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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP21192382.6, filed on 08/20/2021.
Claim Interpretation
Contingent Limitations:
Claims 1 and 14 contain a limitation that recites a step that only needs to be executed or performed when a condition is met or satisfied. The limitation “if the validation result indicates acceptance of the inbound raw material, control the corresponding chemical plant to start feeding the inbound raw material.” recites a control signal that is only applied if there are valid results. This creates two methods that must be examined. One that contains the control signal based on a valid result, and one that does not have a control signal based on not receiving a valid result. Claim 1 and 14 contain a method that would fall under ineligible subject matter, even though it may encompass a method that is eligible.
112(f):
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: a central acquisition device, a central management device, and process control systems of claim 1 and interface device of claim 7. The disclosure identifies the acquisition device and management device as computers or software (pg. 3 ln. 35-41). There was no structural support found for interface device. The closest structure found was, pg. 7, ln 35-41, “the interface device comprises a further database”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The interface device (4) is shown in Fig 2. as a blank box. The specification discloses what the device does, not what the device is. The closest structure that can be found is page 7. ln. 24-34, "interface device comprises a further database...", but this is not sufficient to perform the functions of establishing 2 communication networks, wherein the first is isolated from the second.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims reference a condition where if the results are indicative of acceptance, but does not disclose the condition of rejection. This creates a contingent outcome where it is unclear what happens when a material does not have a valid result.
Claim 7 limitation “Interface device for interfacing” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is unclear how the interface device is able to perform the needed actions to control the interactions between the first and second communication networks. The device is not disclosed in a way to be able to determine the limits or capabilities of the generic device. There is no structure disclosed for one skilled in the art to be able to understand what the device is. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
STATUTORY CATEGORY:
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “a number of program codes for executing the method" is no more than a description of software. There is no structure/interpretation of the claim that would render this claim significantly more than “software per se”. The claim is also not directed to any judicial exception and is thus not patent elidable. See MPEP 2106.03.
JUDICICAL EXCPETION:
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Below is an analysis in accordance with the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Process found in MPEP 2106(III).
Claim 1: An automated control system for controlling production in a number of chemical plants the automated control system comprising:
a central acquisition device configured to: acquire a certificate indicating a number of raw material properties of an inbound raw material that has been delivered to a site of the number of chemical plants, and derive the raw material properties the certificate;
a central management device configured to: compare the derived raw material properties with a corresponding one of a number of raw material specifications stored in a database of the central management device, generate a validation result indicating acceptance or rejection of the inbound raw material;
and a number of process control systems for controlling a respective chemical reaction to be conducted in a respective one of the chemical plants, the process control systems being configured to: if the validation result indicates acceptance of the inbound raw material, control the corresponding chemical plant to start feeding the inbound raw material.
STEP 1:
Claim 1 recites a system and claim 14 recites a method which are a within a statutory class of invention.
STEP 2
Claim 1 and 14 appear to contain a limitation that should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. It is noted that the “number of process control systems for controlling” limitation is a contingent limitation. Therefore, the BRI of these claims do not require this step to be performed. For instance, if the validation result is not accepted, then the control signal is never is never performed.
a number of process control systems for controlling a respective chemical reaction to be conducted in a respective one of the chemical plants, the process control systems being configured to: if the validation result indicates acceptance of the inbound raw material, control the corresponding chemical plant to start feeding the inbound raw material.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE:
Limitation (a) in claim 1 recites “a central acquisition device configured to: acquire a certificate indicating a number of raw material properties of an inbound raw material that has been delivered to a site of the number of chemical plants”
Limitation (b) in claim 1 recites “and derive the raw material properties the certificate”
Limitation (c) in claim 1 recites “a central management device configured to: compare the derived raw material properties with a corresponding one of a number of raw material specifications stored in a database of the central management device”
Limitation (d) in claim 1 recites “generate a validation result indicating acceptance or rejection of the inbound raw material”
As is evident from applicant’s disclosure, the claimed steps (a)-(d) fall into the “Mental Processes” group of abstract ideas because the recited steps are observations (acquire a certificate indicating a number of raw material properties in step (a)), evaluations (derive the raw material properties the certificate in step (b)), judgements (and compare the derived raw material properties in step (c)) and calculations(generate a validation result indicating acceptance in step (d)) that are simple enough that they can be practically performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid to help them complete the recited calculation or observation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the claim here merely uses general purpose computer as a tool to perform the otherwise mental process.
STEP 2A PRONG Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements of “a number of process control systems”, “a central acquisition device” and “a central management device”.
The elements of “a number of process control systems”, “a central acquisition device” and “a central management device” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a number of process control systems”, “a central acquisition device” and “a central management device” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claims 2-11 are directed to further apply the judicial exception to generic devices as recited in claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-11, are directed to a judicial exception that is not integrated into practical application. There are no additional limitations in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. The claims are not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claims also do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application that would be sufficient to amount to more than the judicial exception. Thus, claims 2-13, are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 12 in addition to the limitations of claim 1, a “chemical park” and “a number of chemical plants, wherein the number of chemical plants is greater than one”, however this does not add significant structure to overcome the rejection. Thus, claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 in addition to the limitations of claim 12, “”wherein central acquisition device and central management device are provided centrally for the entire chemical part and wherein the respective process control systems are provided individually for the respective chemical plants”, however this does not add significant structure to overcome the rejection. This claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 14 discloses a method for controlling that covers the same limitations as claim 1. This claim 14 is not patent eligible.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5,9-11 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MARKHAM US 20030158795 A1.
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) An automated control system for controlling production in a number of chemical plants the automated control system comprising (MARKHAM discloses, ¶8 “The invention is operable in an intelligent manufacturing system including a process for converting raw materials to a product”, ¶192 “ The systems of the present invention may be incorporated into or linked with other suitable software systems such as…those described by J. Ashayeri et al. in "Computer-Integrated Manufacturing in the Chemical Industry,"”):
a central acquisition device configured to: acquire a certificate indicating a number of raw material properties of an inbound raw material that has been delivered to a site of the number of chemical plants, and derive the raw material properties the certificate (MARKHAM discloses ¶71 “A subset of the PIPE system, herein referred to as STORM (System for Tracking Online Raw Materials), may be used to provide database information about raw materials accepted by a plant for use during the production of a product… ” ¶81 “In general, electronic means of receiving and processing raw material data in order to create electronic certificates of analysis may be integrated with PIPE such that the PIPE database provides access to a certificate of analysis or a link (pointer) to the certificate and its associated data…”);
a central management device configured to: compare the derived raw material properties with a corresponding one of a number of raw material specifications stored in a database of the central management device, generate a validation result indicating acceptance or rejection of the inbound raw material (MARKHAM discloses ¶176 “For example, before a raw material at a plant is loaded or otherwise used in a process for the manufacture of a product, the bar code of the material may be scanned to obtain information about the raw material, ... The raw material information is compared with the current product's bill of materials (recipe). A message is returned and displayed indicating whether the material is valid or invalid for its intended use. ”);
and a number of process control systems for controlling a respective chemical reaction to be conducted in a respective one of the chemical plants, the process control systems being configured to: if the validation result indicates acceptance of the inbound raw material, control the corresponding chemical plant to start feeding the inbound raw material (MARKHAM discloses ¶176 teaches determining validity see above, ¶177 “In such an embodiment, the control system obtains the bill of materials for a product, obtains data associated with at least one material input to the process, and compares the obtained data with the obtained bill of materials. If the obtained data exceeds a preset threshold identified in the bill of materials or is otherwise invalid, the control system invokes a setting change or other modification of the process to prevent waste and/or delay. For example, the control system may disable the machine associated with the process.”).
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of claim 1 have been discussed above. Wherein the number of raw material properties comprises at least an identifier identifying a lot and a type of the inbound raw material and a number of physico-chemical properties of the inbound raw material (MARKHAM discloses ¶81 see above for creating electronic certificate, ¶82 “ In one embodiment, a raw materials database (e.g., a certificate of analysis database) is used to store and merge raw material data… This includes material label information such as part number, lot number, and quantity. The converting line keeps a product counter that resets at a fixed preset. This product counter is a reference number that is transferred to the database on certain machine events. At the time a material starts to be consumed and at the time a material expires the converting machine transfers reference information such as a timestamp and product count to the database. ”).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 1 have been discussed above. Wherein the certificate is a QR code; and the central acquisition device is configured to acquire the QR code and derive the raw material properties by extracting the raw material properties from the acquired QR code and/or by extracting a specification of a network site from the acquired QR code and downloading the raw material properties from the specified network site (MARKHAM discloses ¶151 “The "electronic license plate" code may provide access to all the information of a conventional bar code, but additionally may provide for rapid electronic access to vendor databases or other databases giving detailed information about the material.” ¶152 “ The license plate code may be provided in an optically scannable bar code or other optically scannable marks … For example, the "QR Code" ” ).
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 1 have been discussed above. Wherein the certificate is an electronic mail; and the central acquisition device is configured to derive the raw material properties by parsing the electronic mail (MARKHAM discloses ¶196 “In one embodiment, a web-based version of the PIPE system (particularly reporting features for PIPE) may incorporate XQuery, an XML query language, as described by C. Babcock, "The Ask Master: An XML Technology Makes Retrieving Web Data Much Easier," Interactive Week, Sep. 24, 2001, p. 48. An XQuery system, for example, may query a relational database such as a product specifications database, as well as electronic data provided via web pages or e-mail, ”).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of claim 1 have been discussed above. Wherein the respective process control system is configured to control the respective chemical reaction based on a respective recipe; and the central management device is further configured to, if the validation result indicates acceptance of the inbound raw material, amend each of the recipes that relates to the inbound raw material based the comparison of the raw material properties with the raw material specifications(MARKHAM discloses ¶175 “ The productivity of a machine or plant may be improved with an automated Bill of Materials (BOM) system in which "recipes" or other product specifications are used to govern machine operation and raw materials acceptance for a targeted product. These recipes, which are available in electronic form, are used to identify the correct combinations of processes and materials that are needed for various products and to automatically ensure that the incoming raw materials and machine settings are appropriate.” ¶182 ” During grade transitions, the BOM system can compare presently loaded raw materials with those of the Bill of Materials for the new grade and determine what changes are needed. The BOM system can also be adapted to improve performance of a process during grade changes. In many manufacturing systems, there are multiple raw materials that must be changed when a product grade is changed… Transitional bills of materials may be predetermined for a variety of grade transitions, or may be determined by an expert system or by optimization of costs considering the various alternative raw materials that may be acceptable for a new targeted grade and a proposed transition product, as well as considering the quantities of raw materials from a previous grade that are currently in place and the costs of changing the previous raw materials. In some cases, for example, it may be more cost effective to continue producing excess product to use up a raw material rather than to have to remove the remaining raw material to prepare for an immediate grade change.” This is read as being able to adjust the recipe in terms of quantity based on the quality of the material that is being used.).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations of claim 1 have been discussed above. Wherein the central management device is further configured to:- generate, for at least one of the chemical plants in which a chemical reaction is to be conducted that yields a product to be delivered to an external recipient, a certificate of product properties of the product based at least in part on the number of raw material properties of the inbound raw material, and cause transmission of the generated certificate to the external recipient (MARKHAM discloses ¶207 ”Data entered in the PIPE database 70 regarding the intermediate product 38 may be extracted to provide intermediate product data 74 for use in the second process 40 at the second facility 32B. The intermediate product data 74 may be accessible via an intermediate product identification code 60B, which may be associated with the intermediate product 38 with identification means (not shown) such as a bar code or smart tag or other identification means. The intermediate product identification code 60B may be read by a reader (not shown), by human agents, or other means such that the code is entered into the control system 54B (specifically, the interface module 82) for the second process 40. Using the intermediate product identification code 60B, the control system 54B may access the intermediate product data 74 from the PIPE database 70 (alternatively, the intermediate product identification code 60B may be sent directly to the control system 54B for the second process 40 shortly before or as the intermediate product 38 is fed into the second process 40). The operators may also view information from the intermediate product data 74, such as the product manufacturing history, the raw materials 34 used, the bill of materials used, manufacturing events that occurred during production of the intermediate products 38, and measured material properties (not shown) which may also be linked to or entered into the PIPE database 70.”).
Regarding claim 11, the limitations of claim 1 have been discussed above. Wherein the central management device is further configured to amend at least one of the raw material specifications stored in the database of the central management device based on the raw material properties of the inbound raw material and a result of the chemical reaction performed in at least one of the chemical plants using the inbound raw material as a raw material (MARKHAM discloses ¶190 “Other features for managing machine settings may include the ability to maintain multiple sets of settings. One set may be tentatively deemed as the "best settings" for a grade. Current settings at any time may be captured and compared to the "best settings," and the current settings may be archived for later reference. When new settings are found to be superior or required due to changes in raw materials or equipment, they may be uploaded as the new "best settings" for that grade of product.” ¶198 “More particularly, neural networks and expert systems may be used to identify factors that are associated with increased delay or lower machine productivity in general… Identification of such factors may lead to creation of a new rule for production of the product, an alteration to the standard "recipe," to eliminate the source of delay.”).
Regarding claim 12, A chemical park comprising the automated control system of claim 1 and a number of chemical plants, wherein the number of chemical plants is greater than one (MARKHAM discloses ¶205 “depicts a PIPE-based manufacturing process 30 for a product 42 that requires two stages, a first process 36 in the first facility 32A to produce an intermediate product 38 from raw materials 34, and a second process 40 in the second facility 32B to produce a final product 42 from the intermediate product 38.” This reads as using more than one processing plant.).
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of claim 12 are discussed above. Wherein the central acquisition device and the central management device are provided centrally for the entire chemical park, and wherein the respective process control systems are provided individually for the respective chemical plants (The acquisition device and management device are read as a type of controller or control system and, MARKHAM discloses ¶202 “As used herein, a "controller" or "control system" may refer to any electronic device or system of devices and any associated software for controlling a process to operate within specified limits. Controllers may range in complexity from a simple control circuit to large, sophisticated systems such as a multi-facility distributed control system employing Fieldbus Foundation-protocol field device systems and including central and remote installations with hardwired and wireless connections to numerous devices”, shows that they can either be central or remote (individual).).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MARKHAM US20030158795A1 in view of HARBURDA US20020077718Al .
MARKHAM discloses the automated control system of claim 1 and the central management device.
MARKHAM does not disclose expressly a laboratory or generating a result from the laboratory.
HARBURDA discloses using a laboratory to test samples for quality control and automatically entering it into the system. (¶32 “Also, the quality data may be received at the production facility in a quality control laboratory and entered manually or automatically (such as through the LIMS) to the database. The quality data may even be obtained statistically using samples tested in the quality control laboratory.”)
MARKHAM and HARBURDA are analogous art because they are from same field of endeavor quality control of raw materials in an industrial setting.
At the time of the invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify MARKHAM with the laboratory of HARBURDA to perform quality control on samples at an onsite laboratory and generate a validation result.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to keep the quality of the reports in the system consistent improving quality (HARBURDA ¶14 “Further, the quality and consistency of the products produced on the production line are improved by eliminating errors and problems associated with manual entry methods.”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to combine MARKHAM and HARBURDA for the benefit of wherein: the central management device is further configured to initiate an analysis of the inbound raw material in a laboratory and generate the validation result further based on a result of the laboratory analysis to obtain the invention as specified in the claim 2.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MARKHAM US20030158795A1 in view of ANNIS US 10,679,089 B2.
MARKHAM discloses the automated control system of claim 1 and a certificate containing the raw material data.
MARKHAM does not disclose expressly the use of OCR to process an image file.
ANNIS discloses the use of OCR to process an image file (Col. 3, ln. 15-20 optical character recognition extracts image data into usable text).
MARKHAM and ANNIS are analogous art because they are from same field of endeavor processing digital files containing information.
At the time of the invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify MARKHAM to use the well known concept of OCR to read information from an image.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to be able to gather data from documents that might not otherwise be computer read-able.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to combine MARKHAM and ANNIS for the benefit of wherein the certificate is a file containing a graphical representation of a human-readable paper document; and the central acquisition device is configured to perform optical character recognition on the graphical representation of the paper document contained in the file and to derive the raw material properties by parsing an output of the optical character recognition to obtain the invention as specified in the claim 6.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MARKHAM US20030158795A1 in view of CHAVEZ US10739761B2.
MARKHAM discloses the automated control system of claim 1.
MARKHAM does not disclose expressly an interface device, a first network, a second network, or the first and second network being isolated.
CHAVEZ discloses an interface device, a first network, a second network, or the first and second network being isolated (¶149 interface controller can provide and ethernet connection and … allow connect to a second network. ¶57 “In an example, the control messages bus 112 may be implemented to support packet level, deterministic, control networks, with rate monotonic control requirements... Most of these systems were engineered to design parameters that limited the number of nodes and data elements with little ability to dynamically manage the quantity and quality of the data for what is commonly a closed and isolated network within the facility” This reads as an interface device that is able to connect to two different networks where one of the networks could be a common closed and isolated network in a facility).
MARKHAM and CHAVEZ are analogous art because they are from same field of endeavor managing a centralized industrial system.
At the time of the invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify MARKHAM to use the interface device of CHAVEZ to facilitate a first and a second network that are isolated from each other.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been improving overall performance by using a central system. (CHAVEZ ¶25 Improving performance of the system by dynamically allocating resources actually needed by the system using centralized orchestration.)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to combine MARKHAM and CHAVEZ for the benefit of an interface device for interfacing the central management device with the number of process control systems, a first communication network connecting the interface device to the central management device, and a second communication network connecting the interface device to a respective process control system, wherein the first communication network is isolated from the second communication network to obtain the invention as specified in the claim 7.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MARKHAM US20030158795A1 in view of CHAVEZ US10739761B2 further in view of ENGEL US20080059538Al.
MARKHAM discloses a database of raw materials that can be accessed (¶82 “ In one embodiment, a raw materials database (e.g., a certificate of analysis database) is used to store and merge raw material data…).
MARKHAM does not disclose expressly replicating a file copy to a second data base.
ENGEL discloses a master database and a secondary database that automatically synchronizes when the networks are connected (¶10 “The method may include copying the master file and the included master records from the server to a mobile terminal, the mobile terminal in intermittent communication with the server over a network.”. ¶26-35 disclose a method of copying files to another database, accessing the files offline and being able to modify the files. ¶52-63 disclose a system utilizing the method where the network could be a non-standard communication network. A server with a master database and a local database on another device).
MARKHAM and CHAVEZ are analogous art because they are from same field of endeavor managing a centralized industrial system.
At the time of the invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify MARKHAM to use the interface device of CHAVEZ to facilitate a first and a second network that are isolated from each other.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been improving overall performance by using a central system. (CHAVEZ ¶25 Improving performance of the system by dynamically allocating resources actually needed by the system using centralized orchestration.)
MARKHAM, CHAVEZ and ENGEL are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor industrial data management.
At the time of the invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify MARKHAM with a second database to synchronize the database to another device automatically and providing access to the database.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve record management. (ENGEL ¶2 “The storage of large amounts of records creates the need for record management.”)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to combine MARKHAM, CHAVEZ and ENGEL for the benefit of wherein the central management device is configured to store the derived raw material properties, the comparison result and the validation result in the database of the central management device, and the interface device comprises a further database and is configured to periodically replicate at least a portion of the database of the central management device with the further database, and the interface device is further configured to provide the respective process control systems with access to the further database to obtain the invention as specified in the claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR D COUSINEAU whose telephone number is (571)447-9620. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 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.
/C.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights