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 .
This office action is a response to an application filed 11/27/2023, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the references listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 11/27/2023, 03/08/2024, and 07/30/2024.
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.
Claims 9-10 and 18 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.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the claims respectively recite the limitation “… generates the program that can be executed by a control apparatus that controls the apparatus” (or a variation thereof.) It is not clear what “apparatus” is being referenced. For example, with regards to claim 9, it depends on claim 1, which includes an “information processing apparatus” and “an apparatus having a flow channel structure,” and claim 9 includes a “control apparatus.” Therefore, it is not clear which of these, or even if some other “apparatus” is the apparatus being referenced. Similarly, Claim 18 depends on claim 11 that includes and “an apparatus having a flow channel structure,” and claim 18 itself includes “a control apparatus.” Thus, it is not clear if the control apparatus in claim 18 controls itself, the apparatus having “the apparatus a flow channel structure,” or some other “apparatus.” For the purpose of examination, the limitation is being broadly interpreted to refer to any apparatus.
Examiner Notes
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 9-11, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Application Publication No. JP2011198237A to Naomi et al., (hereinafter Naomi. English translation of JP2011198237A is included and cited in this office action), in view of Japanese Application Publication No. JPH0643913A to Tanaka et al., (hereinafter Tanaka. English translation of JPH0643913A is included and cited in this office action).
Regarding claim 1, Naomi teaches an information processing apparatus comprising a processing unit that generates a program (Program creation, see p8-p9, p22, Naomi) to cause an apparatus having a flow channel structure including a plurality of flow channels to perform a plurality of processes (Program for plant control that controls, for example, controllers, motors, ands valves of a plant for sequence and process flows, see p22, p33, p41, p43-44, p48, p8-p9, 23, 34, Naomi), wherein the processing unit: generates a plurality of pieces of flow channel setting information based on device information that represents the flow channel structure and the flow channels used in the flow channel structure in the plurality of processes (Creation system generates information including template, setting, definitions generation, ladder program settings, etc., in regards to process sequence flows and based on system diagram, see p43-46, p48-52, p54, p55-58,p62, p22, p33, p41, p43-44, p48, p8-p9, 23, 34, Naomi);
and generates the program based on information (A program for device control is created/generated based on process information obtained and generated, see p8-p9, p22, p43-46, p48-52, p54, p55-58, p62, p22, p33, p41, p43-44, p48, p8-p9, 23, 34, Naomi).
Naomi does not explicitly teach generates interlock control information for interlock control for a predetermined flow channel based on a plurality of pieces of flow channel setting information;
and a program to which the interlock control is added based on the interlock control information.
However, Tanaka from the same or similar field of sequence control and programs, teaches generates interlock control information for interlock control for a predetermined flow channel based on a plurality of pieces of flow channel setting information (System generates at least interlock control comparison information based on predetermined diagram representative of flow information based on pieces of flows with interlock settings for comparison, see p2-p3, p7-8, p12, p15, p23, Tanaka); and a program to which the interlock control is added based on the interlock control information (The system add interlock to a program based on determined interlock information, see P7-8, p2-p3, p12, p15, p23, Tanaka).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the program analysis and creation as described by Naomi and incorporating consideration of interlock analysis and addition, as taught by Tanaka.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better consider and analyze the effect of an essential control mechanism pertinent in sequence based control and processes that provides constraints for preventing operations that may detrimental to the functioning of a system, and to better enhance and simplify, by automating adding correction of said constraint mechanism into programing of the sequence control, as needed (see P3-6, p1 Tanaka).
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Naomi and Tanaka teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Tanaka further teaches wherein a device information includes switching attribute information that indicates whether or not a device in a flow channel structure has a switching attribute that switches the flow channel (System obtains information regarding whether contact coils and relays are present (i.e. switching attribute), where relays and contacts are devices that switch between states and affect the flow of input and output through them, see p16-17, P2, p15-22, P7-8, p2-p3, p12, p15, p23, Tanaka), and wherein the processing unit: generates a plurality of pieces of flow channel setting information including the switching attribute information (System generates information on settings analysis comparison of the switching devices, see p17-20, P2, p15-22, P7-8, p2-p3, p12, p15, p23, Tanaka); and generates an interlock control information based on the plurality of pieces of flow channel setting information including the switching attribute information (System generates interlock information to add based on analysis settings analysis information of the switching devices, see p20, p17-20, P2, p15-22, P7-8, p2-p3, p12, p15, p23, Tanaka; note: Matheny (cited further below) also teaches settings with respect to components such as valves and producing interlock data based on said settings, see at least p57, 170-182, 182, 185, 186, matheny).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the program analysis and creation as described by the combination that includes Naomi and incorporating consideration of switching attributes and information, as taught by Tanaka.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better consider and analyze the presence of process affecting devices that may be present and other processes, and adding interlock that provides constraints for preventing operations that may detrimental to the functioning of a system based on the presence of the devices, and to better enhance and simplify, by automating adding correction of said constraint mechanism into programing of the sequence control, as needed (see P3-6, p1 Tanaka).
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Naomi and Tanaka teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Naomi further teaches wherein a processing unit generates a program that can be executed by a control apparatus that controls the apparatus (A created program can be used/executed by a control apparatus, such as a programmable logic controller, for control of a controlled equipment apparatus, see P1-2, p22-23, 29, 30, Naomi).
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Naomi and Tanaka teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Naomi further teaches wherein the control apparatus is a programmable logic controller, and wherein the program is a ladder program that can be executed by the programmable logic controller (A programmable logic controller, where ladder programming is used, see P1-2, p22-23, 29, 30, Naomi).
Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 9.
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6 8, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naomi, in view of Tanaka, and in further view of US Patent Publication No. 2015/0153725 to Matheny et al., (hereinafter Matheny).
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Naomi and Tanaka teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Naomi does not explicitly teach wherein a predetermined flow channel is an overlapping flow channel in which at least two flow channels overlap.
However, Matheny, from the same or similar field of sequential path control processes, teaches wherein a predetermined flow channel is an overlapping flow channel in which at least two flow channels overlap (Processes are performed based on a pre-determined flow path routes (i.e. channel, and termed equipment modules (Ems) by Matheny) of a series of component devices/modules (termed component modules (CMs) by Maheny). Two path EMs can overlap, for example by use of certain CMs, see p185-187, P103-104, 183-187, Abs., p16, p5-6, 179-182, Matheny).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the program analysis and creation as described by the combination that includes Naomi and incorporating consideration of overlapping channels, as taught by Matheny.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more effectively use a same device or more for two separate processes when scheduled at different times (see p179-187, P103-104, Abs., p16, p5-6, Matheny).
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Naomi, Tanaka, and Matheny teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Matheny further teaches wherein a processing unit generates interlock control information when fluids that differ from each other flow in an overlapping flow channel (System automatically populates/generates interlock information when different flows overlap through routes, and also generates interlock information in the form of information of alternate routes in an overlap scenario, see p182-187, P103-104, 183-187, Abs., p16, p5-6, 179-182, Matheny).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the program analysis and creation as described by the combination that includes Naomi and incorporating interlock information in an overlap, as taught by Matheny.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more effectively control a process by identifying and mitigating potential conflicts between process flows that may employ a common equipment device path (see p179-187, P103-104, Abs., p16, p5-6, Matheny).
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Naomi and Tanaka teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Naomi does not explicitly teach teaches wherein a processing unit generates, for a plurality of devices having switching attributes, interlock control information including information indicating relationship between one device that operates when the interlock control is activated and another device that is controlled exclusively with the one device.
However, Matheny, from the same or similar field of sequential path control processes, wherein a processing unit generates, for a plurality of devices having switching attributes, interlock control information including information indicating relationship between one device that operates when the interlock control is activated and another device that is controlled exclusively with the one device (Interlock information that provides a relationship of when a device is exclusive controlled by a specific one control device (e.g. one PLC) such that another EM CM lc cannot, see p112, 182-186, 182, Maheny).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the program analysis and creation as described by the combination that includes Naomi and incorporating interlock relationship information, as taught by Matheny.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better provide information status on when a device is being used by another in order to better prevent use by two controlling devoices that may produce adverse effects, thus forming an exclusive use so as to find alternatives for other processes in resolving a conflict, (see p112, p179-187, P103-104, Abs., p16, p5-6, Matheny).
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Naomi and Tanaka teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Naomi does not explicitly teach comprising a display unit and an input unit, wherein a processing unit displays interlock control information on the display unit and receives input from the input unit to enable or disable the interlock control.
However, Matheny, from the same or similar field of sequential path control processes, teaches comprising a display unit and an input unit (System can display and receive input, such as from an operator, see 172, 167-68, 12, 132, Maheny), wherein a processing unit displays interlock control information on the display unit and receives input from the input unit to enable or disable the interlock control (System determines and provides interlock information, such as conflict resolution information of a case that a component being requested by two processes where only one can use it (thus an interlock situation), and the system can receive input to enable or disable the interlock control of resolving an interlock situation, and user can also be presented with interlock table information and input selected interlocks that enable or disable selected interlocks, see P180 183-184 185,172, 167-68, 12, 132, Maheny)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the program analysis and creation as described by the combination that includes Naomi and incorporating display and input with regards to interlock information, as taught by Matheny.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better provide information to a user that can then accept or implement desired interlock control asects to the system as desired to give user a level of control (see P180 183-184 185,172, 167-68, 12, 132, Matheny).
Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naomi, in view of Tanaka, in further view of Matheny, and in further view of US Patent No. 5,128,857 to Okada et al., (hereinafter Okada).
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Naomi, Tanaka, and Matheny teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Tanaka further teaches wherein a processing unit adds interlock control to a program based on a flag indicating whether or not an interlock control is performed for a predetermined process in a plurality of processes when fluids that differ from each other flow in an overlapping flow channel (System adds interlock control information based on flagging if two path EMs overlap overlapping, such as by use of certain CMs, is already in predetermined process, see p182, p185-187, P103-104, 183-187, Abs., p16, p5-6, 179-182, Matheny. Note that Tanaka also teaches adding interlock based on determining if an interlock exit by a flagged interlock rule p12-20).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the program analysis and creation as described by the combination that includes Naomi and incorporating adding interlock control based on flagged information, as taught by Matheny.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to effectively determine whether a specified condition exists for adding interlock information (see p182, p179-187, P103-104, Abs., p16, p5-6, Matheny).
While an implied flag is taught by the combination, an explicit flag is not mentioned.
However, Okada, from the same or similar field of sequential control, more explicitly teaches a flag (Interlock is implemented based on a flag condition, C16 L1-26, Okada).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the program analysis and creation as described by the combination that includes Naomi and incorporating explicit use of a flag, as taught by Okada.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to more effectively keep track of a desired status condition, and that can be used for deciding an action (see C16 L1-26, Okada).
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Naomi, Tanaka, Mathrny, and Okada teaches all the limitations of the base claim as outlined above, and are analyzed as previously discussed with regard to that claim.
Matheny further teaches wherein a predetermined process is a cleaning process of a pipe (An intended use process can be a cleaning operation, see p98, Matheny).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the program analysis and creation as described by the combination that includes Naomi and incorporating an intended use cleaning process, as taught by Matheny.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to use a desired process that uses sequential control for a desired intended purpose (see p98, p182, p179-187, P103-104, Abs., p16, p5-6, Matheny).
Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Clark et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2022/0128969 teaches a modeling process that can detect abnormal conditions such as interlocking.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (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, Robert E Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights