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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 6/25/2024 are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 2, 4 and 15 are method claims that use contingency language “if”, it is noted that MPEP 2111.04 states “II. CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, “[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed” (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.” Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14. See also MPEP § 2143.03.” Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the method claims 2, 4 and 15 would be without the steps with contingent limitations because the conditions of “the automation system settings of the simulation were to be used in the operation of the automation system”, “the difference in operation leads to a risk threshold being crossed” and “the difference in the operation between the automation system as operated with the current automation system settings and the automation system settings used in the simulation cross a difference threshold” is not required by the claims. For purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner has examined these method claims with the contingent limitations. The examiner recommends amending claim 2 to recite “determining that the difference in operation leads to a risk threshold being crossed” and amending claim 4 to recite “determining the difference in the operation between the automation system as operated with the current automation system settings and the automation system settings used in the simulation cross a difference threshold” for the contingent limitations to be included as part of the BRI.
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 1-12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental steps involving determining a difference in operation between the automation system as operated with the current automation system settings and the automation system settings used in the simulation, determining if the difference in operation leads to a risk threshold being crossed and warning the operator in case of such a crossing, wherein the risk threshold is linked to an operation and/or location in the automation system, the difference in operation includes a difference in operation downstream of said operation and/or location with said at least one parameter setting, the difference in operation includes a difference in operation downstream of said operation and/or location with said at least one parameter setting (claims 1-3, 5, 11-12 and 16), these limitations as described in [0078]-[0082] is recited in high level of generality constitutes as a mental process, such as an evaluation or judgement, that can be performed in the human mind. The claim(s) also recite(s) mathematical concepts of simulating the operation of the automation system using the selected automation system settings, performing of a simulation of the operation of the automation system using said at least one automation system parameter setting, the performing of a simulation of the operation of automation system using the selected automation system settings, the simulation is a simulation using automation parameter settings, simulating the operation of the automation system using the selected automation system settings (claims 6-7, 9 and 17), these limitations as described in [0070]-[0072] constitutes details of mathematical calculations of the simulation model for simulating the operation of the automation system, thus, it falls into the “mathematical concepts” group of abstract ideas see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of obtaining current status data of a current operation of the automation system, said current status data including current automation system settings, receiving a simulation selection from the operator, which simulation selection involves a selection of a simulation with automation system settings that differ from automation system settings used in the current operation, the at least one automation system parameter being selected by the operator is an automation system parameter in said group, the simulation has at least one automation system parameter setting for an operation and/or location in the process flow that differs from a corresponding parameter in the current operation, the selection of a simulation comprises a selection of automation system settings, the selection of automation system settings includes a selection of a setting of at least one automation system parameter of an operation and/or location in the automation system, the selection of automation system settings is a selection of a setting of a desired result of the process flow, the selection of a simulation is the selection of an existing, previously made simulation, the selection of a simulation comprises a selection of automation system settings (claims 1, 5-12 and 17) represent mere data collection which is an insignificant extrasolution activity. The “a process flow that is displayed to the operator through a number of linked graphical objects representing elements in the process flow, displaying said difference through manipulating graphical objects corresponding to elements in the process flow that experience the difference in operation, in order to allow the operator to determine the consequences if the automation system settings of the simulation were to be used in the operation of the automation system, the displaying of said difference is only made if the difference in the operation between the automation system as operated with the current automation system settings and the automation system settings used in the simulation cross a difference threshold, the process flow has a direction, presenting the operator with a group of automation system parameters that the operator is allowed to set, the consequence determining device, the displaying of said difference is only made if the difference in the operation between the automation system as operated with the current automation system settings and the automation system settings used in the simulation cross a difference threshold, computer program product, data carrier, computer program with computer program code (claims 1, 4-5, 8-9 and 11-12 and 15-16) are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)). Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the insignificant extra-solution activity of data collection is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, see mpep 2106.05(d), infra applied prior art, references cited. The “a process flow that is displayed to the operator through a number of linked graphical objects representing elements in the process flow, displaying said difference through manipulating graphical objects corresponding to elements in the process flow that experience the difference in operation, in order to allow the operator to determine the consequences if the automation system settings of the simulation were to be used in the operation of the automation system, the displaying of said difference is only made if the difference in the operation between the automation system as operated with the current automation system settings and the automation system settings used in the simulation cross a difference threshold, the process flow has a direction, presenting the operator with a group of automation system parameters that the operator is allowed to set, the consequence determining device, the displaying of said difference is only made if the difference in the operation between the automation system as operated with the current automation system settings and the automation system settings used in the simulation cross a difference threshold, computer program product, data carrier, computer program with computer program code are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)). The “field of use” limitation do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP2106.05(d)).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is a pure computer program claim that only includes program codes. Program code is not one of the four categories of invention and therefore this/these claim(s) is/are not statutory. Program code is not a series of steps or acts and thus is not a process. Program code is not a physical article or object and as such is not a machine or manufacture. Program code is not a combination of substances and therefore not a composition of matter.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the applicant has provided evidence that the applicant intends the term "data carrier” to include non-statutory matter. The specification does not provide a range for the data carrier. As such, the claim(s) is/are drawn to a form of energy. Energy is not one of the four categories of invention and therefore this/these claim(s) is/are not statutory. Energy is not a series of steps or acts and thus is not a process. Energy is not a physical article or object and as such is not a machine or manufacture. Energy is not a combination of substances and therefore not a composition of matter.
It is noted that claims 13-14 would be still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 even if claims 13-14 are amended to fit into the four categories of invention because they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more (please see above for the detailed rejections for claim 1 as the detailed rejections of claim 1 can be similarity applied to reject claims 13-14).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5-9 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over translation of JP2010244159 to Fukano et al. (hereinafter “Fukano”), in view of US9983559 to Blevins et al. (hereinafter “Blevins”).
As for claim 1, Fukano substantially discloses a method of assisting an operator of an automation system (Fukano, see [0022], it is noted that the system that allows the operator to operate a plant while visually checking the degree of influence on an operation amount can be interpreted as a method of assisting an operator of an automation system), where the automation system implements a process flow that is displayed to the operator through a number of linked graphical objects representing elements in the process flow (Fukano, see Fig. 6 and [0042]-[0043]), the method being performed by a consequence determining device (Fukano, see Fig. 1 and [0021]) and comprises:
obtaining status data of a operation of the automation system, said status data including automation system settings (Fukano, see [0021] “The on-line simulator 5 collects actual measurement data from an actual plant on-line and updates its internal model”),
receiving a simulation selection from the operator, which simulation selection involves a selection of a simulation with automation system settings that differ from automation system settings used in the operation (Fukano, see [0021] “a plant operator inputs an operation variable and an operation width to be given to an actual plant from an operation input unit 4…The analysis simulator 6 performs analysis calculation based on the plant state amount calculated by the on-line simulator 5 and the operation amount input from the operation input unit 4),
determining a difference in operation between the automation system as operated with the automation system settings and the automation system settings used in the simulation (Fukano, see [0029] “the manipulated variable 32 of the manipulated variable A before the calculation by the analysis simulator 6 is "+ 10" and the manipulated variable 33 of the manipulated variable A after the calculation is "- 10", it can be confirmed that the change in the manipulated variable of the manipulated variable B other than the manipulated variable A is such that the change amount 34 of the manipulated variable B with respect to the manipulated variable A before the calculation is "+ 15" and the change amount 35 of the manipulated variable B with respect to the manipulated variable A after the calculation is "- 20"), and
displaying said difference through manipulating graphical objects corresponding to elements in the process flow that experience the difference in operation, in order to allow the operator to determine the consequences if the automation system settings of the simulation were to be used in the operation of the automation system (Fukano, see Fig. 3 and [0028]-[0029]).
Fukano does not explicitly disclose obtaining current status data of a current operation, said current status data including current automation system setting.
However, Blevins in an analogous art discloses obtaining current status data of a current operation, said current status data including current system setting (Blevins, see col. 12 lines 19-21 for “provide a status associated with the object based on its current operating state” and see col. 28 lines 49-53 “current flow setpoint”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Blevins into the method of Fukano. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to enable future values as well as the current values of process parameters to be made available for performance evaluation as well as to guide plant operations (Blevins, see col. 4 lines 1-4).
Claim 11 is a device claim corresponding to the method claim 1, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 12 is a system claim corresponding to the method claim 1, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 13-14 are computer program/computer program product claims corresponding to the method claim 1, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Fukano further discloses wherein the process flow has a direction (Fukano, see Fig. 6) and the simulation has at least one automation system parameter setting for an operation and/or location in the process flow that differs from a corresponding parameter in the operation and the difference in operation includes a difference in operation downstream of said operation and/or location with said at least one parameter setting (Fukano, see [0021] and [0028]-[0029]). Blevins further discloses current operation (Blevins, see col. 12 lines 19-21 for “provide a status associated with the object based on its current operating state”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Blevins into the method of Fukano. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to enable future values as well as the current values of process parameters to be made available for performance evaluation as well as to guide plant operations (Blevins, see col. 4 lines 1-4).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Fukano further discloses the selection of a simulation comprises a selection of automation system settings and the performing of a simulation of the operation of automation system using the selected automation system settings, the method further including simulating the operation of the automation system using the selected automation system settings (Fukano, see [0021]-[0025]).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated, Fukano further discloses the selection of automation system settings includes a selection of a setting of at least one automation system parameter of an operation and/or location in the automation system and the performing of a simulation of the operation of the automation system using said at least one automation system parameter setting (Fukano, see [0021]-[0025]).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated, Blevins further discloses presenting the operator with a group of automation system parameters that the operator is allowed to set, and the at least one automation system parameter being selected by the operator is an automation system parameter in said group (Blevins, see Fig. 3 and col. 20 lines 10-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Blevins into the method of Fukano. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to enable future values as well as the current values of process parameters to be made available for performance evaluation as well as to guide plant operations (Blevins, see col. 4 lines 1-4).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated, Fukano further discloses wherein the selection of automation system settings is a selection of a setting of a desired result of the process flow and the simulation is a simulation using automation parameter settings, set by the consequence determining device, that achieves the desired result (Fukano, see [0024]-[0029] and [0037]).
Claim(s) 2-4 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukano, in view of Blevins, further in view of US20090149972 to Nasle.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Fukano further discloses determining the difference in operation (Fukano, see [0029] “the manipulated variable 32 of the manipulated variable A before the calculation by the analysis simulator 6 is "+ 10" and the manipulated variable 33 of the manipulated variable A after the calculation is "- 10", it can be confirmed that the change in the manipulated variable of the manipulated variable B other than the manipulated variable A is such that the change amount 34 of the manipulated variable B with respect to the manipulated variable A before the calculation is "+ 15" and the change amount 35 of the manipulated variable B with respect to the manipulated variable A after the calculation is "- 20"). The combination of Fukano and Blevins does not explicitly disclose determining if the difference leads to a risk threshold being crossed and warning the operator in case of such a crossing.
However, Nasle in an analogous art discloses determining if the difference leads to a risk threshold being crossed and warning the operator in case of such a crossing (Nasle, see [0105]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Nasle into the combination of Fukano and Blevins. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a real-time automatic feedback system that continuously compares the design selective coordination requirements captured in a logical model of a facility to the actual operational conditions and settings of the devices dispersed throughout the facility (Nasle, see [0013]).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, Fukano further discloses a graphical object representing the operation (Fukano, see Fig. 3 and [0028]-[0029]). Nasle further discloses the risk threshold is linked to an operation in the automation system and the warning is made in relation to the operation (Nasle, see [0042] and [0105]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Nasle into the combination of Fukano and Blevins. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a real-time automatic feedback system that continuously compares the design selective coordination requirements captured in a logical model of a facility to the actual operational conditions and settings of the devices dispersed throughout the facility (Nasle, see [0013]).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Fukano further discloses displaying of said difference, the difference in the operation between the automation system as operated with the automation system settings and the automation system settings used in the simulation (Fukano, see Fig. 3 and [0028]-[0029]). Blevins further discloses current automation system settings (Blevins, see col. 12 lines 19-21 for “provide a status associated with the object based on its current operating state” and see col. 28 lines 49-53 “current flow setpoint”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Blevins into the method of Fukano. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to enable future values as well as the current values of process parameters to be made available for performance evaluation as well as to guide plant operations (Blevins, see col. 4 lines 1-4).
The combination of Fukano and Blevins does not explicitly disclose display alarm is only made if the difference cross a difference threshold. However, Nasle in an analogous art discloses display alarm is only made if the difference cross a difference threshold (Nasle, see [0051] and [0105]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Nasle into the combination of Fukano and Blevins. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a real-time automatic feedback system that continuously compares the design selective coordination requirements captured in a logical model of a facility to the actual operational conditions and settings of the devices dispersed throughout the facility (Nasle, see [0013]).
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, Fukano further discloses displaying of said difference, the difference in the operation between the automation system as operated with the automation system settings and the automation system settings used in the simulation (Fukano, see Fig. 3 and [0028]-[0029]). Blevins further discloses current automation system settings (Blevins, see col. 12 lines 19-21 for “provide a status associated with the object based on its current operating state” and see col. 28 lines 49-53 “current flow setpoint”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Blevins into the method of Fukano. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to enable future values as well as the current values of process parameters to be made available for performance evaluation as well as to guide plant operations (Blevins, see col. 4 lines 1-4).
Nasle further discloses display alarm is only made if the difference cross a difference threshold (Nasle, see [0051] and [0105]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Nasle into the combination of Fukano and Blevins. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a real-time automatic feedback system that continuously compares the design selective coordination requirements captured in a logical model of a facility to the actual operational conditions and settings of the devices dispersed throughout the facility (Nasle, see [0013]).
As per claim 16, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, Fukano further discloses wherein the process flow has a direction (Fukano, see Fig. 6) and the simulation has at least one automation system parameter setting for an operation and/or location in the process flow that differs from a corresponding parameter in the operation and the difference in operation includes a difference in operation downstream of said operation and/or location with said at least one parameter setting (Fukano, see [0021] and [0028]-[0029]). Blevins further discloses current operation (Blevins, see col. 12 lines 19-21 for “provide a status associated with the object based on its current operating state”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Blevins into the method of Fukano. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to enable future values as well as the current values of process parameters to be made available for performance evaluation as well as to guide plant operations (Blevins, see col. 4 lines 1-4).
As per claim 17, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, Fukano further discloses the selection of a simulation comprises a selection of automation system settings and the performing of a simulation of the operation of automation system using the selected automation system settings, the method further including simulating the operation of the automation system using the selected automation system settings (Fukano, see [0021]-[0025]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukano, in view of Blevins, further in view of US6760630 to Turnaus et al. (hereinafter “Turnaus”).
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, the combination of Fukano and Blevins does not explicitly disclose wherein the selection of a simulation is the selection of an existing, previously made simulation.
However, Turnaus in an analogous art discloses wherein the selection of a simulation is the selection of an existing, previously made simulation (Turnaus, see col. 4 lines 18-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Turnaus into the combination of Fukano and Blevins. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to achieve the predictable result of saving operator’s time by reusing simulation scenario that was previously saved.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US20090287321 discloses a configuration system uses process plant items that may represent, or be capable of representing, entities in a process plant to assist in configuring, organizing, and changing the control and display activities within the process plant. Access to the items may be controlled by associating access control data with the items. The configuration system may also use objects that represent, or may be capable of representing, one or more steps to be performed by entities in the process plant. Access to these objects may be controlled by associating access control data with the objects. The access control data may indicate whether users or certain users may be able to, for example, view or modify all or some data associated with the process plant items or the objects. The process plant items may comprise, for example, module class objects which may be capable of generically representing process entities of the process plant, module objects which may be capable of specifically representing process entities of the process plant, composite templates, module templates, etc. The objects that represent, or may be capable of representing, one or more steps to be performed by entities in the process plant may comprise, for example, phase classes or unit phases.
US20080288089 discloses a system and method for implementing a control process within a process control system and resolving inconsistencies during execution of the control process includes loading the logical structure of the control process, loading a plurality of instantiation objects or processes when the control process is instantiated, using the instantiation objects to instantiate a procedural element of the control process as the control process calls for the procedural element during execution, executing the procedural element as part of the control process, and deconstructing the procedural element as execution of the procedural element is completed during execution of the control process. Resolution of inconsistencies includes executing a first model of an entity in a controller, executing a second model of the entity in an execution engine, detecting a difference between the models, generating a prompt and receiving an operation instruction to continue the process or abort the process.
US20020010571 discloses a system for visualizing, controlling, and managing information includes a data analysis unit for interpreting and classifying raw data using analytical techniques. A data flow coordination unit routes data from its source to other components within the system. A data preparation unit handles the graphical preparation of the data and a data rendering unit presents the data in a three-dimensional interactive environment where the user can observe, interact with, and interpret the data. A user can view the information on various levels, from a high overall process level view, to a view illustrating linkage between variables, to view the hard data itself, or to view results of an analysis of the data. The system allows a user to monitor a physical process in real-time and further allows the user to manage and control the information in a manner not previously possible.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PST.
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 E. Fennema can be reached on (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 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.
/JASON LIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights