DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed October 16, 2023 via preliminary amendment. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, of which claims 1-17 are currently amended. Claims 18-20 are newly presented.
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.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Independent claim 16 recites a “computer program”, which is not comprehensively defined by the specification. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a system covers software per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of system, particularly when the specification is silent. Software per se is not a “process,” a “machine,” a “manufacture,” or a “composition of matter” as defined in 35 U.S.C. § 101. Examiner suggests adding a recitation of a host “processor.” The currently claimed processor is not an explicitly claimed piece of hardware, but instead is an optional environment upon which the computer program can be deployed.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, based upon consideration of all the relevant factors, because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Applicant does not include any language in the specification providing any further guidance or definition to the term “computer program product.” Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim 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. See Ex parte Mewherter, BPAI Appeal No. 2012-7692 (May 8, 2013). Since signals per se do not fall under any of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), they are ineligible for patenting. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Claim 17 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for covering non- statutory embodiments. See MPEP § 2106.03 (“A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Such claims … should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, for at least this reason.”).
Examiner recommends amending claim 17 by adding the words “non-transitory” in front of “computer program product” in order to overcome this ground of rejection.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references 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 their 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagata et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0338797; hereinafter, “Nagata”).
As per claim 1, Nagata further teaches a user terminal for a process control system (See Nagata Fig. 1, the user terminal comprising a processor configured to:
obtain a first curve of a detected physical quantity of a piece of process control equipment in the process control system, said first curve having points with values of the physical quantity at various time instances (See Nagata Figs. 1, 3, and paras. [0025], [0040], and [0060]: waveform charts, including specific hardware components, displayed on UI),
provide at least one of the points in a section of the first curve as a manipulable point that a user can change (See Nagata Fig. 7 and paras. [0040], [0053], and [0060]: editing of time charts, including the points on the screen),
receive from the user a change of at least one of the manipulable points in said section, thereby changing the section of the first curve, and apply the changed section of the first curve as an input to an operation in the process control system (See Nagata Fig. 7 and paras. [0040], [0053-54], and [0060]: manipulated/edited time chart is carried out, as well as the subsequent processing).
As per claim 2, Nagata further teaches the user terminal according to claim 1, wherein the physical quantity value of the manipulable point is manipulable (See Nagata Fig. 7 and paras. [0040] and [0053]: editing of time charts, including the points on the screen).
As per claim 14, the claim is directed to a process control system that implements the same features as the user terminal for a process control system of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
As per claim 15, the claim is directed to a method that implements the same features as the user terminal for a process control system of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
As per claim 16, the claim is directed to a process control system that implements the same features as the user terminal for a process control system of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
As per claim 17, the claim is directed to a computer program product that implements the same features as the user terminal of claims 1 and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
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.
Claim(s) 3-6 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata as applied above, and further in view of Nagatani et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0231733).
As per claim 3, Nagata further teaches the user terminal according to claim 1. However, while Nagata updates time charts, the time points themselves are not explicitly manipulable.
Nagatani teaches wherein the time instance of the manipulable point is manipulable (See Nagatani Fig. 11 and paras. [0050] and [0089]: changing input coordinates, including the updating the start timing of the operation commands, as well as other timing options that would apply to the time charts of Nagata).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the time charts of Nagata with the time instances of Nagatani. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose modifying process control variables and operations, and Nagatani enhances the user experience of Nagata by expanding upon the available options to interact with in the UI, while also minimizing rework after editing of the data, and no longer imposing a heavy load on the user (See Nagatani para. [0004]).
As per claim 4, Nagata teaches the user terminal according to claim 1.
However, while Nagata discloses editing of time chart points, Nagata does not explicitly teach inserting new points and/or deleting points from the curve.
Nagatani teaches the processor being further configured to receive a new point in the section of the curve from the user and/or a user deletion of a manipulable point from the section of the curve (See Nagatani paras. [0068-69]: inserting a section, which would be inserted into the curve of Nagata).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Nagata with the teachings of Nagatani for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 3
As per claim 5, Nagata further teaches the user terminal according to claim 1. However, while Nagata teaches the manipulable points and the curve segments, Nagata does not explicitly teach the end points associated with the segments.
Nagatani teaches wherein the manipulable points define end points of curve segments, and the received change of at least one manipulable point leads to a change of at least one curve segment (See Nagatani Figs. 6 and 7 and paras. [0040-42]: coordinates associated each with the first arrangement position and the second arrangement positions, indicating the start timing and the termination timing. These coordinates would apply to the curves of Nagata).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Nagata with the teachings of Nagatani for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 3.
As per claim 6, Nagata teaches the user terminal according to claim 1. However, while Nagata teaches selecting points to be edited, Nagata does not explicitly teach selecting sections to be changed.
Nagatani teaches the processor being further configured to receive a selection from the user of the section of the first curve for enabling changing of the section of the first curve (See Nagatani Fig. 7 and para. [0040]: selecting range of coordinates that would apply to the curves of Nagata).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Nagata with the teachings of Nagatani for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 3.
As per claims 18-20, the claims are directed to a computer program product that implements the same features as the user terminal of claims 3-5, respectively, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Claims 8, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata/Nagatani as applied above, and further in view of Weng et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0132037; hereinafter “Weng”).
As per claim 8, Nagata/Nagatani teaches the user terminal according to claim 6. Howerver, while Nagata/Nagatani discloses storing information related to the curve section in a database (See Nagata para. [0027] and [0045-46]; see also Nagatani paras. [0035-37]), Nagata/Nagatani does not explicitly teach the searching of the curve sections of Nagata.
Weng teaches wherein the application comprises searching for the curve section in a database of the process control system including values of the physical quantity (See Weng Fig. 5 and paras. [0068-73]: definition module part of the database 430 that can be used for physical parts associated with specific tasks).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the curve sections and elements of Nagata/Nagatani with the database and modules of Weng. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose storing process control operations, and Weng enhances the user experience of Nagata/Nagatani by “improv[ing] the efficiency to prepare, modify and maintain a process control system and its documentation by reduction of the man-effort, time and cost involved” as well as “enable[ing] continuous maintenance and operational improvements efficiently” (See Weng para. [0015]).
As per claim 10, Nagata/Nagatani/Weng teaches the user terminal according to claim 8. However, Nagata/Nagatani does not teach the searching of equipment in their databases.
Weng teaches wherein the searching is made for the curve section in data of the same or a similar quantity of the same piece of equipment in the process control system (See Weng paras. [0072], [0125], and [0139]: similar parts for machine/equipment can be found in the definition module).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Nagata/Nagatani with the teachings of Weng for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 8.
As per claim 11, Nagata/Nagatani/Weng teaches the user terminal according to claim 8. However, Nagata/Nagatani does not teach the searching of equipment in their databases.
Weng teaches wherein the searching is made for the changed curve section in data of the same or a similar quantity for another piece of equipment in the process control system (See Weng paras. [0072], [0125], and [0139]: similar parts for machine/equipment can be found in the definition module. Therefore, similar parts can be used in different industrial plants as well).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Nagata/Nagatani with the teachings of Weng for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 8.
Claims 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata as applied above, and further in view of Harvey et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0382445; hereinafter “Harvey”).
As per claim 12, Nagata teaches the user terminal according to claim 1. However, Nagata does not teach any simulation of the process.
Harvey teaches wherein the applying comprises applying the curve section as a curve section of the physical quantity in a simulation of the process (See Harvey para. [0074]: simulated control sequence including simulating control of equipment).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the physical elements and curves of Nagata with the simulation of Harvey. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose process control operations, and Harvey enhances the user experience of Nagata by allowing optimal states to be reached and used in future comparisons, to efficiently reach the goal of the systems of Nagata (See Harvey paras. [0050] and [0079-80]).
As per claim 13, Nagata teaches the user terminal according to claim 1. However, Nagata does not teach training a model.
Harvey teaches wherein the applying comprises using the changed curve section in the training of a model used in the process control system (See Harvey paras. [0048-50] and [0079-80]: training model data can be employed).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Nagata with the teachings of Harvey for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Specifically, the claims recite language regarding the sectioning/segmenting of the curves. This language is not taught by the prior art of record and would be allowable if rewritten into the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and 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 Nicholas Klicos whose telephone number is (571)270-5889. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/NICHOLAS KLICOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118