DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 8/31/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification have overcome the objections and rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in the previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with the amendment have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
Consequently, Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite how modules interact "with a physical control hardware of a control layer" in which backend applications are functionally integrated with physical control hardware that is not directed to software per-se. Applicant therefore respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection and the allowance of these claims.
The Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant. Claim 1 is still directed to “A distributed human-machine interface system”. This system does not appear to have a limitation which requires that the system itself to be something other than software (rather than what the system interacts with). As a result, the rejection under 101 recited previously is maintained. The Examiner recommends, to the extent that support is present, amending the claim to recite non-software components of the system, such as a processor and memory, for the purpose of overcoming this rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under prior art have been fully considered and are moot upon a new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment, as outlined below.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 should apparently recite “…wherein a docker container[[s]] are…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “control unit” as recited in claims 6, 10, 13, 14 and 19.
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 § 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 1-5, 7-9, 11-12, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 1 is directed to “a distributed human-machine interface system”. Applicant’s specification describes:
[0045] The distributed human-machine interface system 100 further comprises a common HMI framework 112 for all of the view modules 102…
[0046] The common HMI framework 112 is a platform that is configured to provide orchestrated control of all the view modules 102 at a workplace. For example, common HMI framework 112 may be a JavaScript, TypeScript, or a Web Assembly that provides the common functionalities across the different micro-frontends…
Applicant’s specification does not appear to provide a limiting definition of a distributed human-machine interface system, and appears to include a description that encompasses an interpretation that the distributed human-machine interface system is entirely software. As a result, claim 1 appears to be directed to software per-se, which is non-statutory.
Dependent claims incorporate all of the limitations of their respective independent or intervening claim(s). Therefore, claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-12, 16-18, and 20 are rejected on the same basis.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this Office Action:
Dominguez et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0330021), referred to as Dominguez herein [previously cited].
Boudreau et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0406247), referred to as Boudreau herein [previously cited].
Kambourakis, “Browser integration with WebScokets, Kafka and KSQLDB” (https://tonykambo.medium.com/browser-integration-with-websockets-kafka-and-ksqldb-ff2e10f3c001), referred to as Kambourakis herein [previously cited].
Bourhani et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0192106), referred to as Bouhrani herein [previously cited].
Shakil et al. (“Towards a Modular Architecture for Industrial HMIs”, IEEE, 2020 25th IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation), referred to as Shakil herein.
Examiner’s Note
Strikethrough notation in the pending claims has been added by the Examiner.
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) 1-2, 4, 6-11, 13-15, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominguez in view of Boudreau in further view of Shakil.
Regarding claim 1, Dominguez discloses a distributed human-machine interface system for a distributed control system or integrated operations management, comprising (Dominguez, Abstract – loading a contextual user interface populated with micro frontend components based on use context. ¶0038 – web application is configured to perform operations. ¶0028, ¶0055 – controlling features depending on user context. ¶0024 – client-server structure):
a set of view modules being separately isolated micro-frontend applications each implemented by a web component (Dominguez, ¶0024 – micro-application including a micro frontend and associated backend. ¶0025-¶0027 – MFE UI components can be added or removed from the UI slot registry independently. Fig. 2 with ¶0055-¶0058 – web browser component),
each micro-frontend application including a backend application
a common HMI framework for all of the view modules, the common HMI framework includes at least infrastructure functionalities and user experience design (Dominguez, ¶0041-¶0042, ¶0052 – UI component framework incorporates each of the various UI components in the registry. Fig. 3 with ¶0069 – MFE analytics tracking infrastructure. ¶0028, ¶0058 – MFE scaffold orchestrator infrastructure loads MFEs based on contextual state such as “anonymous” or “prequalified” or “administrator”. ¶0028, ¶0055, ¶0057 –user experience layout is organized according to context such as “anonymous” “prequalified” or “administrator”, and the configuration parameters are customized. Fig. 1 with ¶0040 – UI component framework specifies the user experience layout including number of slots and arrangement within the web bowser. ¶0053 – states can be persisted throughout the user experience and shared among UI components. ¶0063 – components may already be present when switching between prequalified and anonymous).
However, Dominguez appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Boudreau discloses a micro frontend architecture (Boudreau, Abstract), including
each micro-frontend application including a backend application contained in a respective separate container (Boudreau, ¶0016, ¶0072 – API provides integration between front and back end. ¶0070 – API provides integration with the application and resides at the cloud. ¶0106, ¶0121 – container for the application. First application container may be in a remote location).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the micro frontend of Dominguez to include a container for the MFE and associated backend application based on the teachings of Boudreau. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a consistent, isolated environment for running applications, ensuring that they work reliably across different computing environments (Boudreau, ¶0106).
However, Dominquez as modified appears not to expressly disclose interact with a physical control hardware of a control layer of the distributed control system. However, in the same field of endeavor, Shakil discloses a module HMI using micro-frontend architecture (Shakil, page 1267), including
and interact with a physical control hardware of a control layer of the distributed control system (Shakil, Page 1269 – components such as conveyors and sorting robots are connected to the micro frontend. Fig. 2 with Pages 1267-1268 – HMI module includes sensor and actuator hardware. Commands from the HMI micro frontend include start/stop/fwd/open/close/etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the micro frontend of Dominguez to include interaction with physical control hardware based on the teachings of Shakil. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a modular environment for physical HMI software deployment, reducing the need for reprogramming and redeploying (Shakil, Page 1267).
Regarding claim 2, Dominguez as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the common HMI framework is configured to provide orchestrated control of all the view modules at a workplace (Dominguez, ¶0041-¶0042, ¶0052 – UI component framework incorporates each of the various UI components in the registry. ¶0098 – workstation. Boudreau, ¶0022 - workflow).
Regarding claim 4, Dominguez as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the web component is HTML5 (Boudreau, ¶0002, ¶0021 – HTML5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the web component of Dominguez to include HTML5 based on the teachings of Boudreau. The motivation for doing so would have been to realize the advantages of HTML5 including cross-platform compatibility, performance, and improved user-experience features.
Regarding claim 6, Dominguez as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses comprising at least one control unit configured to run at least one micro-frontend each (Dominguez, ¶0011 – control unit. Fig. 1 with ¶0024, ¶0036 – micro frontend executes on a client computing device. Fig. 6 with ¶0090-¶0092, ¶0099 – processor. This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the hardware processor described in Applicant’s Specification ¶0077).
Regarding claim 7, Dominguez as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the micro-frontend applications include at least a process graphics module, and a workplace module, wherein the process graphics module is configured to provide data indicative of features of an object a user interacts with, and the workplace module is configured to find micro-frontend applications related to the object (Dominguez, ¶0056 – user interaction with the web frontend results in loading the unified calculator shell. ¶0061 – view composition service composes the view by loading (finding) the corresponding UI components (graphics). Boudreau, ¶0025 – tracking events and actions within a particular page including selection of buttons).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the page interaction of Dominguez to include object interaction based on the teachings of Boudreau. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user to easily and intuitively select to load content such as the unified calculator shell.
Regarding claim 8, Dominguez as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further disclose wherein the micro-frontend applications provide at least two types of applications (Dominguez, Fig. 2 with ¶0025, ¶0060-¶0063 – MFE applications associated with anonymous or prequalified users. The MFE applications associated with different slots are different for the different contexts).
Regarding claim 9, Dominguez as modified discloses the elements of claim 8 above, and further discloses comprising a viewer application configured to collect visual content from the micro-frontend applications, and from at least one external application, and provide the visual contents to a computer display (Dominguez, ¶0002, ¶0005, ¶0037-¶0039 – MFEs execute and displayed in a web browser application. ¶0056 – unified calculator is an external application in at least that it comprises code that is downloaded into the web browser).
Regarding claim 10, Dominguez as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein a docker containers are geographically distributed on separate control units of a distributed control system (Dominguez, Abstract – loading a contextual user interface populated with micro frontend components based on use context. ¶0038 – web application is configured to perform operations. ¶0002, ¶0024, ¶0034, ¶0099 – client-server, cloud structure, including for backend features. Boudreau, Fig. 3 with ¶0059, ¶0064-¶0065, ¶0070 – server computers, cloud components. This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the hardware processor described in Applicant’s Specification ¶0077).
Regarding claim 11, Dominguez as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the HMI framework is configured to provide a token-based authentication for user login (Boudreau, ¶0027 – token-based authentication for log in).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the user context of Dominguez to include determination based on authentication interaction based on the teachings of Boudreau. The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate user data and MFE access controls (Boudreau, ¶0027).
Regarding claim 13, Dominguez discloses a set of control units configured to implement a distributed human-machine interface system for a distributed control system or integrated operations management, comprising (Dominguez, ¶0011 – control unit. Fig. 1 with ¶0024, ¶0036 – micro frontend executes on a client computing device. Fig. 6 with ¶0090-¶0092, ¶0099 – processor. Abstract – loading a contextual user interface populated with micro frontend components based on use context. ¶0038 – web application is configured to perform operations. ¶0028, ¶0055 – controlling features depending on user context. ¶0024 – client-server structure. This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the hardware processor described in Applicant’s Specification ¶0077):
a set of view modules being separately isolated micro-frontend applications each implemented by a web component (Dominguez, ¶0024 – micro-application including a micro frontend and associated backend. ¶0025-¶0027 – MFE UI components can be added or removed from the UI slot registry independently. Fig. 2 with ¶0055-¶0058 – web browser component),
each micro-frontend application including a backend application
a common HMI framework for all of the view modules, the common HMI framework includes at least infrastructure functionalities and user experience design (Dominguez, ¶0041-¶0042, ¶0052 – UI component framework incorporates each of the various UI components in the registry. Fig. 3 with ¶0069 – MFE analytics tracking infrastructure. ¶0028, ¶0058 – MFE scaffold orchestrator infrastructure loads MFEs based on contextual state such as “anonymous” or “prequalified” or “administrator”. ¶0028, ¶0055, ¶0057 –user experience layout is organized according to context such as “anonymous” “prequalified” or “administrator”, and the configuration parameters are customized. Fig. 1 with ¶0040 – UI component framework specifies the user experience layout including number of slots and arrangement within the web bowser. ¶0053 – states can be persisted throughout the user experience and shared among UI components. ¶0063 – components may already be present when switching between prequalified and anonymous).
However, Dominguez appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Boudreau discloses a micro frontend architecture (Boudreau, Abstract), including
each micro-frontend application including a backend application contained in a respective separate container (Boudreau, ¶0016, ¶0072 – API provides integration between front and back end. ¶0070 – API provides integration with the application and resides at the cloud. ¶0106, ¶0121 – container for the application. First application container may be in a remote location).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the micro frontend of Dominguez to include a container for the MFE and associated backend application based on the teachings of Boudreau. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a consistent, isolated environment for running applications, ensuring that they work reliably across different computing environments (Boudreau, ¶0106).
However, Dominquez as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Shakil discloses a module HMI using micro-frontend architecture (Shakil, page 1267), including
and interact with a physical control hardware of a control layer of the distributed control system (Shakil, Page 1269 – components such as conveyors and sorting robots are connected to the micro frontend. Fig. 2 with Pages 1267-1268 – HMI module includes sensor and actuator hardware. Commands from the HMI micro frontend include start/stop/fwd/open/close/etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the micro frontend of Dominguez to include interaction with physical control hardware based on the teachings of Shakil. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a modular environment for physical HMI software deployment, reducing the need for reprogramming and redeploying (Shakil, Page 1267).
Regarding claim 14, Dominguez discloses a system comprising a computer display and a set of control units configured to implement a distributed human-machine interface system for a distributed control system or integrated operations management, comprising (Dominguez, ¶0011 – control unit. Fig. 1 with ¶0024, ¶0036 – micro frontend executes on a client computing device. Fig. 6 with ¶0090-¶0092, ¶0099 – processor. Abstract – loading a contextual user interface populated with micro frontend components based on use context. ¶0038 – web application is configured to perform operations. ¶0028, ¶0055 – controlling features depending on user context. ¶0024 – client-server structure. ¶0011 – display. This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the hardware processor described in Applicant’s Specification ¶0077):
a set of view modules being separately isolated micro-frontend applications each implemented by a web component (Dominguez, ¶0024 – micro-application including a micro frontend and associated backend. ¶0025-¶0027 – MFE UI components can be added or removed from the UI slot registry independently. Fig. 2 with ¶0055-¶0058 – web browser component),
each micro-frontend application including a backend application
a common HMI framework for all of the view modules, the common HMI framework includes at least infrastructure functionalities and user experience design (Dominguez, ¶0041-¶0042, ¶0052 – UI component framework incorporates each of the various UI components in the registry. Fig. 3 with ¶0069 – MFE analytics tracking infrastructure. ¶0028, ¶0058 – MFE scaffold orchestrator infrastructure loads MFEs based on contextual state such as “anonymous” or “prequalified” or “administrator”. ¶0028, ¶0055, ¶0057 –user experience layout is organized according to context such as “anonymous” “prequalified” or “administrator”, and the configuration parameters are customized. Fig. 1 with ¶0040 – UI component framework specifies the user experience layout including number of slots and arrangement within the web bowser. ¶0053 – states can be persisted throughout the user experience and shared among UI components. ¶0063 – components may already be present when switching between prequalified and anonymous).
However, Dominguez appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Boudreau discloses a micro frontend architecture (Boudreau, Abstract), including
each micro-frontend application including a backend application contained in a respective separate container (Boudreau, ¶0016, ¶0072 – API provides integration between front and back end. ¶0070 – API provides integration with the application and resides at the cloud. ¶0106, ¶0121 – container for the application. First application container may be in a remote location).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the micro frontend of Dominguez to include a container for the MFE and associated backend application based on the teachings of Boudreau. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a consistent, isolated environment for running applications, ensuring that they work reliably across different computing environments (Boudreau, ¶0106).
However, Dominquez as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Shakil discloses a module HMI using micro-frontend architecture (Shakil, page 1267), including
and interact with a physical control hardware of a control layer of the distributed control system (Shakil, Page 1269 – components such as conveyors and sorting robots are connected to the micro frontend. Fig. 2 with Pages 1267-1268 – HMI module includes sensor and actuator hardware. Commands from the HMI micro frontend include start/stop/fwd/open/close/etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the micro frontend of Dominguez to include interaction with physical control hardware based on the teachings of Shakil. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a modular environment for physical HMI software deployment, reducing the need for reprogramming and redeploying (Shakil, Page 1267).
Regarding claim 15, Dominguez discloses a non-transitory computer program product comprising a computer readable medium having stored thereon computer program to implement a distributed human-machine interface system for a distributed control system or integrated operations management, comprising (Dominguez, Abstract – loading a contextual user interface populated with micro frontend components based on use context. ¶0038 – web application is configured to perform operations. ¶0028, ¶0055 – controlling features depending on user context. ¶0024 – client-server structure. Fig. 6 with ¶0008, ¶0090-¶0092, ¶0099 – processor executing instructions stored in hardware memory):
a set of view modules being separately isolated micro-frontend applications each implemented by a web component (Dominguez, ¶0024 – micro-application including a micro frontend and associated backend. ¶0025-¶0027 – MFE UI components can be added or removed from the UI slot registry independently. Fig. 2 with ¶0055-¶0058 – web browser component),
each micro-frontend application including a backend application
a common HMI framework for all of the view modules, the common HMI framework includes at least infrastructure functionalities and user experience design (Dominguez, ¶0041-¶0042, ¶0052 – UI component framework incorporates each of the various UI components in the registry. Fig. 3 with ¶0069 – MFE analytics tracking infrastructure. ¶0028, ¶0058 – MFE scaffold orchestrator infrastructure loads MFEs based on contextual state such as “anonymous” or “prequalified” or “administrator”. ¶0028, ¶0055, ¶0057 –user experience layout is organized according to context such as “anonymous” “prequalified” or “administrator”, and the configuration parameters are customized. Fig. 1 with ¶0040 – UI component framework specifies the user experience layout including number of slots and arrangement within the web bowser. ¶0053 – states can be persisted throughout the user experience and shared among UI components. ¶0063 – components may already be present when switching between prequalified and anonymous).
However, Dominguez appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Boudreau discloses a micro frontend architecture (Boudreau, Abstract), including
each micro-frontend application including a backend application contained in a respective separate container (Boudreau, ¶0016, ¶0072 – API provides integration between front and back end. ¶0070 – API provides integration with the application and resides at the cloud. ¶0106, ¶0121 – container for the application. First application container may be in a remote location).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the micro frontend of Dominguez to include a container for the MFE and associated backend application based on the teachings of Boudreau. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a consistent, isolated environment for running applications, ensuring that they work reliably across different computing environments (Boudreau, ¶0106).
However, Dominquez as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Shakil discloses a module HMI using micro-frontend architecture (Shakil, page 1267), including
and interact with a physical control hardware of a control layer of the distributed control system (Shakil, Page 1269 – components such as conveyors and sorting robots are connected to the micro frontend. Fig. 2 with Pages 1267-1268 – HMI module includes sensor and actuator hardware. Commands from the HMI micro frontend include start/stop/fwd/open/close/etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the micro frontend of Dominguez to include interaction with physical control hardware based on the teachings of Shakil. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a modular environment for physical HMI software deployment, reducing the need for reprogramming and redeploying (Shakil, Page 1267).
Regarding claim 17, Dominguez as modified discloses the elements of claim 2 above, and further discloses wherein the web component is HTML5 (Boudreau, ¶0002, ¶0021 – HTML5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the web component of Dominguez to include HTML5 based on the teachings of Boudreau. The motivation for doing so would have been to realize the advantages of HTML5 including cross-platform compatibility, performance, and improved user-experience features.
Regarding claim 19, Dominguez as modified discloses the elements of claim 2 above, and further discloses comprising at least one control unit configured to run at least one micro-frontend each (Dominguez, ¶0011 – control unit. Fig. 1 with ¶0024, ¶0036 – micro frontend executes on a client computing device. Fig. 6 with ¶0090-¶0092, ¶0099 – processor. This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the hardware processor described in Applicant’s Specification ¶0077).
Regarding claim 20, Dominguez as modified discloses the elements of claim 2 above, and further discloses wherein the micro-frontend applications include at least a process graphics module, and a workplace module, wherein the process graphics module is configured to provide data indicative of features of an object a user interacts with, and the workplace module is configured to find micro-frontend applications related to the object (Dominguez, ¶0056 – user interaction with the web frontend results in loading the unified calculator shell. ¶0061 – view composition service composes the view by loading (finding) the corresponding UI components (graphics). Boudreau, ¶0025 – tracking events and actions within a particular page including selection of buttons).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the page interaction of Dominguez to include object interaction based on the teachings of Boudreau. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable the user to easily and intuitively select to load content such as the unified calculator shell.
Claim(s) 3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominguez in view of Boudreau in further view of Shakil in further view of Kambourakis.
Regarding claim 3, Dominguez as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses the backend applications communicate with their view module using
However, Dominguez appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kambourakis discloses a micro frontend (Kambourakis, Pages 1-3), including
the backend applications communicate with their view module using Web Sockets (Kambourakis, Pages 2-4, and 7-8 – micro-frontends communicate with the backend via web sockets).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the micro frontend of Dominguez to include websocket communication based on the teachings of Kambourakis. The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate sending updates to multiple browsers concurrently (Kambourakis, Page 5).
Regarding claim 16, Dominguez as modified discloses the elements of claim 2 above, and further discloses the backend applications communicate with their view module using
However, Dominguez appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kambourakis discloses a micro frontend (Kambourakis, Pages 1-3), including
the backend applications communicate with their view module using Web Sockets (Kambourakis, Pages 2-4, and 7-8 – micro-frontends communicate with the backend via web sockets).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the micro frontend of Dominguez to include websocket communication based on the teachings of Kambourakis. The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate sending updates to multiple browsers concurrently (Kambourakis, Page 5).
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominguez in view of Boudreau in further view of Shakil in further view of Bourhani.
Regarding claim 5, Dominguez as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the common HMI framework is configured to exchange
However, Dominguez as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Bourhani discloses a user interface comprised of micro frontend building blocks (Bourhani, Abstract), including
wherein the common HMI framework is configured to exchange messages (Bourhani, ¶0043 – micro frontends can communicate with one another and business logic of the page itself).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the micro frontend of Dominguez to include micro frontend cross communication based on the teachings of Bourhani. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent the user from having to interact with each micro frontend individually when user interaction information is relevant to multiple frontends (Bourhani, ¶0044, ¶0049).
Regarding claim 12, Dominguez as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above. However, Dominguez as modified appears not to expressly disclose wherein the micro-frontend applications include at least one of process graphics modules, alarm modules and trend view modules.
However, Dominguez as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Bourhani discloses a user interface comprised of micro frontend building blocks (Bourhani, Abstract), including
wherein the micro-frontend applications include at least one of process graphics modules, alarm modules and trend view modules (Bourhani, Abstract – micro-frontend building blocks. Fig. 8 with ¶0077-¶0080 – building blocks include business component that includes open alarms. Fig. 8 with ¶0048 – process parameters including alarms triggered, distance before refueling, geofence violations, crashes, or other conditions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the micro frontend of Dominguez as modified to include process and alarm modules based on the teachings of Bourhani. The motivation for doing so would have been to extend functionality to a wider variety of use cases, including additional business components usable by independent teams (Bourhani, ¶0004-¶0006), focused on a variety of metrics or business goals.
Regarding claim 18, Dominguez as modified discloses the elements of claim 2 above, and further discloses wherein the common HMI framework is configured to exchange
However, Dominguez as modified appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Bourhani discloses a user interface comprised of micro frontend building blocks (Bourhani, Abstract), including
wherein the common HMI framework is configured to exchange messages (Bourhani, ¶0043 – micro frontends can communicate with one another and business logic of the page itself).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the micro frontend of Dominguez to include micro frontend cross communication based on the teachings of Bourhani. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent the user from having to interact with each micro frontend individually when user interaction information is relevant to multiple frontends (Bourhani, ¶0044, ¶0049).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DANIEL W PARCHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4281. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm, Mountain Time.
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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)272-4088 (Eastern Time). 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.
/DANIEL W PARCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights