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
1. This initial office action is based on the application filed on 01/19/2024, which claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Status of Claim
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined below, of which, claims 1 and 15 are presented in independent form.
Priority
3. The instant application claims priority to International Patent Application No. PCT/EP2022/070409, filed July 20, 2023, and to European Patent Application No. 2118677.1, filed July 21, 2021, each of which is incorporated herein in its entirety by reference.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/19/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
5. Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Specification
6. Paragraph [0001], line 2, ‘2033’ should be changed to --2022--.
Claim Objections
7. Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7 and claim 15, line 8 recite “the variants” should be changed to – the one or more variants --.
Claim 1, line 11 and claim 15, line 12, should --the-- be needed before “semantic”?
Claims 4 and 17 recite the limitations "the at least one component" in line 2 and “the at least one value” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 3, 5-14, 16, and 18-20 are depend on claims 1 and 15 are also objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
7. Claim 1-20 are 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.
Claims 1 and 15 recite “the specification” in lines 5 and 6 respectively render the claims indefinite since it is not clear whether the specification is the invariant specification or the component specification. for the examination purposes, “the specification” will be interpreted as --the component specification--.
Claim 15 is directed to a system but the body of claim does not recite any components to be considered as the claimed system but steps. Thus, metes and bounds of claim is vague and indefinite.
Claims 2-14 and 16-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b), since they are dependent on claims 1 and 15.
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.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis specific to Claims 1 and 15 is being presented below.
Claims 1 and 15:
Step 1 Analysis:
Claim 1 of the instant application is direct to process.
Claim 15 of instant application 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 “A validation system …” configuration to: “validating a component specification…” without reciting sufficient hardware support.
Claims 16-20 are also rejected because they depend on Claim 15.
Step 2 Analysis:
Claim 1 recites:
(a) obtaining an invariant specification specifying one or more invariants that must be satisfied for the specification to be deemed fit for use in conjunction with the industrial automation system;
(b) validating the component specification using the invariants specified in the invariant specification, wherein at least one of the invariants relates to semantic correctness of the component specification;
(c) wherein validating the component specification comprises using the at least one invariant to validate semantic correctness of the component specification.
Step 2A -- Prong 1:
The claim 1 recites the limitations of:
(a) obtaining an invariant specification specifying one or more invariants that must be satisfied for the specification to be deemed fit for use in conjunction with the industrial automation system;
Limitation (a) limitation that, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “obtaining” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A -- Prong 2:
The claim 1 recites the additional limitation of “A computer-implemented method…” and “an industrial automation system”. The limitations of “A computer-implemented method…” and “an industrial automation system” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, limitations (b) and (c) are merely insignificant extra solution activity of evaluating data. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2 Analysis:
Claim 15 recites:
(a) validating a component specification defining at least one component of an industrial automation system, wherein the component specification is arranged in an object-oriented data format by,
(b) obtaining an invariant specification specifying one or more invariants that must be satisfied for the specification to be deemed fit for use in conjunction with the industrial automation system;
(c) validating the component specification using the invariants specified in the invariant specification, wherein at least one of the invariants relates to semantic correctness of the component specification;
(d) wherein validating the component specification comprises using the at least one invariant to validate semantic correctness of the component specification.
Step 2A -- Prong 1:
The claim 15 recites the limitations of:
(a) obtaining an invariant specification specifying one or more invariants that must be satisfied for the specification to be deemed fit for use in conjunction with the industrial automation system;
Limitation (a) limitation that, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “obtaining” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A -- Prong 2:
The claim 15 recites the additional limitation of “A validation system…” and “an industrial automation system”. The limitations of “A validation system…” and “an industrial automation system” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, limitations (a) and (c-d) are merely insignificant extra solution activity of evaluating data. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B (claims 1 and 15):
As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., simply adding extra-solution activity or well-understood, routine and conventional activity or generic computer components does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B since the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting/receiving and storing/uploading data as well- understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and See MPEP 2106.05(g) . Therefore, claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims
Additionally, claim 2 recites “wherein semantic correctness is validated with reference to a model of the IEC 63280 specification” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of evaluating data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 2 is ineligible.
Additionally, claims 3 and 16 recite “wherein at least one of the invariants relates to structural correctness of the component specification, and wherein validating the component specification comprises using the at least one invariant to validate structural correctness of the component specification” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of evaluating data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 3 and 16 are ineligible.
Additionally, claims 4 and 17 recite “wherein the component specification comprises at least one value relating to the at least one component of the industrial automation system, wherein validating the component specification comprises validating the at least one value with reference to an external agency” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of evaluating data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 4 and 17 are ineligible.
Additionally, claims 5 and 18 recite “wherein at least one of the invariants is defined with reference to a model or metamodel representing a relevant standard specification, and wherein validating the component specification comprises performing the validation with reference to the model or metamodel” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of evaluating data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 5 and 18 ineligible.
Additionally, claims 6 and 19 recite “wherein at least one of the invariants is expressed using one or more first-order logic-based constraints” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of defining data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 6 and 19 are ineligible.
Additionally, claims 7 and 20 recite “further comprising compiling the invariant specification to generate at least one executable rule for validation, wherein validating the component specification comprises executing the at least one executable rule” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “generating” can be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 7 and 20 are ineligible.
Additionally, claim 8 recites “further comprising obtaining data relating to compatibility of elements in the component specification, wherein validating the component specification comprises determining compatibility of elements in the component specification using the obtained data” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “obtaining” and “determining” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 8 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 9 recites “further comprising using a clustering algorithm to obtain the data relating to compatibility of elements in the component specification” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “obtain” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 9 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 10 recites “further comprising, in response to detecting a validation error when validating the component specification, recommending one or more remedial actions to remedy the validation error” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of outputting data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 10 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 11 recites “further comprising sending at least one of the recommended remedial actions to a user and receiving user feedback relating to the at least one recommended remedial action” which perform as well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 11 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 12 recites “further comprising using the received feedback to determine subsequent recommendations of remedial action for the same validation error” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “determine” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 12 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 13 recites “further comprising using a reinforcement learning approach to improve subsequent recommendations” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of outputting data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 13 is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 14 recites “further comprising configuring an industrial automation system to operate using the component as defined by the validated component specification” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of processing/validating data. These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 14 is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
8. Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Abele et al. (EP 2772877 A1 – IDS filed 01/19/2024 – herein after Abele).
Regarding claim 1.
Abele discloses
A computer-implemented method for validating a component specification defining at least one component of an industrial automation system (suitable candidates for supplying functional units within the plant may be identified from catalogues of devices and their suitability may be validated by considering formally and explicitly stated requirements in the ontology – See paragraphs [0016-0017]. Allows formally verifiable conditions for requirements of plant components – See paragraph [0024]), wherein the component specification is arranged in an object-oriented data format (CAEX supports object-oriented modeling for all of these aspects. EIs depicting SUC instances are connected by ILs via EIs which in turn are instances of ICs – See paragraphs [0019 and 0034]), the method comprising:
obtaining an invariant specification specifying one or more invariants that must be satisfied for the specification to be deemed fit for use in conjunction with the industrial automation system (representing requirements of the plant components and/or the plant devices in the ontology by means of the logic-based constraints, logic-based constraints are checked against likewise represented properties of the plant components and the plant devices using the inference mechanism – See paragraphs [0014-0015]. In this way, suitable candidates for supplying functional units within the plant may be identified from catalogues of devices and their suitability may be validated by considering formally – See paragraph [0018]. Support plant designers during their work, semantically rich queries based on the semantic structure of the ontology underlying the plant model may be formulated and answered using inference mechanisms. Hereby, automated identification of suitable devices is supported, reducing the effort required for manual selection of fitting functional units – See paragraph [0027]); and
validating the component specification using the invariants specified in the invariant specification (logic-based constraints are checked against likewise represented properties of the plant components and the plant devices using the inference mechanism – See paragraphs [0014-0015]), wherein at least one of the invariants (standard/constraints – See paragraphs [0031-0032]) relates to semantic correctness of the component specification (transforming the plant model from the predetermined data format into an ontology as a means of knowledge representation having a formal semantics; and performing an automated reasoning and/or querying for validation based on the ontology as a transformation result by evaluating logic-based constraints using an inference mechanism – See paragraph [0021]. An ontology of the application scenario as defined above serves as example. First, the operator is supported in identifying identical IEs. Further, the Role requirements of all Internal Elements and then the correctness of internal links is validated – See paragraph [0051]);
wherein validating the component specification comprises using the at least one invariant to validate semantic correctness of the component specification (In Figure 5, for validation of attribute consistency an example is illustrated. The attributes 512, 513 of the IE 501 ("m1FK7") which is an instance of Motor1FK7 and supports the role requirements 502 of the RC 503 ("ConveyorDrive") are validated. SignalInterfaces with the direction "InOut" can be connected to SignalInterfaces of arbitrary direction. In order to validate correct wiring, this semantics needs to be defined formally – See paragraphs [0055-0059]).
Regarding claim 3, the method of claim 1,
Abele discloses
wherein at least one of the invariants relates to structural correctness of the component specification (to support the operator, RC requirements are validated (VF22 in Fig. 2) by checking the attributes of all RCs and SUCs assigned to an IE. A SPARQL query is defined to identify all IEs where the attributes do not match. SPARQL queries under OWL entailement regime are used as described by expressed in OWL functional-style syntax with the following structure – See paragraphs [0054]), and wherein validating the component specification comprises using the at least one invariant to validate structural correctness of the component specification (for validation of attribute consistency an example is illustrated. The attributes 512, 513 of the IE 501 ("m1FK7") which is an instance of Motor1FK7 and supports the role requirements 502 of the RC 503 ("ConveyorDrive") are validated – See paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 4, the method of claim 1,
Abele discloses
wherein the component specification comprises at least one value relating to the at least one component of the industrial automation system (the property 311 ("isLinkedTo") is meant to express ILs between the EIs related to ICs. Thus, ICs are represented in terms of the class interface and EIs are represented in terms of instances thereof – See paragraphs [0043-0046]), wherein validating the component specification comprises validating the at least one value with reference to an external agency (the selection of specific components and devices that meet all requirements of the planned functional units can require significant manual effort when requirements have to be matched and validated separately – See paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 6, the method of claim 1,
Abele discloses
wherein at least one of the invariants is expressed using one or more first-order logic-based constraints (transforming the plant model from the predetermined data format into an ontology as a means of knowledge representation having a formal semantics; and performing an automated reasoning and/or querying for validation based on the ontology as a transformation result by evaluating logic-based constraints using an inference mechanism – See paragraphs [0011 and 0014-0015]).
Regarding claim 8, the method of claim 1,
Abele discloses
further comprising obtaining data relating to compatibility of elements in the component specification (interconnections between plant components and devices are introduced into the ontology by way of assertions. A usage of ontologies as formal knowledge models together with associated inference mechanisms is particular advantageous over a currently practiced algorithmic validation functionality which is often rigidly integrated in engineering tools. The advantage particularly lies in the flexibility regarding modular extension by custom validation criteria as part of the plant model – See paragraph [0017] and [0052]), wherein validating the component specification comprises determining compatibility of elements in the component specification using the obtained data (Suitable candidates for supplying functional units within the plant may be identified from catalogues of devices and their suitability may be validated by considering formally and explicitly stated requirements in the ontology – See paragraph [0018]. Support plant designers during their work, semantically rich queries based on the semantic structure of the ontology underlying the plant model may be formulated and answered using inference mechanisms. Hereby, automated identification of suitable devices is supported, reducing the effort required for manual selection of fitting functional units – See paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 15.
A validation system configured to:
Regarding claim 15, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 17, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 19, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 6 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
10. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abele as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeske (Making process control more flexible, 2020 – herein after Jeske).
Regarding claim 2, the method of claim 1,
Jeske discloses
wherein semantic correctness is validated with reference to a model of the IEC 63280 specification (the standard VDI 2658, which was developed in Germany, but is now being adopted as IEC 63280 for automation engineering of modular systems in the process industry – see page 3).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Jeske’s teaching into Abele’s invention because incorporating Jeske’s teaching would enhance Abele to enable to adopt IEC 63280 for automation engineering of modular system in the process industry as suggested by Jeske (page 3).
11. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abele as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Von der Fakultat (Capturing and Exploiting Plant Topology and Process Information as a Basis to Support Engineering and Operational Activities in Process Plants, 2017 – herein after Von).
Regarding claim 5, the method of claim 1,
Von discloses
wherein at least one of the invariants is defined with reference to a model or metamodel representing a relevant standard specification (Based on the occurrence frequency of certain symbols and the analysis connectivity patterns in the analyzed schematic, it would be feasible to define areas in which, for example, valves are likely to be found given an a priori identified tank or vessel. Such information can be used for prioritizing search regions or as a means for statistical consistency check – See page 137), and wherein validating the component specification comprises performing the validation with reference to the model or metamodel (applied for locating regions in greyscale images that match a determined template of a reference pattern. These methods are capable of finding template matches regardless of lighting variation, blur, noise, occlusion, and geometric transformations such as shifting, rotation, or scaling – See page 19. Such a knowledge base can be defined for a set of standard plant assets, i.e., a vendor-independent catalogue of plant devices commonly found in process facilities (e.g., generic valve, generic tank, and generic centrifugal pump) – See page 120).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Von’s teaching into Abele’s invention because incorporating Von’s teaching would enhance Abele to enable to find template matches as suggested by Von (page 19).
12. Claim(s) 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abele as applied to claims 1 and 15 respectively above, and further in view of Abele (DE 102013223833 A1 – herein after Abele).
Regarding claim 7, the method of claim 1,
Abele discloses
further comprising compiling the invariant specification to generate at least one executable rule for validation (conversion RUDE of the rules takes place in such a way that with a rule generation means RGM the ontology PSON is translated into so-called RIF rules RR (see arrow P6). For this, all rule-related information of the ontology PSON is exported into a rule ontology, which is then converted into the RIF rules RR. RIF is a well-known format that can be represented, for example, by the RIF XML Serialization syntax. This syntax is converted with the rule generation means RGM via methods known per se into executable rules EXR of a rule speech format– See pages 5-6), wherein validating the component specification comprises executing the at least one executable rule (corresponding monitoring or diagnostic states of the technical installation and their components can be derived in their operation based on sensor data or process data using the executable rules – See page 6).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Abele’s teaching into Abele’s invention because incorporating Abele’s teaching would enhance Abele to enable to generate executable rules as suggested by Abele (pages 5-6).
Regarding claim 20, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 7 above.
13. Claim(s) 9-14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abele as applied to claims 8 and 15 respectively above, and further in view of Cella et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0133257 A1 – herein after Cella).
Regarding claim 9, the method of claim 8,
Cella discloses
further comprising using a clustering algorithm to obtain the data relating to compatibility of elements in the component specification (For classification problems, one output is produced (with a separate set of weights and summation units) for each target category. The value output for a category is the probability that the case being evaluated has that category. In training of an RBF, various parameters may be determined, such as the number of neurons in a hidden layer, the coordinates of the center of each hidden-layer function, the spread of each function in each dimension, and the weights applied to outputs as they pass to the summation layer. Training may be used by clustering algorithms (such as k-means clustering), by evolutionary approaches, and the like – See paragraph [1013]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Cella’s teaching into Abele’s invention because incorporating Cella’s teaching would enhance Abele to permit utilization of many of the capabilities, linkages, compatibilities, and extensions that conventional raw data technologies as suggested by Cella (paragraphs [0631-0632]).
Regarding claim 10, the method of claim 1,
Cella discloses
further comprising, in response to detecting a validation error when validating the component specification (validate a candidate failure condition, and/or diminish the likelihood of a potential failure – See paragraphs [4285-4286]), recommending one or more remedial actions to remedy the validation error (a knowledge base associated with the industrial environment. In embodiments, corrective actions may be identified and taken in response to the state-related measurements captured using the mobile devices – See paragraphs [0042-0044]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Cella’s teaching into Abele’s invention because incorporating Cella’s teaching would enhance Abele to enable to identify corrective actions as suggested by Cella (paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 11, the method of claim 10,
Cella discloses
further comprising sending at least one of the recommended remedial actions to a user (this correlation may be noted by an expert system or by a user observing the visualization and corrective action may be taken – See paragraphs [1327-1328]) and receiving user feedback relating to the at least one recommended remedial action (provide an operator feedback on conditions in the handling environment that the user – See paragraphs [1342-1344]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Cella’s teaching into Abele’s invention because incorporating Cella’s teaching would enhance Abele to enable to operate the device correctly and provide feedback as suggested by Cella (paragraph [1401]).
Regarding claim 12, the method of claim 11,
Cella discloses
further comprising using the received feedback to determine subsequent recommendations of remedial action for the same validation error (make recommendations for the replacement of certain sensors in the future with sensors having different response rates, sensitivity, ranges, and the like. The response circuit 8110 may recommend design alterations for future embodiments of the component, the piece of equipment, the operating conditions, the process, and the like– See paragraphs [0067-0068]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Cella’s teaching into Abele’s invention because incorporating Cella’s teaching would enhance Abele to enable to recommend design alterations for future embodiments of the component as suggested by Cella (paragraphs [0067-0068]).
Regarding claim 13, the method of claim 11,
Cella discloses
further comprising using a reinforcement learning approach to improve subsequent recommendations (the system in FIG. 157 is informed, based on a scheduled event, to evaluate the condition of various aspects of a factory floor. The system, configured with a learning algorithm, takes samples of various sensors in various positions. It is provided with positive reinforcement of a correctly operating factory floor on a regular basis – See paragraph [1396]. Pattern detection and/or feature learning. Reinforcement learning may include the machine learning systems performing in a dynamic environment and then providing feedback about correct and incorrect decisions – See paragraph [0397]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Cella’s teaching into Abele’s and Dunn’s invention because incorporating Cella’s teaching would enhance Abele and Dunn to enable to perform in a dynamic environment and then provide feedback about correct and incorrect decisions as suggested by Cella (paragraph [0397]).
Regarding claim 14, the method of claim 1,
Cella discloses
further comprising configuring an industrial automation system to operate using the component as defined by the validated component specification (The machine learning system may learn system alarm condition patterns, such as alarm conditions expected under normal operating conditions, under peak operating conditions, expected over time based on age of components (e.g., new, during operational life, during extended life, during a warrantee period), and the like – See paragraph [1075-1076]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Cella’s teaching into Abele’s invention because incorporating Cella’s teaching would enhance Abele to permit utilization of many of the capabilities, linkages, compatibilities, and extensions that conventional raw data technologies as suggested by Cella (paragraphs [0631-0632]).
Regarding claim 18, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 5 above.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dunn et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0017237 A1) discloses facilitate discovery and management of digital content associated with control systems, and can be used for system backup and restore, code conversion, and version management. The IDH also supports storage and instantiation of virtual machine images preconfigured with digital engineering applications that can be instantiated and executed remotely as part of a digital engineering services framework – See Abstract and specification for more details.
Dalli et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0156614 A1) discloses provide a practical solution for the safe operation of automated machinery and systems based on the anticipation and prediction of consequences. The ability to guarantee a safe mode of operation in an autonomous system which may include machinery and robots which interact with human beings is a major unresolved problem which may be solved by an exemplary explainable framework – See Abstract and specification for more details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONGBAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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.
/MONGBAO NGUYEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2192