processing data. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medium of Eryurek-Dillon to include the suppressing of Hokeness such that medium removes visualization content when severity is low. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of managing alerts in an efficient and effective manner.
Claims 17, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eryurek in further view of Procopio et al. (US20230185544A1)).
Regarding claim 17, Eryurek teaches a method, comprising:
presenting, via at least one processor, a graphical user interface for receiving one or more inputs defining one or more properties of an event-based trigger to perform a pass through event (the engineer can use the rules definition routine 298 to define a rule to detect this situation knowing that the application of the rule will trigger the alarm if that set of conditions occur … the rules definition application 298 may create a configuration screen that enables the user to create one or more IF-THEN or Boolean type rules to be stored in the rules database 292. An example of one possible such configuration screen 300 is illustrated in FIG. 38)([0184]; personal (e.g., engineer) interacts with an interface to define event-based trigger (i.e., rules) for performing a pass though event (i.e., triggering event)), wherein the one or more properties comprise:
one or more match conditions for performing the pass through event (a condition section 304 that enables a user to define the “IF” condition for an IF-THEN type rule)([0184]);
monitoring, via at least one processor, one or more communication channels for the one or more match conditions (SPM blocks ... may be made available to an external client ... through the bus or communication network 76 … the expert engine development and execution system 42 may be used to automatically detect process abnormalities based on data … returned by the SPM blocks within the process plant during operation of the process plant)([0085] and [0188]; SPM data channels are monitored).
Although Eryurek discloses of indications of actions to perform in response to match conditions being detected (the action section 306 could also or instead define other actions to be taken)([0187]). Eryurek differs from the claim in that Eryurek fails to teach the actions are applications configured to analyze data associated with the triggering event, such that commands are sent to the applications to analyze the data. However, receiving input for actions including applications configured to analyze data associated with a triggering event and sending commands to the applications to analyze the data is taught by Procopio (Each script 162 includes one or more functions 164. Each function 164 is a block of code designed to perform a particular task. For example, the task includes ... reports ... Referring now to FIG. 3B ... the user 12 a, after selecting the “Run a Task” step option 330, selects the “Run Script” step option 350 ... while the application 190 is executing, the application 190 determines whether the trigger condition 192 is satisfied ... the application 190 may call, using a function call 610, one or more functions 164 of a script 162)([0032], [0036], and [0048]; a user selects an application (i.e., script) to generate a report, a report is an analysis of data).
The examiner notes Eryurek and Procopio teach monitoring data. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Eryurek to include the receiving and sending of Procopio such that the method receives actions including applications configured to analyze data associated with the triggering event and sends commands to the applications to analyze the data. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of automating analysis of data.
Regarding claim 18, Eryurek-Procopio teach the method of claim 17, wherein the one or more properties comprise identification fields and real or near-real time operational parameter fields (Eryurek - a rule definition screen 350 includes... a set of condition statements 351 each having a first element 352 that specifies a variable)([0191]).
Regarding claim 19, Eryurek-Procopio teach the method of claim 17, wherein the one or more applications are configured to retrieve additional data from one or more other devices (Procopio - A data store 148 (i.e., a remote storage device) may be overlain on the storage resources 146 to allow scalable use of the storage resources ... Referring now to FIG. 6 , in some implementations, while the application 190 is executing)([0026] and [0048]; Figure 6 – scripts retrieving data from an external data device is shown).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eryurek, Procopio, and in further view of Ploix et al. (EP2561412B1).
Regarding claim 20, Eryurek-Procopio teach the method as applied above, wherein communication channels are monitored (Eryurek - SPM blocks ... may be made available to an external client ... through the bus or communication network 76 … the expert engine development and execution system 42 may be used to automatically detect process abnormalities based on data … returned by the SPM blocks within the process plant during operation of the process plant)([0085] and [0188]). Eryurek-Procopio differs from the claim in that Eryurek-Procopio fails to teach an ActiveX communication channel. However, an ActiveX communication channel is taught by Ploix (Two types of communication means are used ... ActiveX can also be used as a complement)([0116]).
The examiner notes Eryurek, Procopio, and Ploix teach monitoring data. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Eryurek-Procopio to include the ActiveX communication channel of Ploix such that the method uses ActiveX communication channel to communicate. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of enhancing communication.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider the reference fully when responding to this action.
The document cited therein and enumerated below teaches a method and apparatus for using a user interface to define execution of applications.
20080172669A1
20200097535A1
20230028278A1
20230236880A1
6876889B1
8880487B1
11783269B1
The document cited therein and enumerated below teaches a method and apparatus for generating visualization of data.
20120242648A1
20170195265A1
20180357873A1
20190101900A1
6775658B1
7557702B2
7890483B1
8191005B2
10678225B2
The document cited therein and enumerated below teaches a method and apparatus for defining conditions to generate visualization content.
20120306648A1
20130082832A1
20140282193A1
20160335858A1
20190294154A1
6414594B1
10503483B2
10534342B2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yongjia Pan whose telephone number is (571)270-1177. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/YONGJIA PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118