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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/16/2024, 12/13/2024, and 3/18/2026 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: CONTROL DEVICE, CONTROL METHOD, AND CONTROL SYSTEM FOR ACQUIRING STATE QUANTITIES.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claim(s) recite(s):
1. A control device, comprising:
a communication unit that performs communication with an I/O connection device where an I/O device is connected and an information processing device, via a network;
an acquisition unit that acquires device information related to the I/O device from at least one of a first storage unit included in the I/O connection device and storing the device information and a second storage unit included in the information processing device and storing the device information; and
a calculation unit that performs control calculation related to the I/O device by using the device information.
13. A control method, including:
performing communication with an I/O connection device where an I/O device is connected and an information processing device, via a network;
acquiring device information related to the I/O device from at least one of a first storage unit included in the I/O connection device and storing the device information and a second storage unit included in the information processing device and storing the device information; and
performing control calculation related to the I/O device by using the device information.
14. A control system, comprising:
an I/O connection device where an I/O device is connected;
an information processing device; and
a control device, wherein
the control device comprises:
a communication unit that performs communication with the I/O connection device and the information processing device, via a network;
an acquisition unit that acquires device information related to the I/O device from at least one of a first storage unit included in the I/O connection device and storing the device information and a second storage unit included in the information processing device and storing the device information; and
a calculation unit that performs control calculation related to the I/O device by using the device information.
Step 1: The claims recite a control device, a control method, and a control system. Thus; the clams are to a machine, process, or manufacture; which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: The claims recite the limitations of “a calculation unit that performs control calculation related to the I/O device by using the device information” (claims 1 and 14) and “performing control calculation related to the I/O device by using the device information” (claim 13). These limitations fall into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited control calculation could practically be performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. Nor does the recitation of the calculation unit in the claims negate the mental nature of the limitation because the claim merely uses the calculation unit as a tool to perform the otherwise mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Besides the abstract idea, the claims recite the additional element of acquiring device information related to the I/O device from at least one of a first storage unit included in the I/O connection device and storing the device information and a second storage unit included in the information processing device and storing the device information. This additional element represents mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. The acquiring of device information is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. As such, it is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of judicial exceptions to the technological environment of the control device, control method, and control system. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the recited exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply to an exception and cannot provide an inventive concept. Acquiring information is recited at a high level of generality and remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, the acquiring limitation does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not provide an inventive concept. The claims are not eligible.
Note: Dependent claims 2-12 do not include limitations that would add significantly more to the existing judicial exception and therefore also are not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US PGPub 2021/0302942) in view of Vergauwen et al. [Vergauwen] (US PGPub 2020/0141984).
As to claim 1
Yoshida discloses a control device (controller 30, see Figs. 1 and 2), comprising:
a communication unit (communication interface 33, see Fig. 2) that performs communication with an I/O connection device (I/O node 20, see Figs. 1 and 2) where an I/O device (field device 10/sensor 11/actuator 12, see Figs. 1, 2, and 7) is connected and an information processing device (monitoring apparatus 45, see Figs. 1 and 7/cache server 50, see Fig. 7), via a network (network 40, see Figs. 1, 2, and 7);
an acquisition unit (I/O access routing unit 32, see Fig. 2) that acquires device information (data output) related to the I/O device and storing the device information and a second storage unit (cache database 51, see Fig. 8) included in the information processing device and storing the device information (see paragraph 0055, lines 1-4; paragraph 0094, lines 1-4; and paragraph 0095, lines 7-12); and
a calculation unit (control application 31, see Fig. 2) that performs control calculation related to the I/O device by using the device information (see paragraph 0004, lines 1-4; paragraph 0033, lines 3-7; and paragraph 0120, lines 5-9).
Though Yoshida discloses the control device comprising the acquisition unit acquiring device information and storing it in the second storage unit included in the information processing device; Yoshida fails to specifically disclose the acquisition unit acquiring the device information from at least one of a first storage unit included in the I/O connection device connected to the I/O device.
Vergauwen discloses a control device comprising:
an acquisition unit (ECU 140, see Fig. 1) that acquires device information (sensor characteristic data; see paragraph 0062, lines 2-3) related to an I/O device (sense element 110, see Fig. 1) from a first storage device (memory 125, see Fig. 1) included in an I/O connection device (sensor interface 120, see Fig. 1) connected to the I/O device (see paragraph 0062, lines 2-5).
Yoshida and Vergauwen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor which is sensor/device interface circuits. At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yoshida’s invention with Vergauwen’s in order to store device information in a storage device within the I/O connection device, since doing so would provide a further memory to store separately the sensor characteristic data/device information (see Vergauwen paragraph 0024, lines 2-3).
As to claim 2
Yoshida discloses the control device according to claim 1, further comprising an output unit that stores a result of execution of the control calculation into at least one of the first storage unit and the second storage unit (see paragraph 0120, lines 1-5).
As to claim 3
Yoshida and Vergauwen disclose the control device according to claim 1, wherein the information processing device
acquires the device information according to a result of the control calculation by the calculation unit, from at least one of the first storage unit and the second storage unit,
executes calculation logic related to the I/O device, and
stores a result of execution of the calculation logic into at least one of the first storage unit and the second storage unit (see Yoshida paragraph 0004, lines 1-4 and Vergauwen paragraph 0059, lines 3-12).
As to claim 4
Yoshida discloses the control device according to claim 3, wherein the information processing device executes the calculation logic related to the I/O device on the basis of wiring definition information, and
the wiring definition information includes information identifying the I/O connection device where the I/O device is connected (see paragraph 0004, lines 1-8).
As to claim 7
Yoshida discloses the control device according to claim 3, wherein the information processing device executes the calculation logic related to the I/O device for each I/O connection device (see paragraph 0091, lines 3-8 and paragraph 0095, lines 7-12).
As to claim 8
Yoshida discloses the control device according to claim 7, wherein the information processing device executes the calculation logic related to the I/O device in a case where the I/O device of a wiring destination has been connected to the I/O connection device that is a target of execution of the calculation logic (see paragraph 0075, lines 1-9).
As to claim 9
Yoshida discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein the acquisition unit acquires the device information on the basis of an alias managed by an alias management device (see paragraph 0068, lines 1-9).
As to claim 12
Yoshida discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein in a case where a request for execution of calculation logic has been received from the I/O connection device, the information processing device executes the calculation logic (see paragraph 0120, lines 5-9).
As to claim 13
Yoshida discloses a control method, including:
performing communication with an I/O connection device (I/O node 20, see Figs. 1 and 2) where an I/O device (field device 10/sensor 11/actuator 12, see Figs. 1, 2, and 7) is connected and an information processing device (monitoring apparatus 45, see Figs. 1 and 7/cache server 50, see Fig. 7), via a network (network 40, see Figs. 1, 2, and 7);
acquiring device information (data output) related to the I/O device and storing the device information and a second storage unit (cache database 51, see Fig. 8) included in the information processing device and storing the device information (see paragraph 0055, lines 1-4; paragraph 0094, lines 1-4; and paragraph 0095, lines 7-12); and
performing control calculation related to the I/O device by using the device information (see paragraph 0004, lines 1-4; paragraph 0033, lines 3-7; and paragraph 0120, lines 5-9).
Though Yoshida discloses the control method including acquiring device information and storing it in the second storage unit included in the information processing device; Yoshida fails to specifically disclose acquiring the device information from at least one of a first storage unit included in the I/O connection device connected to the I/O device.
Vergauwen discloses a control method, including:
acquiring device information (sensor characteristic data; see paragraph 0062, lines 2-3) related to an I/O device (sense element 110, see Fig. 1) from a first storage device (memory 125, see Fig. 1) included in an I/O connection device (sensor interface 120, see Fig. 1) connected to the I/O device (see paragraph 0062, lines 2-5).
Yoshida and Vergauwen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor which is sensor/device interface circuits. At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yoshida’s invention with Vergauwen’s in order to store device information in a storage device within the I/O connection device, since doing so would provide a further memory to store separately the sensor characteristic data/device information (see Vergauwen paragraph 0024, lines 2-3).
As to claim 14
Yoshida discloses a control system, comprising:
an I/O connection device (I/O node 20, see Figs. 1 and 2) where an I/O device (field device 10/sensor 11/actuator 12, see Figs. 1, 2, and 7) is connected;
an information processing device (monitoring apparatus 45, see Figs. 1 and 7/cache server 50, see Fig. 7); and
a control device (controller 30, see Figs. 1 and 2), wherein
the control device comprises:
a communication unit (communication interface 33, see Fig. 2) that performs communication with the I/O connection device and the information processing device, via a network (network 40, see Figs. 1, 2, and 7);
an acquisition unit (I/O access routing unit 32, see Fig. 2) that acquires device information (data output) related to the I/O device and storing the device information and a second storage unit (cache database 51, see Fig. 8) included in the information processing device and storing the device information (see paragraph 0055, lines 1-4; paragraph 0094, lines 1-4; and paragraph 0095, lines 7-12); and
a calculation unit (control application 31, see Fig. 2) that performs control calculation related to the I/O device by using the device information (see paragraph 0004, lines 1-4; paragraph 0033, lines 3-7; and paragraph 0120, lines 5-9).
Though Yoshida discloses the control system comprising the acquisition unit acquiring device information and storing it in the second storage unit included in the information processing device; Yoshida fails to specifically disclose the acquisition unit acquiring the device information from at least one of a first storage unit included in the I/O connection device connected to the I/O device.
Vergauwen discloses a control system comprising:
an acquisition unit (ECU 140, see Fig. 1) that acquires device information (sensor characteristic data; see paragraph 0062, lines 2-3) related to an I/O device (sense element 110, see Fig. 1) from a first storage device (memory 125, see Fig. 1) included in an I/O connection device (sensor interface 120, see Fig. 1) connected to the I/O device (see paragraph 0062, lines 2-5).
Yoshida and Vergauwen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor which is sensor/device interface circuits. At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yoshida’s invention with Vergauwen’s in order to store device information in a storage device within the I/O connection device, since doing so would provide a further memory to store separately the sensor characteristic data/device information (see Vergauwen paragraph 0024, lines 2-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 10, and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Yoshida and Vergauwen; individually or in combination; fail to specifically disclose the control device according to claim 3, wherein the information processing device acquires the device information according to an access period corresponding to the I/O connection device (in regards to dependent claim 5). Accordingly, dependent claim 5 (and claim 6 which depends from it) include allowable subject matter.
Also, Yoshida and Vergauwen; individually or in combination; fail to specifically disclose the control device according to claim 9, wherein the I/O connection device includes an alias registration unit that requests the alias management device to register the alias related to the I/O device corresponding to the device information stored in the first storage unit (in regards to dependent claim 10). Accordingly, dependent claim 10 includes allowable subject matter.
Further, Yoshida and Vergauwen; individually or in combination; fail to specifically disclose the control device according to claim 9, wherein the information processing device includes an alias registration unit that requests the alias management device to register the alias related to the I/O device corresponding to the device information stored in the second storage unit (in regards to dependent claim 11). Accordingly, dependent claim 11 includes allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J. Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 5:30am-4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael J Brown/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights