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 9-20 are pending in the application.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular passages including column and line numbers, paragraphs as designated numerically and/or figures as designated numerically 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 claims, other passages, paragraphs and figures of any and all cited prior art references may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing an eventual response, to fully consider the context of the passages, paragraphs and figures as taught by the prior art and/or cited by the examiner while including in such consideration the cited prior art references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. MPEP 2141.02 VI: “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS."
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 07/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Analogous Art:
Applicant argues that Knowles is non-analogous art because it relates to multi-threaded processors rather than industrial control systems. However, the determination of whether a reference is analogous art is not limited to the same field of endeavor. Rather, under In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) a reference is analogous if it is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned.
The presently claimed invention addresses the underlying computational problem of efficiently determining an overall status from numerous individual status values so that an operator need not individually evaluate the status of each diagram element. Although Knowles is directed to multi-threaded processor architectures, it addresses this same underlying computational problem by teaching the aggregation of multiple individual logical status values into a single Boolean value representing the overall state. Specifically, Knowles teaches combining multiple individual exit states using a Boolean AND operation to generate a single aggregate state indicating whether all individual states satisfy a predetermined condition.
A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), seeking an efficient mechanism for summarizing numerous individual loading statuses into a single overall status indicator within the visualization system of OCHS, would reasonably have considered the aggregation technique taught by Knowles because it addresses the same underlying problem of reducing numerous individual status evaluations into a single overall status. Accordingly, Knowles is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the claimed invention and therefore constitutes analogous art.
Regarding the Combined Teachings of OCHS and Knowles:
Applicant further argues that Knowles fails to teach a transmission status or visual display of an aggregated transmission status. These arguments are not persuasive because they improperly attack Knowles individually rather than considering the combined teachings of the references. It is well established that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is based upon the combined teachings of the applied references, and one cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking the references individually where the rejection is predicated upon their combination. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
The rejection does not rely upon Knowles for teaching the transmission of diagram elements, operator interfaces, or visual display. Rather, OCHS teaches these limitations. As set forth in the rejection, OCHS teaches transmitting model data representing diagram elements from the operator station server to the operator station client and graphically indicating whether the loading process for individual diagram elements has been completed by visually modifying components, such as causing a component to flash while subordinate components are still loading. Thus, OCHS teaches monitoring and displaying the loading status of individual diagram elements, wherein each loading status is readily represented as a logical Boolean value (e.g., complete/incomplete or loaded/not loaded).
Knowles is relied upon only for its teaching of aggregating multiple individual Boolean status values into a single overall Boolean value. Knowles teaches combining multiple individual status values using a Boolean AND operation to determine whether all individual states have successfully reached a desired condition without requiring examination of each individual state separately.
Although the individual statuses being aggregated differ (execution status in Knowles versus loading/transmission status in OCHS), Knowles is relied upon only for its teaching of the Boolean aggregation technique itself. The obviousness rejection does not require the underlying statuses in both references to represent the same physical phenomenon. Rather, Knowles demonstrates a well-known technique for combining multiple Boolean status values into a single overall Boolean value, and that aggregation technique would have been readily applicable to the individual loading statuses taught by OCHS.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to apply the Boolean aggregation technique disclosed by Knowles to the individual loading statuses of the diagram elements in OCHS in order to generate a single accumulated transmission status indicating whether all diagram elements had completed transmission from the server to the operator station client. Applying this known aggregation technique to OCHS merely substitutes one known technique for another to obtain the predictable result of providing a single overall transmission status, thereby allowing the operator to determine the loading condition of the diagram at a glance without manually evaluating the loading status of every individual diagram element. Such a modification constitutes the predictable application of a known technique to improve a similar system in accordance with the rationale set forth in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Applicant additionally argues that Knowles fails to teach visually displaying the aggregated Boolean value to an operator. However, OCHS already teaches displaying loading status information to an operator through its visualization interface. Incorporating the aggregated Boolean value generated using Knowles into the existing visualization interface of OCHSs merely changes the type of status information presented to the operator while utilizing the same display mechanism already taught by OCHS. Implementing such an indicator within OCHS' existing graphical interface would have been a routine design choice well within the ordinary level of skill in the art.
Applicant further asserts that Knowles' "globally aggregated exit state" differs from the claimed "accumulated transmission status." While the individual statuses aggregated by the two references represent different system characteristics, this distinction is not dispositive. The rejection relies upon OCHS for teaching the transmission/loading status of the diagram elements and relies upon Knowles solely for teaching the well-known technique of logically aggregating multiple Boolean status values into a single overall Boolean value. Applying Knowles' aggregation technique to OCHS' loading statuses would have predictably produced the claimed accumulated transmission status representing the overall completion state of the transmitted diagram elements.
Accordingly, the combined teachings of OCHS and Knowles teach or suggest all limitations of the claimed invention, and the proposed modification represents no more than the predictable application of a known aggregation technique to an existing visualization system to improve operator efficiency. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
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) 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OCHS et al. US Pub. No. 2019/000456 (“OCHS”) in view of Knowles US Pub. No. 20190354370.
Regarding claim 9, OCHS teaches a control system for a technical plant [SEE fig. 1], comprising:
an operator station server [1]; and
an operator station client [12],
wherein the operator station server is configured to transmit, for operating and observation, a mimic diagram of the technical plant to the operator station client;
[0039] The control and monitoring of automation system 1 takes place in a control system 6, where the process sequences are monitored and, if necessary, influenced by a user with the help of corresponding data from automation system 1. The control system 6 has one or more devices or data connections 8 to devices on the various components 2, 4 of automation system 1 for measuring, regulating, controlling, displaying, alarming, recording, switching or calculating.
[0042] The representation of automation system 1 is as true to scale as possible, i.e. all components 2, 4 are represented at least schematically in their actual size and form as well as in true-to-scale position and distance to each other. Deviations from this can be made—for the purpose of an improved representation—as long as the user can still identify which real component corresponds to a representation. The basis for this is a three-dimensional data description of components 2, 4 of automation system 1, the so-called scene. This was generated by geometric modeling. The corresponding model data is selected by a central processing unit and loaded into a graphics processor of the mobile unit 12. The model data can also be stored on a central server of the control system 6 and transferred to mobile unit 12 as required. Together with current position and viewing direction data—depending on the performance of the graphics processor (GPU)—the visible part of automation system 1 with its components 2, 4 is then cyclically rendered by the GPU, ideally several times per second using known methods of computer graphics, and displayed on the display unit 10.
wherein the plant mimic diagram comprises a plurality of diagram elements [SEE fig. 2-3; par. 0041];
wherein the operator station client is configured to visually display the plant mimic diagram with the plurality of diagram elements to an operator of the technical plant;
[0040] The process is displayed via a display unit 10, in the exemplary embodiment designed as a screen on a mobile unit 12, here a tablet computer, which is connected to the control system 6 via a wireless data connection 14 as part of the control system 6. This offers the user the possibility of displaying and controlling automation system 1 while moving freely within automation system 1.
[0041] On display unit 10, automation system 1 is displayed in true three-dimensional representation including all components 2, 4 and all products currently being processed before and after assembly. Rendering takes place in real time, so that on the one hand the display is interactive, i.e. the user can change the viewing angle and position by making appropriate entries, whereby the 3D display changes immediately accordingly, and on the other hand a dynamic image of automation system 1 is also possible, in which actually moving components such as products to be processed are displayed and moved in real time at their actual location. Appropriate software is installed in the control system 6 and mobile unit 12 for this purpose and for all other functions described below.
wherein the control system includes a visualization service [6] which is implemented on the operator station server for a first part [SEE par. 0042 - The model data can also be stored on a central server of the control system 6 and transferred to mobile unit 12 as required; par. 0047] and on the operator station client for a second part [SEE fig. 2-3];
[0046] The problem here is that rendering the image 16, 22 requires very powerful hardware and, in particular, loading the model data into the GPU requires comparatively high data rates. This applies particularly to control systems 6, which control very large and/or complex automation systems 1, and in which a comparatively high number of objects are present in the scene stored on the data side.
[0047] To solve this problem, a tree structure 24 is created on the data side and stored in a memory of the control system 6. Tree structure 24 is shown partly in FIG. 4 and is only an example of several possible tree structures 24, which can be structured differently with regard to content and hierarchy depending on the application purpose and role of the respective user. Several parallel tree structures can also be stored on the data side.
wherein the visualization service is configured to ascertain information about an operator of the control system, wherein the SEE par. 0057 – component flashes].
[0049] Using tree structure 24, the components 2, 4, 18, 20 to be displayed on display unit 10 are selected during real-time rendering of images 16, 22, starting with a focus component, i.e. a component that is currently in focus for the user. This is done by direct user selection, i.e. by clicking/tapping the desired component in the 3D display, in a tabular list, or by a search function.
[0054] In other exemplary embodiments, a number of categories are defined and one or more categories are assigned to individual or all nodes 28, 30, 32, 34 of tree structure 24. For example, categories can be: Media elements such as lines, cables, ducts or conveying elements or processing stations. One or more of these categories can then be selected by the user or automatically based on a user role. During rendering, only those components of the part of automation system 1 are loaded into the processor for rendering from the scene whose respective assigned nodes 28, 30, 32, 34 are assigned to a predefined category. All others are then not displayed at all—or only with minimal rendering.
[0057] During rendering, there may still be waiting times when loading model data from child components 2, 4, 18, 20, despite the above measures for acceleration and selection of components to be displayed. To indicate to the user that subcomponents are still missing for a displayed component, but these have not been completely loaded, this component is graphically modified during the still incomplete loading process. This is shown in FIG. 6, which shows image 40 during the still incomplete loading process. The left component 18 in image 40 is already shown, but subordinate components are still missing that have not yet been fully loaded and rendered. Therefore, the left component 18 flashes. After complete loading and rendering of the subcomponents, component 18 is then displayed in the normal manner.
In other words, OCHS the system configured to ascertain information about a transmission status of the plurality of diagram elements from the operator station server, and to determine whether the plurality of diagram elements is fully loaded which represents a logical Boolean value (complete or incomplete/true or false etc.,).
OCHS does not teach ascertain information about an accumulated status of the plurality of elements and wherein the accumulated status representing a logical Boolean value.
Knowles teaches a general aggregation technique in which multiple individual Boolean status values are logically combined into a single overall Boolean status. Specifically. Knowles teaches ascertain information about an accumulated status of the plurality of elements and wherein the accumulated status representing a logical Boolean value.
[0094] The globally aggregated exit state $GC enables the program to determine an overall outcome of parts of the program running on multiple different tiles 4 without having to individually examine the state of each individual worker thread on each individual tile. It can be used for any purpose desired by the programmer. For instance, in the example shown in FIG. 11 where the global aggregate is a Boolean AND, this means that any input being 0 results in an aggregate of 0, but if all the inputs are 1 then the aggregate is 1. I.e. if a 1 is used to represent a true or successful outcome, this means that if any of the local exit states of any of the tiles 4 is false or unsuccessful, then the global aggregated state will also be false or represent an unsuccessful outcome. E.g. this could be used to determine whether or not the parts of the code running on all the tiles have all satisfied a predetermined condition. Thus, the program can query a single register (in embodiments a single bit) to ask “did anything go wrong? Yes or no?” or “have all nodes in the graph reached an acceptable level of error? Yes or no?, rather than having to examine the individual states of the individual worker threads on each individual tile (and again, in embodiments the supervisor is in fact not able to query the state of the workers except through the exit state registers 38, 42). In other words, the EXIT and SYNC instructions each reduce multiple individual exit states into a single combined state.
[0095] In one example use case, the supervisor on one or more of the tiles may report to a host processor if the global aggregate indicated a false or unsuccessful outcome. As another example, the program may perform a branch decision depending on the global exit state. For example, the program examines the global aggregate exit state $GC and based on this determines whether to continue looping or whether to branch elsewhere. If the global exit state $GC is still false or unsuccessful, the program continues iterating the same, first part of the program, but once the global exit state $GC is true or successful, the program branches to a second, different part of the program. The branch decision may be implemented individually in each supervisor thread, or by one of the supervisors taking on the role of master and instructing the other, slave supervisors on the other tiles (the master role being configured in software).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of OCHS with the ascertain information about an accumulated status of the plurality of elements and wherein the accumulated status representing a logical Boolean value of Knowles. The motivation for doing so would have been to rapidly determine an overall outcome of visually display without having to individually examine the transmission status of each individual diagram elements. This allows the operator to determine at a glance whether the diagram is fully loaded, instead of manually evaluating each component. Thus, reducing time and complexity.
Regarding claim 10, OCHS in view of Knowles teaches the accumulated transmission status represents a number of transmission statuses with a specific logical Boolean value, in particular the logical Boolean value FALSE [SEE par. 0094 of Knowles].
Regarding claim 11, OCHS in view of Knowles teaches the specific logical Boolean value comprises a logical Boolean value of FALSE [SEE par. 0094 of Knowles].
Regarding claim 12, OCHS teaches the transmission status of a diagram element is influenceable by interaction between the operator and the diagram element [par. 0015, 0020, 0049, 0055].
Regarding claim 13, OCHS teaches the control system is configured to store information in a memory about a period of time over which a diagram element of a plant mimic diagram has had a particular transmission status [par. 0021, 0042, 0046].
Regarding claim 14, OCHS teaches the diagram element includes content which is changeable during runtime of the technical plant [par. 0003, 0020-0021, 0041].
Regarding claim 15, OCHS teaches the content comprises a trend indicator for measured values of the technical plant, a message sequence indicator for messages from the control system, a video image or a regulator optimization function [par. 0003].
Regarding claim 16, OCHS teaches the technical plant comprises a process or manufacturing plant [par. 0003].
Regarding claim 17, OCHS teaches the control system operates a technical plant comprising a process or manufacturing plant [par. 0003, 0027].
Regarding claim 18, OCHS teaches a method for visually displaying a mimic diagram of a technical plant by a control system including an operator station server and an operator station client, the plant mimic diagram comprising a plurality of diagram elements [SEE fig. 1-3], the method comprising:
a) transmitting a mimic diagram of the technical plant from the operator station server to the operator station client, the plant mimic diagram comprising the plurality of diagram elements [par. 0039, 0042];
b) ascertaining information about an whether fully loaded – par. 0057];
c) visually displaying the plant mimic diagram with the plurality of diagram elements to an operator of the control system by the operator station client [SEE fig. 2-3]; and
d) visually displaying the information about the flashes] from the operator station server to the operator station client together with the visual display of the plant mimic diagram with the plurality of diagram elements, the SEE par. 0057 and Fig. 6].
OCHS does not teach ascertain information about an accumulated status of the plurality of elements and wherein the accumulated status representing a logical Boolean value.
Knowles teaches system configured to determine an overall outcome of a program. Specifically. Knowles teaches ascertain information about an accumulated status of the plurality of elements and wherein the accumulated status representing a logical Boolean value.
[0094] The globally aggregated exit state $GC enables the program to determine an overall outcome of parts of the program running on multiple different tiles 4 without having to individually examine the state of each individual worker thread on each individual tile. It can be used for any purpose desired by the programmer. For instance, in the example shown in FIG. 11 where the global aggregate is a Boolean AND, this means that any input being 0 results in an aggregate of 0, but if all the inputs are 1 then the aggregate is 1. I.e. if a 1 is used to represent a true or successful outcome, this means that if any of the local exit states of any of the tiles 4 is false or unsuccessful, then the global aggregated state will also be false or represent an unsuccessful outcome. E.g. this could be used to determine whether or not the parts of the code running on all the tiles have all satisfied a predetermined condition. Thus, the program can query a single register (in embodiments a single bit) to ask “did anything go wrong? Yes or no?” or “have all nodes in the graph reached an acceptable level of error? Yes or no?, rather than having to examine the individual states of the individual worker threads on each individual tile (and again, in embodiments the supervisor is in fact not able to query the state of the workers except through the exit state registers 38, 42). In other words, the EXIT and SYNC instructions each reduce multiple individual exit states into a single combined state.
[0095] In one example use case, the supervisor on one or more of the tiles may report to a host processor if the global aggregate indicated a false or unsuccessful outcome. As another example, the program may perform a branch decision depending on the global exit state. For example, the program examines the global aggregate exit state $GC and based on this determines whether to continue looping or whether to branch elsewhere. If the global exit state $GC is still false or unsuccessful, the program continues iterating the same, first part of the program, but once the global exit state $GC is true or successful, the program branches to a second, different part of the program. The branch decision may be implemented individually in each supervisor thread, or by one of the supervisors taking on the role of master and instructing the other, slave supervisors on the other tiles (the master role being configured in software).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of OCHS with the ascertain information about an accumulated status of the plurality of elements and wherein the accumulated status representing a logical Boolean value of Knowles. The motivation for doing so would has been to determine an overall outcome of visually display without having to individually examine the transmission status of each individual diagram elements. This allows the operator to determine at a glance whether the diagram is fully loaded, instead of manually evaluating each component. Thus, reducing time and complexity.
Regarding claim 19, OCHS teaches the ascertainment of the information about the transmission status of the diagram element is performed by a visualization service [par. 0057]; and wherein a first part of the visualization service is implemented on the operator station server [par. 0042, 0047] and a second part of the visualization service is implemented on the operator station client [SEE fig. 2-3, and 6].
Regarding claim 20, OCHS teaches the technical plant comprises a process or manufacturing plant [par. 0003, 0027].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VINCENT HUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7210. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00.
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, Kamini S Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. 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.
VINCENT H TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2115
/VINCENT H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights