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
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on a Japanese application 2021-045381 filed on March 19, 2021.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are in claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, 28, 30, and 31
The claims invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because they use generic placeholders, such as "a loop connection section,” “an information acquisition section,” “an information analytics section,” “an autonomous operation control section,” “a loop cooperation control section,” “a control section,” “an integration control section;” that are coupled with functional language that is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Except for the loop cooperation control section, the written description of the specification neither implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function. The specification paragraph 0081 states that the loop cooperation control section is software including AI. However, a review of the specification does not disclose the corresponding structure for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitations: "a loop connection section,” “an information acquisition section,” “an information analytics section,” “an autonomous operation control section,” “a control section,” or “an integration control section.” Paragraph 0062 states that: “the cyberspace E200 is constructed with, for example, an information system including a large server or a server group in which a plurality of servers are aggregated and cooperate.” Figure 2A shows these sections (K111 – the information acquisition section; K112 – the information analytics section; K113 – the autonomous operation section) as being part of the server E200. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would guess that the sections are either firmware, software, a section of a server processor, a separate circuit, a microprocessor, program code, or other structure. The limitations are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b). MPEP §2181(II)(A) states: “If there is no disclosure of structure, material or acts for performing the recited function, the claim fails to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b).” MPEP §2181(II)(B) states: “When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP §2163.03.” Therefore the claim is rejected under both under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
Thus, the disclosure lacks the description necessary to define the “sections;” and the specification does not describe the structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions of the sections. The limitations are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may:
amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or
(2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which fails to disclose structure to perform "a loop connection section,” “an information acquisition section,” “an information analytics section,” “an autonomous operation control section,” “a control section,” or “an integration control section.” as claimed. Given the guidance under in the Williamson: “The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In the examiner’s view the written description fails to impart any structural significance to the terms of the “sections.”
For more information, see MPEP § 2181(II)(A) The Corresponding Structure Must Be Disclosed In the Specification Itself in a Way That One Skilled In the Art Will Understand What Structure Will Perform the Recited Function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention. The sections as listed above are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) because the specification fails to adequately disclose structure to perform the claimed functions. For each of the sections the specification must disclose some kind of structure for performing the functions of each element. The specification provides no detail about the sections themselves. See also “Claim Interpretation” section above.
For more information, see MPEP § 2181(II). DESCRIPTION NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A CLAIM LIMITATION WHICH INVOKES 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, SIXTH PARAGRAPH.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 USC §112(b). Claim 31 recites the limitation: “the operation control.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate action is required.
Examiner's Statement of Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The applicant has invented a system and method that that autonomously performs operation control in a manufacturing process and a service, the information management system comprising: a loop connection section that constructs a first feedback loop of a cyber-physical system; an information acquisition section that acquires specific information necessary for the manufacturing process from the first feedback loop; an information analytics section that analyzes the specific information; an autonomous operation control section that autonomously performs the operation control based on an analytics result acquired by the information analytics section; and a loop cooperation control section that forms a new second feedback loop constructed by cooperation of the loop connection section and the autonomous operation control section, in response to the analytics result that is new. In consideration of the prior art below, the applicant’s invention is novel and non-obvious. However, the application is not in condition for allowance based on the 35 USC §112(a) and 35 USC §112(b) rejections above. The dependent claims that depend from independent claim 1 are also rejected under 35 USC §112(a) and 35 USC §112(b). Reasons for allowance will be held in abeyance pending final recitation of the claims.
The claimed invention is distinguished over the following prior art:
Maturana et al. (US PG Pub. No. 20160179993) teaches some elements of independent claims 1 and 31. Maturana teaches an information management system that autonomously performs operation control in a manufacturing process and a service, the information management system comprising: (Par. 0029: “…modem automation systems. These controllers interact with field devices on the plant floor to control automated processes relating to such objectives as product manufacture, material handling, batch processing, supervisory control, and other such applications.” Par. 0012)
a loop connection section that constructs a first feedback loop of a cyber-physical system; (Abstract: “A cloud-based multi-tier cyber analytics system is provided for integration of cloud-side and on-premise analytics for industrial systems.” Par. 0033: “To these and other ends, one or more embodiments of the present disclosure provide a multi-tier cyber analytics system including an emulation runtime engine that can execute a virtualized controller on a cloud platform. The runtime engine can serve as a core analytics component by providing a control-level analytics engine with application programming interfaces (APIs) that enable seamless interaction of distributed simulations, cloud level services, and hardware industrial controllers.”)
an information acquisition section that acquires specific information necessary for the manufacturing process from the first feedback loop; (Par. 0030: “Process simulation 104 is a dynamic model representing the plant or automation system to be regulated by control program 102. Process simulation 104 mathematically models the system to be regulated by generating digital and analog I/O values representing, for example, sensor outputs, metering outputs, or other plant data analogous to the data expected to be generated by the physical system being modeled. This simulated output data 108 is provided to the control program, which receives this data as one or more virtual physical inputs. Control program 102 processes these inputs according to user-defined algorithms, and generates digital and/or analog controller output data 106 based on the processing. This output data 106 represents the physical outputs that would be generated by a controller executing control program 102 and transmitted to the hardwired field devices comprising the automation system (e.g., PID loop control outputs, solenoid energizing outputs, motor control outputs, etc.). The controller output data 106 is provided to the appropriate input points of the process simulation 104, which updates the simulated output data 108 accordingly. This simulation technique can be used to test and debug control programs without putting field equipment and machinery at risk, to simulate modifications to plant or machine operations and estimation how such modifications affect certain performance or financial metrics, or to perform other analytics.” Par. 0034. See figure 1 that shows the feedback between output data and the process simulation. Figure 3 shows the exchange of information between the cloud external system and the plant level system. Figure 4 and Par. 0040 and 0041 teaches this cloud based system entails a cyber analytic system. Figure 5 shows the exchange and feedback between the on-premises data collection and the “(e.g., the multi-tier cyber analytics system” at Par. 0066.))
an information analytics section that analyzes the specific information; (Par. 0041: “Cloud-based industrial cyber analytics system 402 can include an emulation component 406, an emulation data exchange component 408, a simulation component 410, an analytics component 412, a client interface component 414, one or more processors 416, and memory 418. In various embodiments, one or more of the emulation component 406, emulation data exchange component 408, simulation component 410, analytics component 412, client interface component 414, the one or more processors 416, and memory 418 can be electrically and/or communicatively coupled to one another to perform one or more of the functions of the emulation and analytics system 402. In some embodiments, components 406, 408, 410, 412, and 414 can comprise software instructions stored on memory 418 and executed by processor(s) 416. Cyber analytics system 402 may also interact with other hardware and/or software components not depicted in FIG. 4. For example, processor(s) 416 may interact with one or more external user interface devices, such as a keyboard, a mouse, a display monitor, a touchscreen, or other such interface devices.”)
an autonomous operation control section that autonomously performs the operation control based on an analytics result acquired by the information analytics section; (Par. 0084: “In some embodiments, rather than or in addition to issuance of the notification, the cloud-based analytics system may automatically implement the recommended changes on the customer's equipment via the cloud. For example, if the relevant industrial devices are communicating with the cloud platform via a bi-directional cloud agent, the cloud-based analytics system can issue instructions or configuration data to the devices via the cloud agent that implement the recommended adjustment on the device. Such remotely administered instructions can implement setpoint adjustments, alter configuration settings, initiate execution of selected sub-routines in on on-premise industrial controller, etc.” Par. 0085: “The systems described above provide high-speed cloud-based analytics for industrial automation that can be implemented and maintained without the need for a cloud analytics specialist or data scientist.” See also Par. 0070 – cloud based analytics system with automated control.)
Maturana does not teach a loop cooperation section that forms a new second feedback loop by cooperation of the loop connection section and the autonomous operation control section in response to an analytics result that is new as claimed in independent claims 1 and 31. Maturana does teach in paragraph 0070 a bi-direction data exchange with a cloud platform that may be a cyber analytics system (Par. 0067: “FIG. 8 is a diagram of a general architecture for a multi-tier cyber analytics system that executes on a cloud platform and interfaces hardware control systems…”). However, this does not exactly teach a new second feedback loop based on an analytics result that is new as claimed. Thus Maturana does not teach a loop cooperation control section that forms a new second feedback loop constructed by cooperation of the loop connection section and the autonomous operation control section, in response to the analytics result that is new. Also the data exchange (that may be considered a second feedback loop) may not be a public loop as defined in the instant application Par. 0091 that defines the second feedback loop as public: “…the second feedback loop (public loop)…”
Another reference of Ji, Kun (US PG Pub. No. 20150378339) teaches a cyber-physical system (Abstract) that creates a second feedback loop. Paragraph 0046: “FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram illustrating an approach for implementing resilient control for distributed CPS in accordance with exemplary embodiments of the present invention. As may be seen here, a resilient control feedback loop 32 may be used to maintain QoP during adverse conditions. This loop 32 exists in addition to the feedback loop 14 existing between the controller 13, or each controller 13-1, 13-2, . . . , 13-n and the cyber infrastructure. A resilient control agent (RCA) 31 may be used to establish and maintain this second feedback loop 32.” However this feedback loop is not used to control the autonomous operations, is not defined to be public, is not a cooperation between a loop connection section and a autonomous operation control section, and is not the result of an analytics result that is new.
No prior art could be found that teaches the elements of independent claims 1 and 31.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD G ERDMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0177. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7am - 3pm or 4pm 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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/CHAD G ERDMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116