DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendment filed 05/07/2026.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Due to the amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections made in the previous office action have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art in view of the amendments to the claims have been fully considered but are respectfully moot in view of the new grounds for rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
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 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.
Claims 9-10 recite “a detection means”, so it is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The specification discloses the detection means as a “data acquisition interface”. The term “a detection means” is being interpreted as a data acquisition interface and its equivalents.
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 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the automation installation". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim due to the amendment to claim 8, which replaced “an automation installation” with “a system”. There is no previous recitation of “an automation installation” in claim 9, so the claim is indefinite as it is unclear to what element “the automation installation” refers. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 9.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHU (US 2020/0356084 A1) in view of CUI (US 2021/0117074 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, ZHU discloses a method for checking a configuration of at least one component of an automation installation, (Fig. 4, ¶ 84: A method for monitoring, or checking, a process parameter, or configuration, for at least one manufacturing equipment (¶ 98, Fig. 1 “EQP”) and checking, by a server, the parameter by verifying the parameter according to reference ranges, i.e. “checking… for admissibility”. A manufacturing equipment is a component of an “automation installation.”)
the method comprising: checking configuration data… of the at least one component for admissibility (¶ 84, 93-96, 99, 103, 114: The process parameters, or configuration data, are compared to reference ranges in a verification process.)
using a checking server different from the at least one component. (Fig. 1, ¶ 84, 103: The verification of the process parameter is done by “manufacturing execution server” (MES), which is different from the manufacturing equipment.)
While for the configuration data to be uploaded and checked in ZHU (¶ 106-108), there must be some type of memory storage used, ZHU does not explicitly teach accessing a configuration data memory of the at least one component and the checking for admissibility being of the configuration data stored in the configuration data memory
However, CUI, which teaches a trial mode for operating an industrial machine, teaches accessing a configuration data memory of the at least one component and that configuration data is stored in the configuration data memory (¶ 22, 28-32, Fig. 1 setting data storage section 130: A “setting data storage section”, which is a configuration data memory, stores setting data to be used in different modes of operating a control-target, which is an industrial machine or component. Trial mode settings may be stored in a volatile memory to be discarded while ordinary mode settings are synced in a nonvolatile memory to be used in applying a control command to the industrial machine.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the checking and verification of configuration data, such as process parameters, for manufacturing equipment of an industrial process taught by ZHU by storing and accessing the configuration data via a setting data storage section as taught by CUI. Since the references are similarly directed to methods for adjusting parameters of manufacturing equipment, the combination would have yielded predictable results and would have amounted to including a configuration setting data storage section specifically to store the configuration data of each machine component of the industrial process. CUI (¶ 54) further teaches an advantage of such a data storage section would be allowing the operator to issue control commands without necessarily overwriting setting data until the operator confirms the settings are as desired. Checking the stored settings for admissibility, i.e. the settings being within predetermined operating ranges, as taught by ZHU would have aided this goal.
Regarding Claim 2, ZHU in view of CUI further teaches wherein checking the configuration data includes checking a current operating mode of the automation installation. (ZHU, ¶ 98-99: Checking the configuration data includes checking the current operation mode, i.e. the type of product being manufactured and the type of parameter being monitored for admissibility, which reads on “mode”.)
CUI, ¶ 25, 29, 54: A “trial mode” and an “ordinary mode” is taught. In combination with ZHU, it would have been further obvious for the check of the admissibility of the configuration data to include which mode the automation installation is operating in.)
Regarding Claim 3, ZHU in view of CUI further teaches wherein the operating mode is a production mode and/or a maintenance mode and/or a test mode. (ZHU, ¶ 98-99: The operation mode is a production mode.)
Regarding Claim 4, ZHU in view of CUI further teaches wherein the operating mode indicates an automated process of the automation installation from a set of a first production process or a second production process different from the first. (ZHU, ¶ 98-99: The operating mode indicates the type of product being processed, including at least two different products, “A” and “B”. The automated process is the manufacturing process, which includes automatically collecting and verifying manufacturing process parameters.)
Regarding Claim 5, ZHU in view of CUI further teaches wherein at least the first and the second production process differ from one another in terms of a product of the first and second production processes. (ZHU, ¶ 98-99: The first and second production process differ in terms of the product of the processes, i.e. a product of type “A” and a product of type “B”.)
Regarding Claim 6, ZHU in view of CUI further teaches wherein checking on the configuration depends on at least one of: an IT infrastructure of the automation installation, information about the at least one component of the automation installation, a result of a plausibility check on the configuration data of the at least one component, a whitelist for admissible configuration data of the at least one component, a blacklist for inadmissible configuration data of the at least one component, and/or at least one cryptographic signature. (The claim only requires one of the options. ZHU, ¶ 98-99, 103, 108: Information about the at least one component of the automation installation, i.e. the manufacturing equipment, includes an identification of the equipment. A whitelist of admissible configuration data includes the reference range of values for each type of process parameter. Checking on the configuration includes verifying the process parameter of the identified equipment with respect to the reference parameter ranges.)
Regarding Claim 7, ZHU in view of CUI further teaches wherein the automation installation, further comprises additional components; and the method further comprises checking configuration data of the additional components for admissibility using the at least one checking server; and using information in the check on the additional components of the automation installation when the configuration data of the at least one component are checked. (ZHU, ¶ 98-99, 103, Fig. 1: The automation installation includes at least two components, “EQP1” and “EQP2”. The configuration data of all components are checked for admissibility according to reference ranges by the manufacturing execution server. ¶ 176, 195: The information in the check on the multiple (i.e. additional) components is used to optimize reference ranges, so the information is used in the check of another component.
Also see the data storage section 130 (Fig. 1, ¶ 28-32) of CUI. It would have been obvious for each of the industrial machines, i.e. the multiple components of a manufacturing process, to have a data storage section.)
Regarding Claim 8, ZHU discloses a system comprising: (¶ 84: A method and system for monitoring, or checking, a process parameter, or configuration, for at least one manufacturing equipment (¶ 98, Fig. 1 “EQP”) and checking, by a server, the parameter by verifying the parameter according to reference ranges, i.e. “checking… for admissibility”. A manufacturing equipment is a component of an “automation installation.”)
and a checking server different from the at least one component; (Fig. 1, ¶ 84, 103: The verification of the process parameter is done by “manufacturing execution server” (MES), which is different from the manufacturing equipment and the associated block controller or equipment interface server.)
wherein the checking server… to checks the configuration data of the at least one component for admissibility. (¶ 84, 93-96, 99, 103, 114: The process parameters, or configuration data, are compared to reference ranges in a verification process.)
While for the configuration data to be uploaded and checked in ZHU (¶ 106-108), there must be some type of memory storage used, ZHU does not explicitly teach at least one component having a configuration data memory storing configuration data and accesses the configuration data memory.
However, CUI, which teaches a trial mode for operating an industrial machine, teaches at least one component having a configuration data memory storing configuration data and accesses the configuration data memory (¶ 22, 28-32, Fig. 1 setting data storage section 130: A “setting data storage section”, which is a configuration data memory, stores setting data to be used in different modes of operating a control-target, which is an industrial machine or component. Trial mode settings may be stored in a volatile memory to be discarded while ordinary mode settings are synced in a nonvolatile memory to be used in applying a control command to the industrial machine.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the checking and verification of configuration data, such as process parameters, for manufacturing equipment of an industrial process taught by ZHU by storing and accessing the configuration data via a setting data storage section as taught by CUI. Since the references are similarly directed to methods for adjusting parameters of manufacturing equipment, the combination would have yielded predictable results and would have amounted to including a configuration setting data storage section specifically to store the configuration data of each machine component of the industrial process. CUI (¶ 54) further teaches an advantage of such a data storage section would be allowing the operator to issue control commands without necessarily overwriting setting data until the operator confirms the settings are as desired. Checking the stored settings for admissibility, i.e. the settings being within predetermined operating ranges, as taught by ZHU would have aided this goal.
Regarding Claim 9, ZHU in view of CUI further teaches further comprising detection means to detect at least one operating mode of the automation installation; wherein the detection means are signal-connected to the checking server. (ZHU, ¶ 84, 126-130: The operating mode includes the product type being produced and the identification of the equipment producing the product. The block controller collects and uploads the configuration data, including the operating mode, to the checking server. This is a data acquisition interface, which is equivalent to the claimed detection means. The block controller and equipment interface server are signal-connected to the checking server (MES) and shown in Fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 10, ZHU in view of CUI further teaches wherein the checking server checks a configuration of the at least one component by applying signals from the detection means. (ZHU, ¶ 108-115: Signals from the detection means (i.e. the block controller and equipment interface server) are converted and provided to the checking server, which then verifies the configuration of the equipment.)
Regarding Claim 11, ZHU in view of CUI further teaches wherein the checking server comprises a software module. (ZHU, ¶ 179: The “determination circuit” of the manufacturing execution server that verifies the process parameters of the manufacturing equipment is a software module.)
Regarding Claim 12, ZHU in view of CUI further teaches in which the checking server comprises a separate device. (ZHU, ¶ 84, Fig. 1: The manufacturing execution server is the checking server and is a device separate from the manufacturing equipment.)
Regarding Claim 13, ZHU in view of CUI further teaches further comprising additional components each having a memory containing configuration data; and wherein the at least one checking server checks the configuration data of the additional components. (ZHU, ¶ 98-99, 103, Fig. 1: The automation installation includes at least two components, “EQP1” and “EQP2”. The configuration data of all components are checked for admissibility according to reference ranges by the manufacturing execution server. ¶ 106-108: The configuration data, including identification, product type, and process parameter type is uploaded by the equipment to a block controller, which provides it to the checking server. For the data to be uploaded, there must be some type of processor and memory running on the equipment. Also see the data storage section 130 (Fig. 1, ¶ 28-32) of CUI. It would have been obvious for each of the industrial machines, i.e. the multiple components of a manufacturing process, to have a data storage section.)
Regarding Claim 14, ZHU in view of CUI further teaches wherein it is possible to use information when checking the additional components to perform the check on the configuration data of the at least one component. (ZHU, ¶ 176, 195: The information in the check on the multiple components is used to optimize reference ranges, so the information is used in the check of another component.)
Regarding Claim 15, ZHU in view of CUI further teaches further comprising a manufacturing installation. (ZHU, ¶ 83-84, 98-99, Fig. 1: The automation installation includes a manufacturing installation, including manufacturing equipment.)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI RAFAT OKASHA whose telephone number is (571)272-0675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 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, 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.
/RAMI R OKASHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights