DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to the claims filed 28 June 2024. Claims 1-7 are pending. Claim 1 is an independent claim.
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 .
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim limitations of claim 1 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “group editing request acceptance unit”, “a reference information generation unit”, “a group management unit”, and a “a query request acceptance unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claims 1-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a group editing request acceptance unit configure to receive”. This limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. §112(f). 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. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. The function of receiving may be performed in hardware, software, or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. 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.
Claim 1 recites “a reference information generation unit configured to generate”. This limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. §112(f). 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. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. The function of generating may be performed in hardware, software, or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. 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.
Claim 1 recites “a group management unit configured to create”. This limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. §112(f). 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. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. The function of creating may be performed in hardware, software, or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. 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.
Claim 1 recites “a query request acceptance unit configured accept”. This limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. §112(f). 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. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. The function of accepting may be performed in hardware, software, or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. 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.
Dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi (US 2021/0064275 A1) hereinafter known as Konishi in view of Nagata (US 2019/0163171 A1) hereinafter known as Nagata.
Regarding independent claim 1, Konishi teaches:
A control apparatus communicably connected to a PLC apparatus, the PLC apparatus comprising: (Konishi: Fig. 1 and ¶[0043]-¶[0046]; Konishi teaches a control system with a controller 200.)
a memory unit in which addresses available on a PLC and data of current values at the addresses are recorded, and (Konishi: Fig. 1 and ¶[0054]; Konishi teaches controller 200 including a storage device 208 which contains publishing setting information and the user program. ¶[0050] further teaches variables, as part of the user program, which show the state of the controller 200 or drive device 300. The foregoing is interpreted as current values at addresses.)
a storage unit that manages a sequence program to be executed for each of namespaces and pieces of variable definition information related to variables defined for the addresses recorded in the memory unit, the pieces of variable definition information being for use in the sequence program for each of the namespaces, (Konishi: ¶[0049]; Konishi teaches variables in a user program belonging to predetermined namespaces. Fig. 13 and ¶[0131] teaches the sequence program as part of the user program.)
the control apparatus comprising: a control unit; and (Konishi: Fig. 1 and ¶[0048]; Konishi teaches a development assistance device 100.)
an input unit, (Konishi: Fig. 12 and ¶[0126]; Konishi teaches an I/O interface for user operation.)
wherein the control unit comprises: a group editing request acceptance unit configured to receive, via the input unit, an input of arbitrary addresses recorded in the memory unit or an input of arbitrary variables registered with the storage unit for each of the namespaces, the group editing request acceptance unit being configured to accept a request to create a group or a request to edit a group; (Konishi: Fig. 1 and ¶[0048]; Konishi teaches a development assistance device 100, which contains a development tool 30. ¶[0052] further teaches the development tool 30 of the user program is configured to set, for the namespace, a publishing setting for causing controller 200 to determine whether to publish variables belonging to the namespace. ¶[0096] further teaches the publishing setting can be set per variable belonging to each namespace.)
...
a group management unit configured to create a new group based on members ... in a case of accepting the request to create a group by the group editing request acceptance unit, and to additionally register members including the pieces of reference information into the group in a case of accepting the request to edit a group by the group editing request acceptance unit; and (Konishi: ¶[0052]; Konishi teaches the development tool 30 of the user program is configured to set, for the namespace, a publishing setting for causing controller 200 to determine whether to publish variables belonging to the namespace. ¶[0074]-¶[0075] further teach saving the published setting as publishing setting information 212, which associates variables with a publishing setting for each namespace.)
a query request acceptance unit configured to accept, via the input unit, a request to query an arbitrary group managed by the group management unit, and (Konishi: ¶[0116]; Konishi teaches accepting a namespace, a variable name, or communication protocol as a search key.)
the group management unit acquires, in response to the query request accepted by the query request acceptance unit, addresses and current values from the memory unit, and pieces of variable definition information from the storage unit, ... , and provides the addresses, the current values, and the pieces of variable definition information as queried information about members included in the group. (Konishi: ¶[0117]-¶[0118]; Konishi teaches the search displays each extracted variable and its publishing setting side by side.)
Konishi does not explicitly teach but Nagata teaches:
a reference information generation unit configured to generate pieces of reference information indicating where in the memory unit or the storage unit the addresses or the variables accepted by the group editing request acceptance unit are recorded; (Nagata: ¶[0040] and ¶[0045]; Nagata teaches address information (interpreted as reference information) defining logical addresses of variables included in a control program of the driving machine and acquires the variables managed in the controller. ¶[0059]-¶[0060] further teaches the logical addresses are logical positions on memory and each node defines a variable’s address, value, and type.)
... including the pieces of reference information ... including the pieces of reference information into the group ... (Nagata: Fig. 5 and ¶[0045], ¶[0076], and ¶[0079]; Nagata teaches adding the logical address (reference information) of each public variable as a node in address information 113 – the node including the logical address, the variably type, and a reference destination to another node.)
... based on pieces of reference information registered in the group requested to be queried ... (Nagata: ¶[0040]; Nagata teaches graphically displaying the state of the controller. ¶[0060], ¶[0062], and ¶[0067] further teach tracing the logical addresses to the target node and acquiring the variable’s type and value and further, a read request that returns variable’s values.)
Konishi and Nagata are in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as the references are directed to industrial control and monitoring PLC variables. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine an industrial control system for monitoring PLC variables that allows the user to designate the variables for publishing as taught in Konishi with further address information generation as taught in Nagata. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Hunt to include teachings of Hinckley, because the combination would allow generating address information for more efficient location of the variables, as suggested by Nagata: ¶[0059]-¶[0060].
Regarding claim 2, Konishi in view of Nagata further teaches the control apparatus according to claim 1.
Konishi further teaches:
wherein the namespaces are expressed by either POU names or system names of the PLC apparatus. (Konishi: ¶[0058]; Konishi teaches the namespaces defined for each controller name or drive device name.)
Regarding claim 3, Konishi in view of Nagata further teaches the control apparatus according to claim 1.
Konishi further teaches:
wherein the group management unit sets, for the group, display order of the members included in the group or/and property information including a creation date of the group, whether viewing is allowed or not, and whether editing is allowed or not. (Konishi: Figs. 9-11; Konishi teaches displaying the namespaces in alphabetical order.)
Regarding claim 4, Konishi in view of Nagata further teaches the control apparatus according to claim 1.
Konishi further teaches:
wherein the group management unit creates a plurality of subgroups based on pieces of correlation information indicating correlation relationships with the group. (Konishi: ¶[0072]; Konishi teaches that in addition to specifying whether to publish or not publish, setting reading or writing setting, which may be interpreted as a subgroup.)
Regarding claim 5, Konishi in view of Nagata further teaches the control apparatus according to claim 1.
Nagata further teaches:
wherein the reference information generation unit generates pieces of reference information for variables satisfying a condition specified via the input unit and generates a group satisfying the condition based on the generated pieces of reference information. (Nagata: ¶[0083]-¶[0086]; Nagata teaches sorting and selecting variables by a predetermined rule.)
Regarding claim 6, Konishi in view of Nagata further teaches the control apparatus according to claim 1.
Konishi further teaches:
comprising the PLC apparatus. (Konishi: Fig. 1 and ¶[0043]-¶[0046]; Konishi teaches a control system with a controller 200.)
Regarding claim 7, Konishi in view of Nagata further teaches the control apparatus according to claim 1.
Konishi further teaches:
wherein the control apparatus is included in the PLC apparatus. (Konishi: Fig. 1 and ¶[0043]-¶[0046]; Konishi teaches a control system with a controller 200.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX OLSHANNIKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-0667. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALEKSEY OLSHANNIKOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights