DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) is/are directed to a “computer-readable medium”. Examiner’s advises applicant that amending the language to read a “non-transitory computer readable medium” should cure the said rejection(s).
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (See 2019 Update: Eligibility Guidance).
Independent Claim(s) 1, 13, 14 recites
certification of the control device,
a device unit test
to
determine whether a function set in the control device satisfies a predetermined condition specified by a standards organization and works normally,
a standard application operation test
to
determine whether the control device satisfies a predetermined condition specified by the standards organization and is capable of installing and operating a standard application specified by the standards organization,
and
a software load test
to
determine whether software of the control device satisfies a predetermined condition specified by the standards organization and is capable of withstanding a predetermined load;
determine whether each of test results of the device unit test, the standard application operation test, and the software load test satisfies a predetermined condition;
and
certify that the control device is compliant with standards of the standards organization, based on the determination result
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
In combination with Independent Claim(s) 1, Claim(s) 2-12 recite(s)
wherein
the standards organization is
Open Process Automation (OPA), Module Type Package (MTP), or NAMUR Open Architecture (NOA).
a device interconnection test
to
determine whether the control device is capable of interconnecting with a control device from a different manufacturer,
determines whether a test result of the device interconnection test satisfies a predetermined condition,
certifies that the control device is compliant with standards of the standards organization, based on the determination result further including a determination result of the device interconnection test.
a device data linkage test
to
determine whether the control device is capable of transmitting and receiving predetermined data to/from a control device from a different manufacturer,
determines whether a test result of the device data linkage test satisfies a predetermined condition,
certifies that the control device is compliant with standards of the standards organization, based on the determination result further including a determination result of the device data linkage test.
an external application operation test
to
determine whether the control device is capable of installing and operating a predetermined external application different from the standard application,
determines whether a test result of the external application operation test satisfies a predetermined condition,
certifies that the control device is compliant with standards of the standards organization, based on the determination result further including a determination result of the external application operation test.
an application migration test
to
determine whether the control device is capable of migrating an installed application to a control device from a different manufacturer,
determines whether a test result of the application migration test satisfies a predetermined condition,
certifies that the control device is compliant with standards of the standards organization, based on the determination result further including a determination result of the application migration test.
a trouble test
to
determine whether the control device is capable of withstanding a predetermined trouble,
determines whether a test result of the trouble test satisfies a predetermined condition,
certifies that the control device is compliant with standards of the standards organization, based on the determination result further including a determination result of the trouble test.
creates a device list of the control device certified as compliant with standards of the standards organization.
issues a certificate for the control device certified as compliant with standards of the standards organization.
an evaluation of the control device certified as compliant with standards of the standards organization, based on the test result.
notifies a product provider of the control device of an evaluation result.
notifies the standards organization of an evaluation result
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (i.e. A certification system comprising a control device that constitutes a plant control system, and a certification device that executes; the certification device comprising: an executer configured to execute, a determiner configured to; a certifier configured to);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) (i.e. generic data output (e.g., notifies a product provider of the control device; notifies the standards organization)); or
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (i.e. See Alice Corp. and cited references for evidence of additional elements (i.e., generic computer structure)).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TRACY ET AL. (US 20020042687 A1) (hereinafter “TRACY”) in view of ALLS ET AL. (US 20140130033 A1) (hereinafter “ALLS”).
With respect to Claim(s) 1, 13, 14, TRACY teaches assessing the risk of and/or determining the suitability of a system to comply with at least one predefined standard, regulation and/or requirement and the BRI of:
A certification system (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6, 7, 9, 31, 32)
comprising
a control device (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6, 7, 9, 31, 32),
and
a certification device (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6, 7, 9, 31, 32)
that executes
certification of the control device (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6, 7, 9, 31, 32),
the certification device comprising:
an executer (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6, 7, 9, 31, 32)
configured to
execute
a device unit test
to
determine whether a function set in the control device satisfies a predetermined condition specified by a standards organization and works normally (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0006; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 11, 14, 17, 21, 25, 26),
execute
a standard application operation test
to
determine whether the control device satisfies a predetermined condition specified by the standards organization and is capable of installing and operating a standard application specified by the standards organization (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0006; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 11, 14, 17, 21, 25, 26),
and
execute
a software load test
to
determine whether software of the control device satisfies a predetermined condition specified by the standards organization and is capable of withstanding a predetermined load (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0006; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 11, 14, 17, 21, 25, 26);
a determiner (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6, 7, 9, 31, 32)
configured to
determine whether each of test results of the device unit test, the standard application operation test, and the software load test satisfies a predetermined condition (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0006; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 11, 14, 17, 21, 25, 26);
and
a certifier (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6, 7, 9, 31, 32)
configured to
certify that the control device is compliant with standards of the standards organization, based on the determination result (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0006; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 11, 14, 17, 21, 25, 26).
However, TRACY is lacking the explicit language of:
a plant control system.
ALLS teaches a management system for an industrial facility and the BRI of:
a plant control system (See, e.g., ¶ 0023).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify TRACY to include a plant control system.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify TRACY because it would be beneficial to monitor at least a portion of an industrial facility. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 3, TRACY, ALLS teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
TRACY further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the executer further executes
a device interconnection test
to
determine whether the control device is capable of interconnecting with a control device from a different manufacturer (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0006; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 11, 14, 17, 21, 25, 26),
the determiner further
determines whether a test result of the device interconnection test satisfies a predetermined condition (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0006; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 11, 14, 17, 21, 25, 26),
and
the certifier
certifies that the control device is compliant with standards of the standards organization, based on the determination result further including a determination result of the device interconnection test (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0006; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 11, 14, 17, 21, 25, 26).
With respect to Claim(s) 4, TRACY, ALLS teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
TRACY further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the executer further executes
a device data linkage test
to
determine whether the control device is capable of transmitting and receiving predetermined data to/from a control device from a different manufacturer (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0006; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 11, 14, 17, 21, 25, 26),
the determiner further
determines whether a test result of the device data linkage test satisfies a predetermined condition (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0006; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 11, 14, 17, 21, 25, 26),
and
the certifier
certifies that the control device is compliant with standards of the standards organization, based on the determination result further including a determination result of the device data linkage test (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0006; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 11, 14, 17, 21, 25, 26).
With respect to Claim(s) 5, TRACY, ALLS teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
TRACY further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the executer further executes
an external application operation test
to
determine whether the control device is capable of installing and operating a predetermined external application different from the standard application (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0006; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 11, 14, 17, 21, 25, 26),
the determiner further
determines whether a test result of the external application operation test satisfies a predetermined condition (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0006; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 11, 14, 17, 21, 25, 26),
and
the certifier
certifies that the control device is compliant with standards of the standards organization, based on the determination result further including a determination result of the external application operation test (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0006; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 11, 14, 17, 21, 25, 26).
With respect to Claim(s) 6, TRACY, ALLS teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
TRACY further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the executer further executes
an application migration test to
determine whether the control device is capable of migrating an installed application to a control device from a different manufacturer (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0006; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 11, 14, 17, 21, 25, 26),
the determiner further
determines whether a test result of the application migration test satisfies a predetermined condition (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0006; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 11, 14, 17, 21, 25, 26),
and
the certifier
certifies that the control device is compliant with standards of the standards organization, based on the determination result further including a determination result of the application migration test (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0006; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 11, 14, 17, 21, 25, 26).
With respect to Claim(s) 7, TRACY, ALLS teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
TRACY further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the executer further executes
a trouble test
to
determine whether the control device is capable of withstanding a predetermined trouble (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0006; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 11, 14, 17, 21, 25, 26),
the determiner further
determines whether a test result of the trouble test satisfies a predetermined condition (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0006; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 11, 14, 17, 21, 25, 26),
and
the certifier
certifies that the control device is compliant with standards of the standards organization, based on the determination result further including a determination result of the trouble test (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0006; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 11, 14, 17, 21, 25, 26).
With respect to Claim(s) 8, TRACY, ALLS teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
TRACY further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the certifier
creates a device list of the control device certified as compliant with standards of the standards organization (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0006; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 11, 14, 17, 21, 25, 26).
With respect to Claim(s) 9, TRACY, ALLS teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
TRACY further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the certifier
issues a certificate for the control device certified as compliant with standards of the standards organization (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0006; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 11, 14, 17, 21, 25, 26).
With respect to Claim(s) 10, TRACY, ALLS teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
TRACY further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the certifier executes
an evaluation of the control device certified as compliant with standards of the standards organization, based on the test result (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0006; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 11, 14, 17, 21, 25, 26).
With respect to Claim(s) 11, TRACY, ALLS teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
TRACY further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the certifier
notifies a product provider of the control device of an evaluation result (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0006; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 11, 14, 17, 21, 25, 26).
With respect to Claim(s) 12, TRACY, ALLS teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
TRACY further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the certifier
notifies the standards organization of an evaluation result (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT, 0006; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 11, 14, 17, 21, 25, 26).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art of the parent claim(s) in view of NANDOLA ET AL. (US 20250216836 A1) (hereinafter “NANDOLA”).
With respect to Claim(s) 2, TRACY, ALLS teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
However, TRACY is lacking the explicit language of:
Open Process Automation (OPA), Module Type Package (MTP), or NAMUR Open Architecture (NOA).
NANDOLA teaches automating a process plant and the BRI of:
Open Process Automation (OPA), Module Type Package (MTP), or NAMUR Open Architecture (NOA) (See, e.g., ¶ 0005).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify TRACY to include Open Process Automation (OPA), Module Type Package (MTP), or NAMUR Open Architecture (NOA).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify TRACY because it would be beneficial to automating a process plant. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND NIMOX whose telephone number is (469)295-9226. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 10am-8pm CT.
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, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
RAYMOND NIMOX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/RAYMOND L NIMOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit