DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed 11/28/2023.
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. 102(a)(1).
Claims 3-5 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation "the operating mode". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 recites “an operating mode”, but claim 3 depends from claim 1.
Claims 4-5 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 4 recites the limitation "the operating mode". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 recites “an operating mode”, but claim 4 depends from claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 4.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites “the multiple additional components”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously recites “the multiple components”, so it is unclear if the term “multiple additional components” are referring to this previous recitation or to a different element.
Claims 8-15 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 8 recites “an automation installation” in the preamble. It is unclear if this is a process, such as a process of installation, or a device. Since the body of the claim recites components of a device, it appears that it should be “an automation installation device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9-15 recite “the automation installation as claimed in claim 1”. It appears that these claims should depend from claim 8, which recites “an automation installation” in the preamble, while claim 1 recites “a method for checking”. Claims 9-15 recite further components in addition to the components in claim 8, such as the “detection means” in claim 9, the “at least one second or multiple components” in claim 13, and the “manufacturing installation” in claim 15, or features of the components, such as the features of the “checking server” in claims 10-12. These dependent claims therefore appear to further limit a device, not a method like in claim 1. Claim 15 is further rejected because it is unclear if “a manufacturing installation” refers to a process, such as a process of installation, or a device or a component of a device.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation "the detection means". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites “a detection means”, but claim 10 depends from claim 1.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites the limitation "the second or the multiple additional components". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 recites “least one second or multiple components”, but claim 14 depends from claim 1. Furthermore, there is no previous recitation of “multiple additional components” in the claims.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ZHU (US 2020/0356084 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.)
Regarding Claim 2, ZHU further teaches wherein checking the configuration data includes checking a current operating mode of the automation installation. (¶ 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.)
Regarding Claim 3, ZHU further teaches wherein the operating mode is a production mode and/or a maintenance mode and/or a test mode. (¶ 98-99: The operation mode is a production mode.)
Regarding Claim 4, ZHU 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. (¶ 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 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. (¶ 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 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. ¶ 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 further teaches wherein the automation installation, further comprises at least one second or multiple components; and the method further comprises checking configuration data of the second or the multiple components for admissibility using the at least one checking server; and using information in the check on the second or the multiple additional components of the automation installation when the configuration data of the at least one component are checked. (¶ 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 components is used to optimize reference ranges, so the information is used in the check of another component.)
Regarding Claim 8, ZHU discloses an automation installation, comprising: at least one component having a memory storing configuration data; (¶ 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.” ¶ 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.)
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 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.)
Regarding Claim 9, ZHU 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. (¶ 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 further teaches wherein the checking server checks a configuration of the at least one component by applying signals from the detection means. (¶ 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 further teaches wherein the checking server comprises a software module. (¶ 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 further teaches in which the checking server comprises a separate device. (¶ 84, Fig. 1: The manufacturing execution server is the checking server and is a device separate from the manufacturing equipment.)
Regarding Claim 13, ZHU further teaches further comprising at least one second or multiple components each having a memory containing configuration data; and wherein the at least one checking server checks the configuration data of the second or the multiple components. (¶ 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.)
Regarding Claim 14, ZHU further teaches wherein it is possible to use information when checking the second or the multiple additional components to perform the check on the configuration data of the at least one component. (¶ 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 further teaches further comprising a manufacturing installation. (¶ 83-84, 98-99, Fig. 1: The automation installation includes a manufacturing installation, including manufacturing equipment.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. They are listed in the same order as the PTO-892.
Reed teaches an automation control system where the control components compare a current configuration to be validated. (Abstract)
Wagener teaches configuration of field devices in an automation installation, where validation is not performed again on a server if it was already performed on a client, but any configuration data that was not validated is validated on the server. (Abstract, ¶ 27-28)
Gotou teaches a check terminal device, a check server device, and a data collection device for a maintenance worker in a manufacturing environment. (¶ 22, 47, 96, 121, Fig. 1)
Haase teaches an authentication test, including a cryptographic signature, in an automation technology installation. (Abstract)
Boswell teaches manufacturing sever that performs validation of machine operation in a CNC machining system. (Abstract, claim 15)
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