DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “is preferably” in line 3. In order to avoid any 112 (b) issues, the word “preferably” should be avoided because it is not understood if Applicant wants to incorporate the limitation or not. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 15 is 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 claims are directed to ineligible software per se.
The claims recite "a computer program product... ", without any positive recitation of hardware structure within the scope of the claimed system e.g. the computer program is [intended] "to cause the processor to" perform functions. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 15 is found to be directed to ineligible software per se (see MPEP 21.06.03(I)).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer program product typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer program product, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p.
Applicant is suggested to amend claim 15 to add the limitation “non- transitory” to the claim to overcome the non-statutory subject matter rejections.
It is noted that under Step 1, claim 15, is not directed to a statutory category, as explained in the software per se rejection above, however for the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 15 is further evaluated for subject matter eligibility as discussed below.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 15 recite(s) concepts related to methods of organizing human activity or human/commercial practices e.g. organizing information by generating a log and storing a record. (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II)
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 13 and 15 recite concepts related to methods of organizing human activity as described above.
The concepts can be considered to describe human activity such as reading out data of the at least one field device during a testing process, recording a behavior of at least a part of the process chain, generating a log record based on information of the at least one part of the process chain recorded by the at least one recording device. These limitations recited by the claims, amount to organizing human activity or human/commercial practices, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “recording device” and “field device” amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; and “storing the log record” is mere data gathering recited at high level of generality and part of insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. storing data).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are “field device”, “control unit”, “recording device” and “mobile terminal device” which are generic equipment which do not add anything significant since these elements are needed in order to generate and store a log record.
Dependent claim 14 merely expands upon the abstract idea further defining additional information on the data being stored, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) &(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pagnano et al. (US 6,631,298 B1, hereinafter Pag).
Regarding claim 1, Pag discloses a system for testing a process chain in an industrial environment, wherein the process chain comprises at least one field device (see fig. 3, element 310), the system comprising a control unit (see fig. 3, element 320) and a mobile terminal device (see fig. 3, elements 340 & 350),
wherein the control unit can be connected via a communication interface to the at least one field device in a communicating manner and is configured to control the at least one field device during a testing process and/or read out data via the communication interface (see fig.3 and col. 4, lns 42-59),
wherein the mobile terminal device has at least one recording device (i.e. records data), wherein the at least one recording device is configured for recording a behavior of at least a part of the process chain (see fig. 4, element 420, server stores the data from the field devices), and wherein the mobile terminal device is configured for generating, from information recorded by the at least one recording device, a log record (i.e. database) of the at least one part of the process chain and storing said log record (see col. 5, lns 19-31).
Regarding claim 2, Pag discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one recording device includes a camera, a microphone, a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, a gravity sensor, a magnetic field sensor and/or a vibration sensor (see fig. 3, element 350, it is known in the art that computers have cameras and/or microphones).
Regarding claim 3, Pag discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one recording device is integrated in the mobile terminal device or connected via a peripheral interface to the mobile terminal device (see fig. 3, element 350, it is known in the art that computers have cameras and/or microphones integrated).
Regarding claim 4, Pag discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the log record depicts at least an interval in time of the testing process (see col. 3, lns 36-52).
Regarding claim 5, Pag discloses the system according to claim 1, additionally comprising an evaluation unit, wherein the log record can be input into the evaluation unit and the evaluation unit is configured for evaluating an input log record (see col. 3, lns 53 through col. 4, ln 26).
Regarding claim 8, Pag discloses the system according to claim 1, additionally comprising a cloud system (i.e. server), wherein the mobile terminal device is connected in a communicating manner to the cloud system and is preferably configured to transmit the log record into the cloud system in order to store the log record (see col. 5, lns 1-18 and col. 4 ln 54, open smart communication).
Regarding claim 9, Pag discloses the system according to claim 8, wherein the evaluation unit is implemented in the cloud system (see col. 5, lns 1-18, the system is connected to a computer).
Regarding claim 10, Pag discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is implemented in the mobile terminal device (see fig. 3, the control unit is part of the system because its connected to the computer, therefore its implemented in the mobile terminal).
Regarding claim 13, Pag discloses a method for testing a process chain in an industrial environment, wherein the process chain comprises at least one field device, the method comprising:
controlling and/or reading out data (S1) of the at least one field device during a testing process by means of a control unit (see col. 4, lns 50-60),
recording (i.e. storing) (S2) a behavior of at least a part of the process chain by at least one recording device (see fig. 4, element 420, server stores the data from the field devices),
generating (S3) a log record (i.e. database) based on information of the at least one part of the process chain recorded by the at least one recording device, and storing (S4) the log record (see col. 5, lns 19-31).
Regarding claim 14, Pag discloses the method according to claim 13, wherein the log record is stored together with a time stamp and/or with measurement values of the at least one field device and/or with control information for the at least one field device and/or status information of the process chain (see col. 3, lns 36-52).
Regarding claim 15, Pag discloses a computer program product which, when executed on a mobile terminal device, is configured for making a mobile terminal device usable in a method for testing a process chain in an industrial environment, wherein the process chain comprises at least one field device, by the steps of:
controlling and/or reading out data of the at least one field device during a testing process (see col. 4, lns 50-60),
recording (i.e. storing) a behavior of at least a part of the process chain (see fig. 4, element 420, server stores the data from the field devices),
generating a log record (i.e. database) based on information of the at least one part of the process chain recorded by the at least one recording device, and storing the log record (see col. 5, lns 19-31).
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) 6, 7, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pag and further in view of Garcia et al. (US 2021/0124343 A1, hereinafter Gar).
Regarding claim 6, Pag discloses the system according to claim 5. However, Pag fails to expressly disclose wherein the evaluation unit is configured for comparing an input log record with a log record of an earlier testing process and/or with a nominal course, and to issue a notification in case of a deviation beyond a threshold value.
Gar discloses comparing an input log record with a log record of an earlier testing process and/or with a nominal course, and to issue a notification in case of a deviation beyond a threshold value (see claim 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pag’s invention to compare an input log record with a log record of an earlier testing process as described by Gar for the benefit of comparing the data of two test logs and identifying differences; generating a signal containing information about the identified differences; and outputting the signal.
Regarding claim 7, Pag discloses the system according to claim 1. However, Pag fails to expressly disclose additionally comprising a logging unit, wherein the logging unit is configured for generating a test log during the testing process based on control commands and/or measurement values of the at least one field device and/or their chronological order and/or the log record and/or based on other information.
Gar discloses comprising a logging unit, wherein the logging unit is configured for generating a test log during the testing process based on control commands and/or measurement values of the at least one field device and/or their chronological order and/or the log record and/or based on other information (see claim 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pag’s invention to generate test logs as described by Gar for the benefit of comparing the data of two test logs and identifying differences; generating a signal containing information about the identified differences; and outputting the signal.
Regarding claim 11, Pag discloses the system according claim 1. However, Pag fails to disclose wherein the control unit is configured for setting and/or controlling a starting time for the recording by the at least one recording device and/or the duration of the recording.
Gar discloses wherein the system is configured for setting a start time (i.e. generating a test protocol at a certain time) time for the recording by the at least one recording device and/or the duration of the recording (see para. 0051)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pag’s invention to have the configuration as described by Gar for the benefit of making it easier to identify or predict malfunctions of the field device, or to set a time for the next maintenance interval and identify specific maintenance tasks that must then be performed.
Regarding claim 12, Pag discloses the system according to claim 1. However, Pag fails to expressly disclose wherein the communication interface is formed by a wireless interface, preferably for a short-range communication or a wide area communication.
However, Gar discloses wherein the communication interface is formed by a wireless interface, preferably for a short-range communication or a wide area communication (see para. 0050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pag’s invention to have the communication interface formed by a wireless interface as taught by Gar for the benefit of having a wide range of application where wires are difficult to run in an area.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights