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 . This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-20 filed on 03/20/2024 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 05/02/2025 has been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 03/20/2024 and 03/25/2024 have been reviewed and are considered acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 03/20/2024 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner interprets the term “control narrative” in claims 1, 9, and 17 under the broadest reasonable interpretation as information associated with events in a process control system. Applicant is advised that if “control narrative” is intended to mean a more specific form of information, such as a human-readable, textual, natural-language description of control logic of the type illustrated in Applicant’s Figures 3 and 5, the claims should be amended to expressly recite such a limitation.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Examiner suggests that Applicant amend the claims to direct the language of the limitation “transmit the control narrative to a second database associated with a distributed control system (DCS), the control narrative to modify a configuration of the DCS” in claim 1 and similar limitations in claims 9 and 17 to “transmit the control narrative to a second database associated with a distributed control system (DCS); and modify a configuration of the DCS in accordance with the control narrative.”
Step 1: Claims 1-16 are directed to a machine or an article of manufacture. Claims 17-20 are directed to a process.
With respect to claim 1:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
determine second instructions to control the process control system based on the output condition, the second instructions executable by a programmable logic controller (PLC); (Mental process – determining instructions based on an output condition is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
identify a pattern based on the second instructions and the output condition; (Mental process – identifying a pattern is an observation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
determine a control narrative associated with the process control system when the pattern matches at least one of the stored patterns in the first database, the control narrative corresponding to the at least one of the stored patterns; (Mental process – determining a control narrative when a pattern matches a stored pattern is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
interface circuitry; first instructions; and programmable circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute the first instructions to: (Mere recitation of a generic computer component – see MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I))
access an output condition associated with a process control system; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
compare the pattern to stored patterns in a first database, the stored patterns associated with at least one other process control system; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
transmit the control narrative to a second database associated with a distributed control system (DCS), the control narrative to modify a configuration of the DCS. (Insignificant extra-solution activity – transmitting a control narrative to a database represents post-solution activity – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
interface circuitry; first instructions; and programmable circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute the first instructions to: (Mere recitation of a generic computer component – see MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I))
access an output condition associated with a process control system; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
compare the pattern to stored patterns in a first database, the stored patterns associated with at least one other process control system; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
transmit the control narrative to a second database associated with a distributed control system (DCS), the control narrative to modify a configuration of the DCS. (Insignificant extra-solution activity – transmitting a control narrative to a database represents post-solution activity – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim 2:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
identifying the pattern based on dependencies between the second output condition, the input data, and the first output condition. (Mental process – identifying a pattern is an observation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the output condition is a first output condition, wherein the first instructions, when executed or instantiated by the programmable circuitry, further cause the programmable circuitry to identify the pattern by: accessing input data associated with the first output condition, the input data including a second output condition associated with the process control system; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the output condition is a first output condition, wherein the first instructions, when executed or instantiated by the programmable circuitry, further cause the programmable circuitry to identify the pattern by: accessing input data associated with the first output condition, the input data including a second output condition associated with the process control system; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim 3:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the output condition indicates an operation of a field device of the process control system (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the output condition indicates an operation of a field device of the process control system (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim 4:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the first database is a model database associated with an artificial intelligence (AI) model. (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the first database is a model database associated with an artificial intelligence (AI) model. (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim 5:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the first instructions, when executed or instantiated by the programmable circuitry, further cause the programmable circuitry to: (Mere recitation of a generic computer component – see MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I))
query a configuration graph database to access the pattern, the configuration graph database storing the pattern; and compare the pattern in the configuration graph database to stored patterns in the model database. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the first instructions, when executed or instantiated by the programmable circuitry, further cause the programmable circuitry to: (Mere recitation of a generic computer component – see MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I))
query a configuration graph database to access the pattern, the configuration graph database storing the pattern; and compare the pattern in the configuration graph database to stored patterns in the model database. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim 6:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the second instructions are associated with a graphical programming language. (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the second instructions are associated with a graphical programming language. (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim 7:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the graphical programming language is associated with a ladder diagram. (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the graphical programming language is associated with a ladder diagram. (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim 8:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the first instructions, when executed or instantiated by the programmable circuitry, further cause the programmable circuitry to access the output condition by accessing the ladder diagram. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the first instructions, when executed or instantiated by the programmable circuitry, further cause the programmable circuitry to access the output condition by accessing the ladder diagram. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim 9:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
determine second instructions to control the process control system based on the output condition, the second instructions executable by a programmable logic controller (PLC); (Mental process – determining instructions based on an output condition is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
identify a pattern based on the second instructions and the output condition; (Mental process – identifying a pattern is an observation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
determine a control narrative associated with the process control system when the pattern matches at least one of the stored patterns in the first database, the control narrative corresponding to the at least one of the stored patterns; (Mental process – determining a control narrative when a pattern matches a stored pattern is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
A non-transitory machine readable storage medium comprising first instructions to cause programmable circuitry to at least: (Mere recitation of a generic computer component – see MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I))
access an output condition associated with a process control system; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
compare the pattern to stored patterns in a first database, the stored patterns associated with at least one other process control system; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
transmit the control narrative to a second database associated with a distributed control system (DCS), the control narrative to modify a configuration of the DCS. (Insignificant extra-solution activity – transmitting a control narrative to a database represents post-solution activity – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
A non-transitory machine readable storage medium comprising first instructions to cause programmable circuitry to at least: (Mere recitation of a generic computer component – see MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I))
access an output condition associated with a process control system; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
compare the pattern to stored patterns in a first database, the stored patterns associated with at least one other process control system; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
transmit the control narrative to a second database associated with a distributed control system (DCS), the control narrative to modify a configuration of the DCS. (Insignificant extra-solution activity – transmitting a control narrative to a database represents post-solution activity – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim 10:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
identifying the pattern based on dependencies between the second output condition, the input data, and the first output condition. (Mental process – identifying a pattern is an observation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
The non-transitory machine readable storage medium of claim 9, wherein the output condition is a first output condition, wherein the first instructions, when executed or instantiated by the programmable circuitry, further cause the programmable circuitry to identify the pattern by: accessing input data associated with the first output condition, the input data including a second output condition associated with the process control system; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
The non-transitory machine readable storage medium of claim 9, wherein the output condition is a first output condition, wherein the first instructions, when executed or instantiated by the programmable circuitry, further cause the programmable circuitry to identify the pattern by: accessing input data associated with the first output condition, the input data including a second output condition associated with the process control system; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim 11:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the output condition indicates an operation of a field device of the process control system. (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the output condition indicates an operation of a field device of the process control system. (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim 12:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the first database is a model database associated with an artificial intelligence (AI) model. (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the first database is a model database associated with an artificial intelligence (AI) model. (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim 13:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the first instructions, when executed or instantiated by the programmable circuitry, further cause the programmable circuitry to: (Mere recitation of a generic computer component – see MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I))
query a configuration graph database to access the pattern, the configuration graph database storing the pattern; and compare the pattern in the configuration graph database to stored patterns in the model database. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the first instructions, when executed or instantiated by the programmable circuitry, further cause the programmable circuitry to: (Mere recitation of a generic computer component – see MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I))
query a configuration graph database to access the pattern, the configuration graph database storing the pattern; and compare the pattern in the configuration graph database to stored patterns in the model database. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim 14:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the second instructions are associated with a graphical programming language (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the second instructions are associated with a graphical programming language (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim 15:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the graphical programming language is associated with a ladder diagram. (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the graphical programming language is associated with a ladder diagram. (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim 16:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the first instructions, when executed or instantiated by the programmable circuitry, further cause the programmable circuitry to access the output condition by accessing the ladder diagram. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the first instructions, when executed or instantiated by the programmable circuitry, further cause the programmable circuitry to access the output condition by accessing the ladder diagram. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim 17:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
determining instructions to control the process control system based on the output condition, the instructions executable by a programmable logic controller (PLC); (Mental process – determining instructions based on an output condition is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
identifying a pattern based on the instructions and the output condition; (Mental process – identifying a pattern is an observation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
determining a control narrative associated with the process control system when the pattern matches at least one of the stored patterns in the first database, the control narrative corresponding to the at least one of the stored patterns; (Mental process – determining a control narrative when a pattern matches a stored pattern is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
accessing an output condition associated with a process control system; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
comparing the pattern to stored patterns in a first database, the stored patterns associated with at least one other process control system; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
transmitting the control narrative to a second database associated with a distributed control system (DCS), the control narrative to modify a configuration of the DCS. (Insignificant extra-solution activity – transmitting a control narrative to a database represents post-solution activity – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
accessing an output condition associated with a process control system; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
comparing the pattern to stored patterns in a first database, the stored patterns associated with at least one other process control system; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
transmitting the control narrative to a second database associated with a distributed control system (DCS), the control narrative to modify a configuration of the DCS. (Insignificant extra-solution activity – transmitting a control narrative to a database represents post-solution activity – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim 18:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
identifying the pattern based on dependencies between the second output condition, the input data, and the first output condition. (Mental process – identifying a pattern is an observation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the output condition is a first output condition, further including identifying the pattern by: accessing input data associated with the first output condition, the input data including a second output condition associated with the process control system; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the output condition is a first output condition, further including identifying the pattern by: accessing input data associated with the first output condition, the input data including a second output condition associated with the process control system; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim 19:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the first database is a model database associated with an artificial intelligence (AI) model. (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the first database is a model database associated with an artificial intelligence (AI) model. (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to claim 20:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the instructions are associated with a graphical programming language. (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the instructions are associated with a graphical programming language. (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
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 1-3, 9-11, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujita et al. (US 2018/0314243 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fujita discloses an apparatus comprising:
interface circuitry ([0045]: "The communication device 24 is communicably connected to the control network NW. The communication device 24 transmits and receives various pieces of data by wired or wireless connection to and from a device connected to the control network NW, for example, the terminal apparatus 10. The communication device 24 is, for example, a communication interface");
first instructions ([0040]: "The terminal apparatus 10 may generate various pieces of instruction information on the basis of, for example, operation signals in accordance with operations accepted by an operation input device (described below)"); and
programmable circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute the first instructions ([0040]: "The instruction information includes, for example, information for manipulating the operating state of the control apparatus 20, such as the start and stop of control, and control parameters. The terminal apparatus 10 transmits the generated instruction information to the control apparatus 20"; [0159]: "the control function may be realized in such a manner that a program for achieving the control function is recorded in a computer-readable recording medium, the recorded program is read into a computer system, and the read program is executed by a computation processing circuit such as a CPU") to:
access an output condition associated with a process control system ([0023]: "A process control system according to one or more embodiments of the present invention includes: one or a plurality of field devices configured to be placed in a plant; and a control apparatus configured to perform at least one of input and output on the field device to control the plant; and a change trend calculation device configured to calculate a change trend in time-series data including an observed value at each point in time of the field device");
determine second instructions to control the process control system based on the output condition, the second instructions executable by a programmable logic controller (PLC) ([0024]: "In the above-mentioned process control system, the change trend calculation device connects the field device and the control apparatus, and is provided to at least an input device into which an output from the field device is inputted"; [0042]: "The control apparatus 20 may be configured as, for example, a PLC (programmable logic controller) in a DCS (distributed control system) and FA (factory automation)");
identify a pattern based on the second instructions and the output condition ([0029]: "a notification output device configured to refer to the judgment table, select a pattern matching change trends in the observed values indicated by time-series data per channel, and select a specific channel associated with the pattern");
compare the pattern to stored patterns in a first database, the stored patterns associated with at least one other process control system ([0029]: "the notification selection device includes: a storage device configured to previously store a judgment table where a pattern indicating the change trend per channel is associated with a specific channel; and a notification output device configured to refer to the judgment table, select a pattern matching change trends in the observed values indicated by time-series data per channel, and select a specific channel associated with the pattern");
determine a control narrative associated with the process control system when the pattern matches at least one of the stored patterns in the first database, the control narrative corresponding to the at least one of the stored patterns ([0030]: "the judgment table includes the pattern to which a priority level is assigned, and upon there being a plurality of patterns selected, the notification output device gives a higher priority to and outputs information on the specific channel associated with the pattern as the priority level assigned to the pattern is increased"; see the determine the channel (i.e., control narrative) as described in [0129] and [0132] ); and
transmit the control narrative to a second database associated with a distributed control system (DCS), the control narrative to modify a configuration of the DCS ([0042]: "The control apparatus 20 may be configured as, for example, a PLC (programmable logic controller) in a DCS (distributed control system) and FA (factory automation)"; see the output of the determined channel (i.e., transmit) and the selection of particular data based on the determined channel (i.e., modify configuration) as described in [0129-0132] and as illustrated in FIG. 10B).
Regarding claim 2, Fujita discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Fujita further discloses wherein the output condition is a first output condition ([0044]: "the control and computation device 22 sequentially calculates output values to be outputted to the plant facility 60 via the I/O module 30. The calculated output value corresponds to a manipulated variable"), wherein the first instructions, when executed or instantiated by the programmable circuitry, further cause the programmable circuitry to identify the pattern ([0159]: "achieving the control function is recorded in a computer-readable recording medium, the recorded program is read into a computer system, and the read program is executed by a computation processing circuit such as a CPU") by:
accessing input data associated with the first output condition, the input data including a second output condition associated with the process control system ([0044]: "The control and computation device 22 outputs the calculated output value to the I/O module 30. The type of input value, the number of channels, the type of output value, and the number of channels can vary depending on the control and computation. In the example illustrated in FIG. 1, input values are inputted into the control and computation device 22, respectively from the I/O modules 30-1 and 30-3. Output values are outputted from the modules to the I/O module 30-2. The control and computation device 22 may transmit the time-series data taking an output value or deviation at each point in time as the observed value to the terminal apparatus 10 via the communication device 24"); and
identifying the pattern based on dependencies between the second output condition, the input data, and the first output condition ([0127]: "The change trend holding device 262 temporarily holds the state value of each channel inputted from the change trend data acquisition device 261. The state value of each channel to be held indicates a change trend of the latest observed value. In other words, the change trend holding device 262 aggregates a pattern of the state values indicating change trends at the current point in time from channel to channel"; [0119]: "there may be a case where it is clear that there is a trend that after a change in an observed value of a certain specific channel, an observed value of another channel changes due to the characteristics of the plant facility 60").
Regarding claim 3, Fujita discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Fujita further discloses wherein the output condition indicates an operation of a field device of the process control system ([0005]: "A process control system according to one or more embodiments of the present invention includes: one or a plurality of field devices configured to be placed in a plant; and a control apparatus configured to perform at least one of input and output on the field device to control the plant; and a change trend calculation device configured to calculate a change trend in time-series data including an observed value at each point in time of the field device").
Regarding claim 9, Fujita discloses a non-transitory machine readable storage medium comprising first instructions to cause programmable circuitry to at least:
access an output condition associated with a process control system ([0023]: "A process control system according to one or more embodiments of the present invention includes: one or a plurality of field devices configured to be placed in a plant; and a control apparatus configured to perform at least one of input and output on the field device to control the plant; and a change trend calculation device configured to calculate a change trend in time-series data including an observed value at each point in time of the field device");
determine second instructions to control the process control system based on the output condition, the second instructions executable by a programmable logic controller (PLC) ([0024]: "In the above-mentioned process control system, the change trend calculation device connects the field device and the control apparatus, and is provided to at least an input device into which an output from the field device is inputted"; [0042]: "The control apparatus 20 may be configured as, for example, a PLC (programmable logic controller) in a DCS (distributed control system) and FA (factory automation)");
identify a pattern based on the second instructions and the output condition ([0029]: "a notification output device configured to refer to the judgment table, select a pattern matching change trends in the observed values indicated by time-series data per channel, and select a specific channel associated with the pattern");
compare the pattern to stored patterns in a first database, the stored patterns associated with at least one other process control system ([0029]: "the notification selection device includes: a storage device configured to previously store a judgment table where a pattern indicating the change trend per channel is associated with a specific channel; and a notification output device configured to refer to the judgment table, select a pattern matching change trends in the observed values indicated by time-series data per channel, and select a specific channel associated with the pattern");
determine a control narrative associated with the process control system when the pattern matches at least one of the stored patterns in the first database, the control narrative corresponding to the at least one of the stored patterns ([0030]: "the judgment table includes the pattern to which a priority level is assigned, and upon there being a plurality of patterns selected, the notification output device gives a higher priority to and outputs information on the specific channel associated with the pattern as the priority level assigned to the pattern is increased"; see the determine the channel (i.e., control narrative) as described in [0129] and [0132] ); and
transmit the control narrative to a second database associated with a distributed control system (DCS), the control narrative to modify a configuration of the DCS ([0042]: "The control apparatus 20 may be configured as, for example, a PLC (programmable logic controller) in a DCS (distributed control system) and FA (factory automation)"; see the output of the determined channel (i.e., transmit) and the selection of particular data based on the determined channel (i.e., modify configuration) as described in [0129-0132] and as illustrated in FIG. 10B).
Regarding claim 10, Fujita discloses the non-transitory machine readable storage medium of claim 9.
Fujita further discloses wherein the output condition is a first output condition ([0044]: "the control and computation device 22 sequentially calculates output values to be outputted to the plant facility 60 via the I/O module 30. The calculated output value corresponds to a manipulated variable").
wherein the first instructions, when executed or instantiated by the programmable circuitry, further cause the programmable circuitry to identify the pattern ([0159]: "achieving the control function is recorded in a computer-readable recording medium, the recorded program is read into a computer system, and the read program is executed by a computation processing circuit such as a CPU") by:
accessing input data associated with the first output condition, the input data including a second output condition associated with the process control system ([0044]: "The control and computation device 22 outputs the calculated output value to the I/O module 30. The type of input value, the number of channels, the type of output value, and the number of channels can vary depending on the control and computation. In the example illustrated in FIG. 1, input values are inputted into the control and computation device 22, respectively from the I/O modules 30-1 and 30-3. Output values are outputted from the modules to the I/O module 30-2. The control and computation device 22 may transmit the time-series data taking an output value or deviation at each point in time as the observed value to the terminal apparatus 10 via the communication device 24"); and
identifying the pattern based on dependencies between the second output condition, the input data, and the first output condition ([0127]: "The change trend holding device 262 temporarily holds the state value of each channel inputted from the change trend data acquisition device 261. The state value of each channel to be held indicates a change trend of the latest observed value. In other words, the change trend holding device 262 aggregates a pattern of the state values indicating change trends at the current point in time from channel to channel"; [0119]: "there may be a case where it is clear that there is a trend that after a change in an observed value of a certain specific channel, an observed value of another channel changes due to the characteristics of the plant facility 60").
Regarding claim 11, Fujita discloses the non-transitory machine readable storage medium of claim 9.
Fujita further discloses wherein the output condition indicates an operation of a field device of the process control system ([0005]: "A process control system according to one or more embodiments of the present invention includes: one or a plurality of field devices configured to be placed in a plant; and a control apparatus configured to perform at least one of input and output on the field device to control the plant; and a change trend calculation device configured to calculate a change trend in time-series data including an observed value at each point in time of the field device").
Regarding claim 17, Fujita discloses a method comprising:
accessing an output condition associated with a process control system ([0023]: "A process control system according to one or more embodiments of the present invention includes: one or a plurality of field devices configured to be placed in a plant; and a control apparatus configured to perform at least one of input and output on the field device to control the plant; and a change trend calculation device configured to calculate a change trend in time-series data including an observed value at each point in time of the field device");
determining instructions to control the process control system based on the output condition, the instructions executable by a programmable logic controller (PLC) ([0024]: "In the above-mentioned process control system, the change trend calculation device connects the field device and the control apparatus, and is provided to at least an input device into which an output from the field device is inputted"; [0042]: "The control apparatus 20 may be configured as, for example, a PLC (programmable logic controller) in a DCS (distributed control system) and FA (factory automation)");
identifying a pattern based on the instructions and the output condition ([0029]: "a notification output device configured to refer to the judgment table, select a pattern matching change trends in the observed values indicated by time-series data per channel, and select a specific channel associated with the pattern");
comparing the pattern to stored patterns in a first database, the stored patterns associated with at least one other process control system ([0029]: "the notification selection device includes: a storage device configured to previously store a judgment table where a pattern indicating the change trend per channel is associated with a specific channel; and a notification output device configured to refer to the judgment table, select a pattern matching change trends in the observed values indicated by time-series data per channel, and select a specific channel associated with the pattern");
determining a control narrative associated with the process control system when the pattern matches at least one of the stored patterns in the first database, the control narrative corresponding to the at least one of the stored patterns ([0030]: "the judgment table includes the pattern to which a priority level is assigned, and upon there being a plurality of patterns selected, the notification output device gives a higher priority to and outputs information on the specific channel associated with the pattern as the priority level assigned to the pattern is increased"; see the determine the channel (i.e., control narrative) as described in [0129] and [0132] ); and
transmitting the control narrative to a second database associated with a distributed control system (DCS), the control narrative to modify a configuration of the DCS ([0042]: "The control apparatus 20 may be configured as, for example, a PLC (programmable logic controller) in a DCS (distributed control system) and FA (factory automation)"; see the output of the determined channel (i.e., transmit) and the selection of particular data based on the determined channel (i.e., modify configuration) as described in [0129-0132] and as illustrated in FIG. 10B).
Regarding claim 18, Fujita discloses the method of claim 17.
Fujita further discloses wherein the output condition is a first output condition ([0044]: "the control and computation device 22 sequentially calculates output values to be outputted to the plant facility 60 via the I/O module 30. The calculated output value corresponds to a manipulated variable"), further including identifying the pattern by:
accessing input data associated with the first output condition, the input data including a second output condition associated with the process control system ([0044]: "The control and computation device 22 outputs the calculated output value to the I/O module 30. The type of input value, the number of channels, the type of output value, and the number of channels can vary depending on the control and computation. In the example illustrated in FIG. 1, input values are inputted into the control and computation device 22, respectively from the I/O modules 30-1 and 30-3. Output values are outputted from the modules to the I/O module 30-2. The control and computation device 22 may transmit the time-series data taking an output value or deviation at each point in time as the observed value to the terminal apparatus 10 via the communication device 24"); and
identifying the pattern based on dependencies between the second output condition, the input data, and the first output condition ([0127]: "The change trend holding device 262 temporarily holds the state value of each channel inputted from the change trend data acquisition device 261. The state value of each channel to be held indicates a change trend of the latest observed value. In other words, the change trend holding device 262 aggregates a pattern of the state values indicating change trends at the current point in time from channel to channel"; [0119]: "there may be a case where it is clear that there is a trend that after a change in an observed value of a certain specific channel, an observed value of another channel changes due to the characteristics of the plant facility 60").
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.
Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2018/0314243 A1), in view of Gendelman (US 2019/0018388 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Fujita discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Fujita does not explicitly teach "wherein the first database is a model database associated with an artificial intelligence (AI) model."
Gendelman further teaches wherein the first database is a model database associated with an artificial intelligence (AI) model ([0069]: "The monitored data may exhibit low variability over time and low variability of normal operation patterns. Normal patterns can be monitored from a very low dimensional dataset. For example, any I/O line has a very clear 'real world' representation which a machine learning pattern recognition algorithm can detect based on the temporal activity and/or data flow. Such detection allows a monitoring a lower dimensional data set").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the apparatus of Fujita to incorporate the teachings of Gendelman so as to include the first database being a model database associated with an artificial intelligence (AI) model. Doing so would allow patterns to be analyzed by a machine learning model with the aim of making the system dynamic and self-adapting (Gendelman, [0063]: "An anomaly detection method may comprise a set of tools and machine learning algorithms which result in a dynamic and self adapting monitoring system. This may not be limited to cyber attacks and may alert on any abnormal activity affecting the I/O modules, either through the PLC commands issued to the I/O module or the electrical activity of the I/O lines connected to the I/O modules").
Regarding claim 5, Fujita in view of Gendelman teaches the apparatus of claim 4.
Fujita further teaches wherein the first instructions, when executed or instantiated by the programmable circuitry, further cause the programmable circuitry ([0159]: "achieving the control function is recorded in a computer-readable recording medium, the recorded program is read into a computer system, and the read program is executed by a computation processing circuit such as a CPU") to:
query a configuration graph database to access the pattern, the configuration graph database storing the pattern ([0128]: "A judgment table for predetermined individual events is previously stored in the judgment table storage device 263"); and
compare the pattern in the configuration graph database to stored patterns in the model database ([0129]: "The read pattern is compared with the patterns according to the events indicated by the judgment table stored in the judgment table storage device 263").
Regarding claim 12, Fujita discloses the non-transitory machine readable storage medium of claim 9.
Fujita does not explicitly teach "wherein the first database is a model database associated with an artificial intelligence (AI) model."
Gendelman further teaches wherein the first database is a model database associated with an artificial intelligence (AI) model ([0069]: "The monitored data may exhibit low variability over time and low variability of normal operation patterns. Normal patterns can be monitored from a very low dimensional dataset. For example, any I/O line has a very clear 'real world' representation which a machine learning pattern recognition algorithm can detect based on the temporal activity and/or data flow. Such detection allows a monitoring a lower dimensional data set").
The reasons to combine Gendelman into Fujita are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 13, Fujita in view of Gendelman teaches the non-transitory machine readable storage medium of claim 12.
Fujita further teaches wherein the first instructions, when executed or instantiated by the programmable circuitry, further cause the programmable circuitry ([0159]: "achieving the control function is recorded in a computer-readable recording medium, the recorded program is read into a computer system, and the read program is executed by a computation processing circuit such as a CPU") to:
query a configuration graph database to access the pattern, the configuration graph database storing the pattern ([0128]: "A judgment table for predetermined individual events is previously stored in the judgment table storage device 263"); and
compare the pattern in the configuration graph database to stored patterns in the model database ([0129]: "The read pattern is compared with the patterns according to the events indicated by the judgment table stored in the judgment table storage device 263").
Regarding claim 19, Fujita discloses the method of claim 17.
Fujita does not explicitly teach "wherein the first database is a model database associated with an artificial intelligence (AI) model."
Gendelman further teaches wherein the first database is a model database associated with an artificial intelligence (AI) model ([0069]: "The monitored data may exhibit low variability over time and low variability of normal operation patterns. Normal patterns can be monitored from a very low dimensional dataset. For example, any I/O line has a very clear 'real world' representation which a machine learning pattern recognition algorithm can detect based on the temporal activity and/or data flow. Such detection allows a monitoring a lower dimensional data set").
The reasons to combine Gendelman into Fujita are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Claims 6-8, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2018/0314243 A1), in view of Dreesen (DE 102021114449 A1) (Note: a machine translation is used for mapping, attached to this action).
Regarding claim 6, Fujita discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Fujita does not explicitly teach "wherein the second instructions are associated with a graphical programming language."
Dreesen further teaches wherein the second instructions are associated with a graphical programming language ([0002]: "Five programming languages are defined in the IEC61131-3 standard for programming control programs for programmable logic controllers (PLCs). The five defined programming languages include both text-based and graphical programming languages").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the apparatus of Fujita to incorporate the teachings of Dreesen so as to include the second instructions being associated with a graphical programming language. Doing so would allow generation of control programs with the aim of increasing flexibility ([0010]: "By representing the graphical diagrams with corresponding data flow graphs, where nodes of the data flow graphs correspond to corresponding elements of the graphical diagrams represented by the data flow graphs and edges of the data flow graphs correspond to connecting lines of the graphical diagrams, increased flexibility in the generation of graphical diagrams for graphical programming of the control programs is enabled").
Regarding claim 7, Fujita in view of Dreesen teaches the apparatus of claim 6.
Fujita does not explicitly teach "wherein the graphical programming language is associated with a ladder diagram."
Dreesen further teaches wherein the graphical programming language is associated with a ladder diagram ([0002]: "One of the graphical programming languages for programming programmable logic controllers is ladder diagram (LD). The programming language Ladder Logic (LLO) allows the user to create graphical diagrams for programming control programs for programmable logic controllers").
Regarding claim 8, Fujita in view of Dreesen teaches the apparatus of claim 7.
Fujita does not explicitly teach "wherein the first instructions, when executed or instantiated by the programmable circuitry, further cause the programmable circuitry to access the output condition by accessing the ladder diagram."
Dreesen further teaches wherein the first instructions, when executed or instantiated by the programmable circuitry, further cause the programmable circuitry to access the output condition by accessing the ladder diagram ([0046]: "Graphic A of Fig. 1 shows an exemplary graphical diagram 200, which is created according to the graphical programming language Ladder Diagram (LD)… The elements 201 of the graphic diagram 200 each have inputs and outputs, and a connection between two elements 201 via a connecting line 203 is made by arranging the connecting line 203 from an output of one of the elements 201 to an input of the other element 201").
Regarding claim 14, Fujita discloses the non-transitory machine readable storage medium of claim 9.
Fujita does not explicitly teach "wherein the second instructions are associated with a graphical programming language."
Dreesen further teaches wherein the second instructions are associated with a graphical programming language ([0002]: "Five programming languages are defined in the IEC61131-3 standard for programming control programs for programmable logic controllers (PLCs). The five defined programming languages include both text-based and graphical programming languages").
The reasons to combine Dreesen into Fujita are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 15, Fujita in view of Dreesen teaches the non-transitory machine readable storage medium of claim 14.
Fujita does not explicitly teach "wherein the graphical programming language is associated with a ladder diagram."
Dreesen further teaches wherein the graphical programming language is associated with a ladder diagram ([0002]: "One of the graphical programming languages for programming programmable logic controllers is ladder diagram (LD). The programming language Ladder Logic (LLO) allows the user to create graphical diagrams for programming control programs for programmable logic controllers").
Regarding claim 16, Fujita in view of Dreesen teaches the non-transitory machine readable storage medium of claim 15.
Fujita does not explicitly teach "wherein the first instructions, when executed or instantiated by the programmable circuitry, further cause the programmable circuitry to access the output condition by accessing the ladder diagram."
Dreesen further teaches wherein the first instructions, when executed or instantiated by the programmable circuitry, further cause the programmable circuitry to access the output condition by accessing the ladder diagram ([0046]: "Graphic A of Fig. 1 shows an exemplary graphical diagram 200, which is created according to the graphical programming language Ladder Diagram (LD)… The elements 201 of the graphic diagram 200 each have inputs and outputs, and a connection between two elements 201 via a connecting line 203 is made by arranging the connecting line 203 from an output of one of the elements 201 to an input of the other element 201").
Regarding claim 20, Fujita discloses the method of claim 17.
Fujita does not explicitly teach "wherein the second instructions are associated with a graphical programming language."
Dreesen further teaches wherein the instructions are associated with a graphical programming language ([0002]: "Five programming languages are defined in the IEC61131-3 standard for programming control programs for programmable logic controllers (PLCs). The five defined programming languages include both text-based and graphical programming languages").
The reasons to combine Dreesen into Fujita are the same as articulated in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0382990 A1: Pattern matching for PLC process control systems
US 2022/0091594 A1: Generating control logic using actions from a control narrative
US 2022/0382245 A1: Uses machine learning with control narratives for process control plants
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Magdalena Kossek whose telephone number is (571)272-5603. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571)272-2748. 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.
/M.I.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights