Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 7/13/26.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, to claim 9 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 to claim 9 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, the applicant argues that:
a) Applicant respectfully disagrees. Schmidt is directed to a technique for converting ladder diagrams of the old 984 model so that the same operation can be achieved in an IEC 61131-oriented controller. In Schmidt, additional variables and delay elements are generated in order to compensate for differences in execution order between an old PLC and an IEC PLC. …
Thus, the variables and replacement in Schmidt are not name replacement for improving display visibility. In contrast, at least one embodiment according to claim 1 is related to a display technique in which variable names according to a first notation, such as IEC standards, are used internally in the program, while symbol names according to a second notation, such as conventional electrical circuit notation, are displayed on the screen, see the non-limiting descriptions in paragraphs [0024]-[0025] of the specification of the instant application. Schmidt is fundamentally different from the at least one embodiment according to claim 1. Schmidt does not teach or suggest the above- mentioned features in claim 1. In support, the International Search Report (ISR) classified Schmidt as an "A" document.
Examiner’s response:
a) Schmidt teaches a name replacement unit that replaces variable names included in the sequence program with the symbol names ([0005] FIG. 1 shows an example of a ladder diagram KOP. The ladder diagram KOP is a method for programming programmable logic controllers. This is a standardized graphical language that uses a representation that follows that of circuit diagrams. Starting from a simulated power supply SV, objects are labelled as contacts Kxy or coils Sxy. To each object is assigned a variable Vxy, with 1.ltoreq.x, y.ltoreq.n. If the objects are connected in series via connecting lines, then this signifies an AND operation. The objects of a series connection are arranged in individual columns. The arrangement of objects in several rows, rows 1 to 5 in the illustrated ladder diagram, serves to represent an OR operation. Horizontal lines serve to link the objects, while vertical lines VL serve to connect horizontal lines HL, so that branches can be formed. Any value applied to the left side is passed to the objects connected on the right side; and also see Fig. 4 and 5).
In the remarks, the applicant argues that:
b) Further, claim 1 recites, "a program display unit that displays the sequence program using the symbol names." …
Inoue at the cited portion describes a technique for detecting duplicated signal names when the same signal name is assigned to multiple coils in a sequence program, and rewriting the duplicated signal names into new signal names.
In other words, Inoue at the cited portions describes rewriting the signal names themselves in the program in order to organize duplicated signal names. In contrast, at least one embodiment according to claim 1 maintains correspondences between variable names and symbol names, stores the program using the variable names, and displays the corresponding symbol names at the time of display. Accordingly, Inoue at the cited portions does not describe a two-layer structure of a "stored name" and a "displayed name."
Examiner’s response:
b) Inoue teaches a program display unit that displays the sequence program using the symbol names ([0005] There has been developed a sequence program editing apparatus capable of inputting and displaying subsidiary data in addition to symbols and signal names of the devices in the process of creating and editing the sequence program …).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., two-layer structure of a "stored name" and a "displayed name.") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In the remarks, the applicant argues that:
c) Furthermore, the problems addressed by the respective references are different from at least one embodiment according to the instant application, as summarized below. At least one embodiment according to claim 1 is for achieving both internal management using IEC-compliant variable names and user operability through display using conventional electrical circuit notation. In contrast, Schmidt describes preventing operation mismatch caused by differences in execution order between an old PLC and an IEC PLC. Inoue at the cited portions describes detecting and rewriting duplicated signal names. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify Schmidt from the teaching in the cited portions of Inoue merely because the references belong to the common technical field of editing sequence programs.
Examiner’s response:
c) Claim 1 does not recite “IEC-compliant variable names” and “electrical circuit notation”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “IEC-compliant variable names” and “electrical circuit notation”) are not recited in the rejected claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to create and edit a sequence program (Inoue, par. 0002).
In the remarks, the applicant argues that:
d) Each of dependent claims 2-7 depending from claim 1 recites additional features and distinguishes over the applied art of record at the cited portions for at least the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1 and/or for the additional features recited.
Examiner’s response:
d) The Examiner addressed the applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 in the Examiner’s Responses (a) thru (c). Please see the Examiner’s Responses (a) thru (c) above.
In the remarks, the applicant argues that:
e) Solely for the purpose of expediting prosecution, claim 9 is amended to recite one or more features similar to the feature(s) discussed with respect to claim 1, and is patentable over the applied art of record at the cited portions for at least analogous reasons to those offered above with respect to claim 1.
Examiner’s response:
e) The Examiner addressed the applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 in the Examiner’s Responses (a) thru (c). Please see the Examiner’s Responses (a) thru (c) above.
In the remarks, the applicant argues that:
f) Muller does not rectify the deficiencies of the cited portions of Schmidt and Inoue. Thus, claim 1 is patentable over the applied art of record at the cited portions. Claim 8 depending from claim 1 recites additional features and distinguishes over the applied art of record at the cited portions for at least the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1 and/or for the additional features recited.
Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 8, as being unpatentable over the applied art of record at the cited portions, are respectfully requested.
Examiner’s response:
f) The Examiner addressed the applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 in the Examiner’s Responses (a) thru (c). Please see the Examiner’s Responses (a) thru (c) above.
Further, regarding claim 8, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In the remarks, the applicant argues that:
g) New claims 10 and 11 are added. The features in claims 10 and 11 find support at least in the non-limiting descriptions in paragraphs [0024]-[0025] of the specification of the instant application. Each of claims 10 and 11 depending from claim 1 recites additional features and distinguishes over the applied art of record at the cited portions for at least the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1 and/or for the additional features recited.
Examiner’s response:
g) The Examiner addressed the applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 in the Examiner’s Responses (a) thru (c). Please see the Examiner’s Responses (a) thru (c) above.
Further, regarding new claims 10 and 11, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Response to Amendment
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 2010/0094437) in view of Inoue (US 2004/0210867).
Per Claim 1:
Schmidt teaches a name storage unit that stores correspondences between variable names conforming to first notation and symbol names conforming to second notation (e.g. see Fig. 2); a program acquisition unit that acquires a sequence program described by the variable names conforming to the first notation; a name replacement unit that replaces variable names included in the sequence program with the symbol names (par. 0005; 0009 and 0010-0011). Schmidt does not explicitly teach a program display unit that displays the sequence program using the symbol names.
However, Inoue teaches a program display unit that displays the sequence program using the symbol names (e.g. see abstract and par. 0005).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Schmidt to include a program display unit that displays the sequence program using the symbol names using the teaching of Inoue. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to create and edit a sequence program (Inoue, par. 0002).
Per Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Inoue further teaches wherein the program acquisition unit is an editing operation acceptance unit for accepting an editing operation for the sequence program, and comprises a name management unit that determines whether or not a symbol name accepted by the editing operation acceptance unit conforms to the first notation, and when the symbol name does not conform to the first notation, rewrites the symbol name in the sequence program being edited into a variable name that conforms to the first notation (par. 0028-0029).
Per Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, and Inoue further teaches wherein the name management unit accepts a setting of a variable name corresponding to the symbol name accepted by the editing operation acceptance unit when the symbol name does not conform to the first notation, and stores the correspondence between the symbol name and the variable name in the name storage unit (par. 0029-0030).
Per Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, and Inoue further teaches wherein the program acquisition unit is a program storage unit for storing an existing sequence program, and comprises a name management unit that determines whether or not symbol names included in the existing sequence program conform to the first notation, and when the symbol names do not conform to the first notation, rewrites the symbol names in the existing sequence program into variable names that conform to the first notation (par. 0029-0030).
Per Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, and Inoue further teaches wherein the name management unit accepts a setting of variable names corresponding to the symbol names included in the existing sequence program when the symbol names do not conform to the first notation, and stores the correspondences between the symbol names and the variable names in the name storage unit (par. 0030).
Per Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, and Schmidt further teaches wherein the name management unit stores a replacement table between the first notation and the second notation, and uses the replacement table to replace the symbol names with the variable names (Fig. 2 and par. 0011-0013).
Per Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Inoue further teaches wherein when variable names in the sequence program are replaced with the symbol names, the program display unit displays the symbol names to be displayed by decorating them (par. 0029-0030).
Per Claim 9:
This is a medium version of the claimed device discussed above (claim 1, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above, including “display the sequence program in the symbol names conforming to the second notation” (Inoue, par. 0028-0029). Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious.
Per Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Schmidt further teaches wherein the first notation is notation conforming to IEC standards, and the second notation is notation conforming to electronic circuit notation (e.g. see Fig. 4 and 5; and par. 0011).
Claim(s) 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 2010/0094437) in view of Inoue (US 2004/0210867), and further in view of Muller (US 2012/0185077).
Per Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further, Schmidt does not explicitly teach wherein the sequence program can be written in a plurality of languages, and the name replacement unit replaces variable names included in a sequence program written in a specific language with symbol names that conform to the second notation, the program display unit then displays the sequence program written in the specific language with the symbol names.
However, Muller teaches wherein the sequence program can be written in a plurality of languages, and the name replacement unit replaces variable names included in a sequence program written in a specific language with symbol names that conform to the second notation, the program display unit then displays the sequence program written in the specific language with the symbol names (par. 0093 and 0099).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Schmidt to include wherein the sequence program can be written in a plurality of languages, and the name replacement unit replaces variable names included in a sequence program written in a specific language with symbol names that conform to the second notation, the program display unit then displays the sequence program written in the specific language with the symbol names using the teaching of Muller. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to create a sequence program defined in a domain language (Muller, par. 0002).
Per Claim 11:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further, Schmidt does not explicitly teach wherein the sequence program is stored using the variable names conforming to the first notation, and the program display unit displays, on a display screen, the symbol names corresponding to the variable names based on the correspondences stored in the name storage unit.
However, Muller teaches wherein the sequence program is stored using the variable names conforming to the first notation, and the program display unit displays, on a display screen, the symbol names corresponding to the variable names based on the correspondences stored in the name storage unit (par. 0093 and 0099).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Schmidt to include wherein the sequence program is stored using the variable names conforming to the first notation, and the program display unit displays, on a display screen, the symbol names corresponding to the variable names based on the correspondences stored in the name storage unit using the teaching of Muller. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to create a sequence program defined in a domain language (Muller, par. 0002).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takehisa (US 2016/0170397) teaches a method for displaying a name conversion table.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QAMRUN NAHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6:30pm.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on (571)272-3759. 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.
/QAMRUN NAHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights