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 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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) is/are: “template module” “deployment manager module” and “deployment verification module” in claim 14 and “processing unit” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“template module” – para. 0060, 0064
“deployment manager module” – para. 0031, 0056
“deployment verification module” – para. 0031, 0052
“processing unit” – para. 0011, 0033, Fig. 1 134, 144, and 154
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) 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 § 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 12-13 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 claims are directed towards “software artifact” which appears to be software per se.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nixon et al. US 2020/0387144 A1.
Nixon teaches:
1. A method of managing virtual control units in an industrial automation facility, wherein the industrial automation facility comprises a plurality of machines, each machine of the plurality of machines being configured to perform one or more steps of at least one industrial process, the method comprising:
generating one or more templates comprising one or more deployment criteria for the virtual control units, each of the virtual control units being capable of controlling at least one machine of the plurality of machines; [para. 0114, “In an embodiment, during the configuration and/or commissioning of the virtual environment 12 and components thereof, the VMN 300 accesses the system configuration database of the plant (e.g., the VMN 300 accesses the configuration database(s) 172b of the plant 100 via the data highway 108), and based on the obtained configuration, the VMN 300 determines the types and numbers of virtual nodes, virtual templates and/or subsystems, I/O switches, and/or other virtual components that would best support (or, that are desired to support) the plant configuration.”]
mapping the virtual control units to one or more compute nodes based on the one or more deployment criteria, wherein the virtual control units are instantiated on the mapped compute nodes when the controlled machines are in operation; [para. 0108, virtual controllers mapped to physical nodes] and
validating that the instantiation of the virtual control units is in accordance with the one or more templates using an attestation, wherein the attestation confirms one or more determined deployment parameters after deployment of the virtual control units, [para. 0013, “The MPDSC platform may additionally or alternatively support a simulation environment or space which may be utilized for control and/or safety system and/or component testing, validation, verification, and/or check out, operator training, case studies, on-going process improvements, etc.” (emphasis added.)]
wherein the plurality of machines are configured to perform the at least one industrial process, according to control commands received from at least one of the virtual control units, when the virtual control units are validly instantiated. [paras. 0108-0109]
Nixon teaches:
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: balancing load on the mapped compute nodes based on the one or more deployment criteria provided by the template. [para. 0116, “For instance, the VMN 300 may perform auto-leveling at a process data level in response to the amount of virtual network traffic on the virtual communication network 45, and/or the VMN 300 may perform auto-leveling at a physical computing device level so that CPU and/or physical network utilization is balanced across the physical computing devices, physical data links, and/or physical networks on which the virtual environment 12 is implemented.]
Nixon teaches:
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining from the one or more deployment criteria whether the virtual control units are to be instantiated on local compute nodes in a local network within the industrial automation facility, external compute nodes in an external network mapping the virtual control units to the local compute nodes, external compute nodes based on the determination, or any combination thereof. [para. 0092-0093; external engines mapped]
Nixon teaches:
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating an integrated deployment template for the industrial process, the generating of the integrated deployment template for the industrial process comprising merging the templates of two or more of the virtual control units, wherein the integrated deployment template specifies a global deployment criterion for the virtual control units on a common compute infrastructure, and wherein the common compute infrastructure comprises at least one of the local compute nodes and the external compute nodes. [para. 0121; integrates simulators on one node based on group of other “devices, components, or nodes.”]
Nixon teaches:
6. The method of claim 5, wherein generating an integrated deployment template for the industrial process comprises:
simulating the templates of the virtual control units, the simulating of the templates of the virtual control units comprising testing the deployment criteria of each of the templates; [para. 0127; simulation for testing purposes]
determining the global deployment criteria using the simulation results; and merging the templates according to the global deployment criteria, wherein the global deployment criteria ensures fulfillment of the deployment criteria in each of the templates. [para. 0121; simulated nodes]
Nixon teaches:
7. The method of claim 1, wherein validating that the instantiation of the virtual control units is in accordance with the one or more templates comprises:
determining data flows between the virtual control units by a network monitoring module; [para. 0097, I/O Switch 25 monitors data flows] and
detecting at least one deviation in the data flows in comparison with template data flows provided in at least one of the templates and the integrated deployment template. [para. 0116, “As an example, the VMN 300 may analyze performance bottlenecks and perform auto-leveling operations to mitigate any detected bottlenecks.”]
Nixon teaches:
9. The method of claim 1, wherein validating that the instantiation of the virtual control units is in accordance with the one or more templates comprises: determining that a machine of the plurality of machines is not permitted to operate when a virtual control unit controlling the machine is not instantiated in accordance with the template. [para. 0013]
Nixon teaches:
10. The method of claim 1, wherein validating that the instantiation of the virtual control units is in accordance with the one or more templates comprises: generating a production planning schedule for the plurality of machines based on the attestation of the instantiation of the virtual control units. [para. 0092; “production scheduling system”]
Regarding CRM claim 11, system claim 14 and machine claim 15, these claims recite “modules” for executing and storing the method steps recited above in claim 1 and are rejected on the same grounds and rationale as claim 1 above. Machine claim 15 further recites a processing unit for generating the control signals as taught in the Nixon reference, para. 0144.
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.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nixon et al. US 2020/0387144 A1 in view of Amaro, JR. et al. US 2022/0404790 A1.
Nixon does not teach the following limitations, however, Amaro, JR teaches:
4. The method of claim 2, further comprising: balancing the load on the mapped compute nodes based on prioritization criteria provided in the template, wherein the load is adjusted between the local compute nodes and the external compute nodes based on the prioritization criteria. [para. 0157-0158; “priority containers”]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the teachings of Amaro, JR with those of Nixon. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because Amaro, JR teaches that quality of service can be maintained for specific loads based on priority and using a load balancing service 258 to free up resources to guarantee performance needs. (See para. 0158).
Amaro, JR teaches:
8. The method of claim 7, further comprising: generating an emergency halt signal to stop the plurality of machines from performing the industrial process in the industrial automation facility when the deviation is detected. [para. 0242, controller service stops execution to wait before beginning next stage so as to “lockstep” when safety is concerned]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 1-930PM 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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/GARY COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights