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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1, 11-13 and 14 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, 11-13 and 14 recites the limitations “engineering services” is not clear to the examiner. Specification is silent regarding the terms. Dependent claims did not clarify the terms so dependent claims also rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SAROJINI et al. USPGPUB 20160380816 A1(hereinafter “SAROJINI”).
As to claim 1, SAROJINI teaches a method performed by a deploy service for coordinated deploy to runtime, RT, services in an automation system (paragraph 0050 and FIG. 2C and 4B), the method comprising: from each of a plurality of engineering services configured for preparing respective configuration collections for specific ones of the RT services, via a communication link or network between the deploy service and each of the engineering services, obtaining at least one configuration collection, each configuration collection being addressed to a specific one of the RT services (paragraph 0042-0052 and 0076, FIG. 2C, 4B(step S413) “plurality of configuration methods 225 to manage transactions when the configuration tool 220 configures at least one of the data server 210, the historian 204 and the acquisition engine 206. The data server 210 includes, not limited to, the data server configuration module 226. The historian 204 includes, not limited to, the historian configuration module 227. The acquisition engine 206 includes, not limited to, the acquisition engine configuration module 228”); forwarding each of the obtained configuration collections to the RT service to which it is addressed (paragraph 0053 and FIG. 4B step S414 “transmit the configuration files and configuration functions to the data server configuration module 226, the historian configuration module 227 and the acquisition engine configuration module 228. The configuration library 221use the plurality of services 212 to support the transmission from the configuration methods 225 to the data server configuration module 226”); for each of the configuration collections, in response to the forwarding thereof, receiving an acknowledgement from the RT service to which it was forwarded, indicating that the RT service is able to apply the configuration collection (paragraph 0054-0055 and FIG. 4B step S415 “data server configuration module 226, the historian configuration module 227 and the acquisition engine configuration module 228 validate the plurality of configuration files”); in response to receiving the acknowledgements for all of the configuration collections, instructing each of the RT services from which the acknowledgements were received to apply the configuration collections (paragraph 0056 and FIG. 4B S417 “configuration library 221 notifies the data server configuration module 226, the historian configuration module 227 and the acquisition engine configuration module 228 to continue with the configuration function when there is no validation error”).
As to claim 2, SAROJINI teaches wherein the forwarding is in response to input(paragraph 0061 “a request to configure the system 200 is initiated automatically or manually by a user”).
As to claim 3, SAROJINI teaches further comprising: storing the obtained configuration collections in a deploy store before the forwarding (paragraph 0084 “store the plurality of configuration files to the data server”).
As to claim 4, SAROJINI teaches wherein communication between the deploy service and each of the RT services is in accordance with Open Platform Communications, OPC, Unified Architecture, UA (paragraph 0060 “data access system 200 uses OPC UA standard. An OPC UA client 202”).
As to claim 6, SAROJINI teaches wherein the instructing is triggered by inpu
As to claim 7, SAROJINI teaches wherein at least one of the RT services is a controller comprised in a Distributed Control System, DCS (paragraph 0060 “An example of the data source 208 is a distributed control system (DCS). The data source 208 reads data from field devices 209 in an industrial plant”).
As to claim 9, SAROJINI teaches further comprising: using discovery to identify the engineering services; and from the identified engineering services, requesting the addressed configuration collections (paragraph 0050-0054 and FIG. 2A-4B).
As to claim 10, SAROJINI teaches wherein at least one of the RT services is a Human-Machine Interface, HMI, e.g. including services for Operator Graphics, Trend Displays, and/or Alarm & Event Lists (paragraph 0023-0028 and FIG. 2A-2C).
As to claim 11, is related to claim 1 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 12, is related to claim 1 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 13, is related to claim 1 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 14, SAROJINI teaches wherein the engineering services are comprised in an engineering platform accessible to a user via a web portal (paragraph 0092-0094).
As to claim 15, is related to claim 1 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 16, SAROJINI teaches further comprising: storing the obtained configuration collections in a deploy store before the forwarding (paragraph 0084 “store the plurality of configuration files to the data server”).
As to claim 17, SAROJINI teaches wherein communication between the deploy service and each of the RT services is in accordance with Open Platform Communications, OPC, Unified Architecture, UA (paragraph 0060 “data access system 200 uses OPC UA standard. An OPC UA client 202”).
As to claim 19, SAROJINI teaches wherein the instructing is triggered by input from a user, e.g. via a deploy user interface (paragraph 0061-0062).
As to claim 20, SAROJINI teaches wherein at least one of the RT services is a controller comprised in a Distributed Control System, DCS (paragraph 0060 “An example of the data source 208 is a distributed control system (DCS). The data source 208 reads data from field devices 209 in an industrial plant”).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 8-9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAROJINI et al. USPGPUB 20160380816 A1(hereinafter “SAROJINI”) in view of BUTLER et al. USPGPUB 2018/0276962 (hereinafter “BUTLER”).
As to claims 5 and 18, SAROJINI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
SAROJINI does not explicitly teach wherein communication between the deploy service and each of the engineering services is in accordance with Hypertext Transfer Protocol, HTTP, Representational State Transfer, REST.
However, BUTLER teaches wherein communication between the deploy service and each of the engineering services is in accordance with Hypertext Transfer Protocol, HTTP, Representational State Transfer, REST (paragraph 0031 “representational state transfer (REST) APIs” and paragraph 0400-0432 “stream is transcoded into HTTPS (also called HTTP over TLS, HTTP over SSL, and HTTP Secure) Live streaming (HLS); for Android it is converted to Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) and for web applications it is converted to SKIP. (HTTP is Hypertext Transfer Protocol)”).
SAROJINI and Spencer are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to engineering service system.
Therefore at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above engineering service system, as taught by SAROJINI, and incorporating fault condition, as taught by BUTLER.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve monitoring, controlling to give home owners and business owners peace of mind, as suggested by BUTLER (paragraph 0003).
As to claim 8, SAROJINI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
SAROJINI does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one of the RT services is a Modbus TCP/IP, MBTCP, module or a Profinet module.
However, BUTLER teaches wherein the at least one of the RT services is a Modbus TCP/IP, MBTCP, module or a Profinet module (paragraph 0410-0432 “top of the TCP/IP protocol”).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and listed on the attached PTO Form 892 but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIAUL KARIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571 272 4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119