DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Remarks and Claim Amendments filed on August 25, 2026.
Claims 1, 5, 10-13 and 15-20 have been amended. Claims 2 and 9 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 10-20 are pending and presented to examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated September 08, 2026 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Response to Amendment
The objections to claims 5-7, 12-13 and 15 set forth in the Office action mailed June 17, 2026 are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The rejections of claims 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the Office action mailed June 17, 2026 are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 25, 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Jeong et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0240455) are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below. Jeong is no longer relied upon. Applicant’s remaining arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Applicant argues (Remarks, pages 7-8) that Eldridge “operates exclusively on parameters whose types are already known, and never discloses a user-selectable undefined data type that is associated with a process parameter as a placeholder, maintained as that parameter’s current type association, and only later changed to a defined data type selected by the user.”
This argument is not persuasive. Eldridge was not relied upon, and is not relied upon below, for the recited undefined/placeholder data type. As expressly stated in the Office action, Eldridge is relied upon for the automation-control-system context, the user selection of a process parameter of a control system for an industrial process, the parameter’s Data Type attribute and the plurality of defined data types, the association of a data type with a process parameter, the storage of that association in the automation controller program, and the generation of the parameter user interfaces. The placeholder data type is supplied by Kumar. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986); MPEP § 2145(IV).
Moreover, the feature applicant identifies as absent from the prior art — a data type that is a placeholder for a specific type, that is associated with a program element in place of a defined type, that is maintained in that placeholder state when the element is stored, and that is later changed to a defined data type selected by the user through a graphical user interface — is expressly taught by Kumar. Kumar defines a “Type generic Type” as “a data type that is a placeholder for a specific type” (Kumar, paragraph [0079]), stores the element while it is still type generic (paragraph [0108]), and then receives the user’s selection of a data type “in a pop-up menu or other GUI” (paragraph [0121]) and modifies the element’s data structures “to reflect the newly assigned data types” (paragraph [0123]).
Applicant further argues (Remarks, page 9) that independent claims 11 and 16 are allowable for the same reasons as claim 1, and that the dependent claims are allowable for at least the same reasons as the independent claims from which they depend. Because applicant’s arguments as to claim 1 are not persuasive for the reasons above, these arguments are likewise not persuasive.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10-12, 14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldridge et al. (US Pat. No. 7,272,815, hereinafter “Eldridge” – previously presented) in view of Kumar et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0049424, hereinafter “Kumar”).
With respect to claim 1 (Currently Amended), Eldridge teaches a method for supporting an [[undefined data type]] in an automation control system, the method comprising: (Eldridge discloses a computer-implemented method, carried out by a configurator, for configuring process, environmental, and industrial automation control systems. See Eldridge, column 2 lines 35-51 (“configurators … are typically general purpose computers (e.g., workstations) running software that permit an engineer or operator to graphically model a device, process or system and the desired strategy for controlling it”). The recited automation-control-system context and method framework are therefore met.
receiving, from a user, a selection of a process parameter associated with a control system for an industrial process (Eldridge discloses that its configurator models the components of a process-control system as objects, each of which carries parameters, and that a user creates and selects such a parameter through a graphical editor. See Eldridge, column 9 lines 56-65 (“Parameters define characteristics of each object and, therefore, of the element or entity the object represents”); column 9 lines 45-55 (objects represent “field devices, control devices, control processors, blocks, loops, compounds” of the process-control system); and column 25 lines 35-44 (“a generic Parameter Definition Editor … is an interface which allows Parameter Definitions to be created for a Parameterized Object”). Because the objects model the field devices and components of the industrial process being controlled (column 2 lines 35-51), a parameter selected by the user via the editor is a process parameter associated with a control system for an industrial process.)
associating the [[undefined]] data type with the process parameter (Eldridge discloses that each parameter carries a Data Type attribute that associates a data type with that parameter. See Eldridge, column 22 line 55 – column 23 line 20 (“Data Type Specifies the data type of the Parameter. Integer, float, boolean, and string are examples of a data type”). Eldridge thereby associates a data type with the selected process parameter. The bracketed “undefined” is shown unbold because the data type Eldridge associates is a defined data type; that portion is supplied by Kumar below.)
storing the association between the [[undefined]] data type and the process parameter [[while maintaining the undefined data type as a current data type association for the process parameter]] (Eldridge discloses that the parameter, carrying its Data Type attribute, is stored as part of the configuration and downloaded to the target automation controller. See Eldridge, column 22 line 55 – column 23 line 20 (the parameter name “is the name used when downloading the parameter to a target machine”) and column 18 line 56 – column 19 line 2 (the configuration is downloaded to controllers 10A, 10B). The association between the data type and the process parameter is thereby stored.
Eldridge is silent to disclose the recited undefined data type and the limitations reciting it; however, Kumar, directed to data type generic graphical programming for measurement, process control and industrial automation systems, teaches:
receiving, from the user, a selection of an undefined data type from a plurality of data types, wherein the plurality of data types include defined data types and the undefined data type, wherein the undefined data type is a placeholder that does not correspond to any of the defined data types and is configured to be subsequently changed to one of the defined data types (Kumar discloses a “Type generic Type” which is expressly defined as a data type that serves as a placeholder in lieu of a specific data type. See Kumar, paragraph [0079] (“Type generic Type--this term refers to a data type that is a placeholder for a specific type”). The type generic type is one of the data types available to the user alongside the specific, defined data types, and is selected by the user for a given program element. See Kumar, paragraph [0008] (“the graphical program may be first created as a type-specific graphical program and then may be converted to a type generic graphical program, e.g., in response to user input”) and paragraph [0110] (“the user may simply specify the data types that may be associated with the type generic graphical program such that the type generic graphical program is not ‘completely’ type generic, but is type generic to the specified data types”). The placeholder does not correspond to any of the defined data types, because an element that is type generic has no defined data type associated with it. See Kumar, paragraph [0080] (“a graphical program may be type generic when one or more nodes and/or wires in the graphical program do not have an associated type”) and paragraph [0115] (“the type generic graphical program may be created without one or more specified types”). Finally, the placeholder is configured to be subsequently changed to one of the defined data types. See Kumar, paragraph [0123] (“the specified data types may be associated with the type generic graphical program … Associating the specified data types may comprise modifying code and/or data structures of the respective input(s), output(s), or node(s) … to reflect the newly assigned data types”). Kumar therefore teaches the entire limitation — a user selection of a placeholder data type from among data types that include the defined data types and the placeholder, the placeholder corresponding to none of the defined data types and being configured to be later changed to one of them.)
undefined (Kumar teaches that the data type associated with the program element is the type generic placeholder data type rather than a defined data type. See Kumar, paragraph [0079] (“a data type that is a placeholder for a specific type”) and paragraph [0080] (the element does “not have an associated type”). In combination with Eldridge’s association of a data type with a process parameter via the Data Type attribute, the undefined data type is associated with the process parameter.)
while maintaining the undefined data type as a current data type association for the process parameter (Kumar teaches that the element is stored while it is still type generic — that is, while the placeholder data type remains the element’s current type association — and remains type generic until a data type is later specified. See Kumar, paragraph [0108] (“In 502, a type generic graphical program may be stored on a memory medium … graphical programs which include one or more nodes or wires that are type generic”) and paragraph [0133] (“after associating the data types with the type generic graphical program, the type generic graphical program may include one or more type generic inputs, outputs, or nodes (e.g., those for which the user did not specify data types)”). The placeholder is therefore not merely transient: it is stored and maintained as the element’s current data type association until the user supplies a defined data type.)
receiving a selection of a defined data type from the plurality of data types for the process parameter from the user (Kumar teaches receiving the user’s selection of a defined data type, from among the available data types, for the element that is currently type generic, the selection being made through a graphical user interface. See Kumar, paragraph [0118] (“In 504, user input specifying one or more data types of at least one input and/or at least one output of the type generic graphical program may be received”) and paragraph [0121] (“the user may be able to select a node, input, or output of the type generic graphical program and select a data type, e.g., in a pop-up menu or other GUI, for the node, input, or output … the user may right click on a node or wire, which causes a menu or other GUI to be displayed that is useable to select a data type”). The user thereby selects a defined data type for the element previously associated with the placeholder.) and
modifying the association to associate the defined data type with the process parameter (Kumar teaches that, in response to the user’s selection, the element’s existing type association is modified so that the newly selected defined data type is associated with that element in place of the placeholder. See Kumar, paragraph [0123] (“In 506, the specified data types may be associated with the type generic graphical program … in response to the user input received in 504. Associating the specified data types may comprise modifying code and/or data structures of the respective input(s), output(s), or node(s) in an instantiation or instance of the type generic graphical program to reflect the newly assigned data types”) and paragraph [0124] (“Associating the specified data types may include automatically converting or assigning the specified data types to the input(s), output(s), or node(s) specified or selected by the user”). The association is thereby modified to associate the selected defined data type with the process parameter.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included, among Eldridge’s plurality of selectable parameter data types — each Eldridge process parameter having a Data Type attribute (Eldridge, column 22 line 55 – column 23 line 20) — a type generic placeholder data type as taught by Kumar, that is, to have permitted the user to select a placeholder data type for a process parameter, to store that association while the placeholder remains the parameter’s current type, and to later bind the parameter to a user-selected defined data type. The motivation for doing so is expressly supplied by Kumar, which teaches that without a type generic placeholder the user “would have to recreate another VI, e.g., by copying the original VI and changing the data types” (Kumar, paragraph [0004]), whereas with the placeholder “the user is not required to create different sets of graphical code for each of the different possible types” (Kumar, paragraph [0009]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to obtain this same benefit in Eldridge’s configurator — a single stored control configuration reusable across processes requiring different parameter data types, without duplicating the configuration for each type — and would have had a reasonable expectation of success, Kumar teaching the placeholder data type in the very environment of Eldridge, namely graphical configuration software for “process control, man machine interface (MMI), supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) applications” (Kumar, paragraph [0002]) and for an “industrial automation system” performing “SCADA … process control” (Kumar, paragraph [0093]).
With respect to claim 3 (Original), Eldridge teaches wherein each of the defined data types corresponds to an individual defined data type (Eldridge discloses that the defined data types are each individual, distinct types. See Eldridge, column 22 line 55 – column 23 line 20 (“Integer, float, boolean, and string are examples of a data type”). Each enumerated type — integer; float; boolean; string — is an individual defined data type distinct from the others.)
With respect to claim 4 (Original), Eldridge teaches wherein the defined data types include integer data, floating point data, character data, string data, Boolean data, enumerated data, array data, date data, time data, and any combination thereof (Eldridge expressly discloses that the defined data types include integer, floating point, Boolean and string data. See Eldridge, column 22 line 55 – column 23 line 20 (“Integer, float, boolean, and string are examples of a data type”). Because the limitation recites the enumerated types as alternatives joined by “and any combination thereof,” the broadest reasonable interpretation is satisfied where the defined data types include any one or any combination of the enumerated types; Eldridge’s disclosure of integer, float, Boolean and string data accordingly meets the limitation.)
With respect to claim 8 (Original), Eldridge teaches further comprising [[storing the association between the process parameter and the undefined data type in a memory]], wherein the association remains stored while running the industrial process (Eldridge discloses that the parameter-and-data-type configuration, once downloaded to the automation controllers, is retained therein while those controllers run the industrial process. See Eldridge, column 18 line 56 – column 19 line 2 (the configuration is downloaded to controllers 10A, 10B) and column 2 lines 35-51 (the controllers thereafter “execut[e] control algorithms for the real-time monitoring and control of devices, processes or systems”). The stored association therefore remains stored while the industrial process runs.
Eldridge is silent to disclose; however, Kumar teaches storing the association between the process parameter and the undefined data type in a memory (Kumar discloses storing the program element on a memory medium while that element is still type generic, i.e., while it is associated with the placeholder data type. See Kumar, paragraph [0108] (“In 502, a type generic graphical program may be stored on a memory medium … graphical programs which include one or more nodes or wires that are type generic”). The association between the element and the placeholder data type is thereby stored in a memory.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Eldridge and Kumar in the manner set forth for claim 1; the same motivation set forth for claim 1 applies to this claim (same Eldridge in view of Kumar combination).
With respect to claim 10 (Currently Amended), Eldridge teaches further comprising generating a graphical user interface containing parameter information associated with the control system, wherein the parameter information is based at least on the defined data type associated with the process parameter, wherein the process parameter is the same process parameter previously associated with the [[undefined data type]] (Eldridge discloses generating a graphical user interface — the Parameter Property Sheet — that displays the parameter information according to the parameter’s data type. See Eldridge, column 25 lines 52-63 (“The second user interface is a generic Parameter Property Sheet mechanism which is used whenever anyone needs to edit the Value attribute of a parameter on any object … a property sheet is created and displayed by the Framework”) and column 22 line 55 – column 23 line 20 (the Data Type attribute governs the data type of the parameter whose value is so presented). The parameter information displayed is therefore based at least on the defined data type associated with the process parameter.
Eldridge is silent to disclose; however, Kumar teaches the undefined data type (Kumar discloses that the very element to which the user’s selected data type is assigned is the same element that was previously associated with the type generic placeholder data type, the assignment modifying that element’s data structures to reflect the newly assigned type. See Kumar, paragraph [0079] (“a data type that is a placeholder for a specific type”) and paragraph [0123] (associating the specified data types “may comprise modifying code and/or data structures of the respective input(s), output(s), or node(s) … to reflect the newly assigned data types”). The process parameter whose information is displayed based on its defined data type is thus the same process parameter previously associated with the undefined data type.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Eldridge and Kumar in the manner set forth for claim 1; the same motivation set forth for claim 1 applies to this claim (same Eldridge in view of Kumar combination).
With respect to claim 11 (Currently Amended), claim 11 recites limitations similar to claim 1 in apparatus form and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 1, except for the following. Eldridge teaches an apparatus comprising: at least one processor configured to: (Eldridge discloses that the configurator is implemented on a general-purpose computer or workstation having at least one processor that executes the configuration software. See Eldridge, column 2 lines 35-51 (“configurators … are typically general purpose computers (e.g., workstations) running software”) and column 18 line 56 – column 19 line 2 (the workstation from which the configuration is downloaded to the controllers). The recited apparatus and at least one processor are thereby met.) The remaining limitations of claim 11 — associating the undefined data type with the process parameter responsive to receipt of the user’s selection, storing the initial association while maintaining the undefined data type as the current data type association, receiving the user’s selection of a defined data type from the plurality of data types, and modifying the initial association — are of the same scope as the correspondingly recited limitations of claim 1 and are met for the same reasons set forth for claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Eldridge and Kumar in the manner set forth for claim 1; the same motivation set forth for claim 1 applies to this claim (same Eldridge in view of Kumar combination).
With respect to claim 12 (Currently Amended), claim 12 recites a limitation similar to claim 10 in apparatus form and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 10. Eldridge teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to: subsequent to the modification, generate a graphical user interface containing parameter information associated with the control system, wherein the parameter information is based at least on the defined data type associated with the process parameter (Eldridge discloses that the Parameter Property Sheet is created and displayed upon activation of an editing session on the already-stored parameterized object, and presents the parameter information according to the parameter’s data type. See Eldridge, column 25 lines 52-63 (“When the user double-clicks on a Parameterized Object, or in some other way activates an editing session on a Parameterized Object, a property sheet is created and displayed by the Framework”) and column 22 line 55 – column 23 line 20 (“Data Type Specifies the data type of the Parameter”). Because the property sheet is created and displayed upon an editing session occurring after the parameter’s data type has been modified, the graphical user interface is generated subsequent to the modification recited in claim 11, and the parameter information presented is based at least on the then-current defined data type associated with the process parameter.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Eldridge and Kumar in the manner set forth for claim 1; the same motivation set forth for claim 1 applies to this claim (same Eldridge in view of Kumar combination).
With respect to claim 14 (Original), Eldridge teaches wherein the apparatus is an automation controller (Eldridge discloses that the parameter-to-data-type association, i.e., the configuration, is downloaded to and stored in the automation controllers of the control system, which thereafter perform real-time control of the industrial process. See Eldridge, column 18 line 56 – column 19 line 2 (the configuration is downloaded to controllers 10A, 10B) and column 2 lines 35-51 (controllers “execut[e] control algorithms for the real-time monitoring and control of devices, processes or systems”). Because the recited apparatus is the component that stores the initial association of the data type with the process parameter, and Eldridge stores that association in the automation controller to which the configuration is downloaded, the recited apparatus reads on an automation controller.)
With respect to claim 16 (Currently Amended), Eldridge teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that when executed cause a processor to: receive, from a user, a designation of a process parameter associated with a control system of an industrial process (Eldridge discloses a computer-readable medium storing the configuration software’s instructions executable by the workstation processor, and the user’s designation of a process parameter through the Parameter Definition Editor. See Eldridge, column 2 lines 35-51 (“general purpose computers (e.g., workstations) running software”), column 18 line 56 – column 19 line 2, column 9 lines 56-65 (“Parameters define characteristics of each object and, therefore, of the element or entity the object represents”) and column 25 lines 35-44 (the Parameter Definition Editor “allows Parameter Definitions to be created for a Parameterized Object”).)
associate the [[undefined]] data type with the process parameter (Eldridge discloses that each parameter carries a Data Type attribute associating a data type with that parameter. See Eldridge, column 22 line 55 – column 23 line 20 (“Data Type Specifies the data type of the Parameter”).
generate a graphical user interface containing parameter information associated with the control system, wherein the parameter information is based at least on the [[undefined]] data type of the process parameter (Eldridge discloses generating the Parameter Property Sheet, which presents the parameter information according to the parameter’s data type attribute. See Eldridge, column 25 lines 52-63 (“a property sheet is created and displayed by the Framework”) and column 22 line 55 – column 23 line 20.
present, in the graphical user interface, the process parameter and at least the defined data types (Eldridge discloses that the Parameter Definition Editor presents the parameter together with its Data Type field and the available defined data types from which the type is set. See Eldridge, column 25 lines 35-44 (the editor “allows Parameter Definitions to be created for a Parameterized Object”) and column 22 line 55 – column 23 line 20 (the Data Type attribute and the defined types — “Integer, float, boolean, and string”). The process parameter and at least the defined data types are thereby presented in the graphical user interface.) and modify the graphical user interface to include parameter information based at least on the defined data type associated with the process parameter (Eldridge discloses that the property sheet is created and displayed upon each editing session and presents the parameter information according to the parameter’s then-current data type, so that the displayed parameter information reflects the defined data type once assigned. See Eldridge, column 25 lines 52-63 and column 22 line 55 – column 23 line 20.)
Eldridge is silent to disclose the recited undefined data type and the limitations reciting it; however, Kumar, directed to data type generic graphical programming for measurement, process control and industrial automation systems, teaches:
receive a selection of an undefined data type from a plurality of data types including defined data types and the undefined data type, wherein the undefined data type is a placeholder that does not correspond to any of the defined data types and is configured to be subsequently changed to one of the defined data types (Kumar teaches this limitation in full for the reasons set forth for the correspondingly recited limitation of claim 1 — the “Type generic Type” being “a data type that is a placeholder for a specific type” (Kumar, paragraph [0079]), selected by the user for an element (paragraphs [0008], [0110]), corresponding to none of the defined data types (paragraphs [0080], [0115]), and configured to be subsequently changed to a defined data type (paragraph [0123]).)
undefined (Kumar teaches that the data type associated with the element, and on which the displayed information is based, is the type generic placeholder rather than a defined data type. See Kumar, paragraph [0079] and paragraph [0080] (the element does “not have an associated type”).)
store the association between the undefined data type and the process parameter while maintaining the undefined data type as a current data type association for the process parameter (Kumar discloses storing the element on a memory medium while it remains type generic, the placeholder thereby remaining the element’s current type association until a data type is later specified. See Kumar, paragraph [0108] (“In 502, a type generic graphical program may be stored on a memory medium”) and paragraph [0133] (the program “may include one or more type generic inputs, outputs, or nodes (e.g., those for which the user did not specify data types)”).)
receive, from the user, a selection of a defined data type from the presented defined data types (Kumar discloses receiving the user’s selection of a data type for the currently type generic element through a graphical user interface presenting the available data types. See Kumar, paragraph [0118] (“In 504, user input specifying one or more data types … may be received”) and paragraph [0121] (“the user may right click on a node or wire, which causes a menu or other GUI to be displayed that is useable to select a data type”).)
modify the association to associate the selected defined data type with the process parameter (Kumar discloses modifying the element’s existing type association in response to the user’s selection so that the selected defined data type is associated with that element. See Kumar, paragraph [0123] (“Associating the specified data types may comprise modifying code and/or data structures of the respective input(s), output(s), or node(s) … to reflect the newly assigned data types”).) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included, among Eldridge’s plurality of selectable parameter data types — each Eldridge process parameter having a Data Type attribute (Eldridge, column 22 line 55 – column 23 line 20) — a type generic placeholder data type as taught by Kumar, that is, to have permitted the user to select a placeholder data type for a process parameter, to store that association while the placeholder remains the parameter’s current type, and to later bind the parameter to a user-selected defined data type. The motivation for doing so is expressly supplied by Kumar, which teaches that without a type generic placeholder the user “would have to recreate another VI, e.g., by copying the original VI and changing the data types” (Kumar, paragraph [0004]), whereas with the placeholder “the user is not required to create different sets of graphical code for each of the different possible types” (Kumar, paragraph [0009]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to obtain this same benefit in Eldridge’s configurator — a single stored control configuration reusable across processes requiring different parameter data types, without duplicating the configuration for each type — and would have had a reasonable expectation of success, Kumar teaching the placeholder data type in the very environment of Eldridge, namely graphical configuration software for “process control, man machine interface (MMI), supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) applications” (Kumar, paragraph [0002]) and for an “industrial automation system” performing “SCADA … process control” (Kumar, paragraph [0093]).
With respect to claim 17 (Currently Amended), Eldridge teaches further comprising instructions that when executed cause the processor to [[store the association between the process parameter and the undefined data type in a memory]], wherein the association remains stored while running the industrial process (Eldridge discloses that the downloaded parameter-and-data-type configuration is retained in the automation controllers while they run the industrial process. See Eldridge, column 18 line 56 – column 19 line 2 and column 2 lines 35-51 (the controllers “execut[e] control algorithms for the real-time monitoring and control of devices, processes or systems”).
Eldridge is silent to disclose; however, Kumar teaches store the association between the process parameter and the undefined data type in a memory (Kumar discloses storing the element on a memory medium while it is still associated with the type generic placeholder data type. See Kumar, paragraph [0108] (“In 502, a type generic graphical program may be stored on a memory medium … graphical programs which include one or more nodes or wires that are type generic”).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Eldridge and Kumar in the manner set forth for claim 1; the same motivation set forth for claim 1 applies to this claim (same Eldridge in view of Kumar combination).
With respect to claim 18 (Currently Amended), Eldridge teaches further comprising instructions that when executed cause the processor to generate the graphical user interface subsequent to storage of the association between the process parameter and the [[undefined data type]] in the memory (Eldridge discloses generating the graphical user interface — the Parameter Property Sheet — when the user activates an editing session on an already-stored parameterized object, i.e., subsequent to that object’s storage. See Eldridge, column 25 lines 52-63 (“When the user double-clicks on a Parameterized Object, or in some other way activates an editing session on a Parameterized Object, a property sheet is created and displayed by the Framework”).
Eldridge is silent to disclose the undefined data type of the stored association; however, Kumar teaches the undefined data type (Kumar discloses storing the element while it remains associated with the type generic placeholder data type. See Kumar, paragraph [0079] (“a data type that is a placeholder for a specific type”) and paragraph [0108] (the type generic program “may be stored on a memory medium”). The graphical user interface is thus generated subsequent to storage of the association between the process parameter and the undefined data type.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Eldridge and Kumar in the manner set forth for claim 1; the same motivation set forth for claim 1 applies to this claim (same Eldridge in view of Kumar combination).
Claims 5, 13, 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldridge et al. (US Pat. No. 7,272,815, hereinafter “Eldridge” – previously presented) in view of Kumar et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0049424, hereinafter “Kumar”) and further in view of Law et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0338836, hereinafter “Law” – previously presented).
With respect to claim 5 (Currently Amended), Eldridge in view of Kumar is silent to disclose; however, in the same art of process-control configuration, Law teaches further comprising displaying, via a graphical user interface, real-time data generated by the industrial process including real-time data generated while running the industrial process (Law discloses displaying, within a process-graphic user interface, the live values of process parameters generated by the process while it is operating. See Law, paragraph [0020] (to assist operators “in monitoring and/or controlling the process system in operation, the process control system … [is] represented graphically through a [P&ID] … information generated from the field devices … (e.g., values of process parameters and/or signals) may be displayed within the process graphic at the appropriate location”) and paragraph [0037] (the process control application renders the process graphic via the display and operates the process control system). Real-time data generated by the industrial process while it runs is thereby displayed via a graphical user interface.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the real-time process-graphic display of Law with the parameter-configuration system of Eldridge in view of Kumar, in order to provide operators with a live graphical view of process-parameter values during operation, thereby assisting in monitoring and control of the running process, as Law expressly teaches (Law, paragraph [0020]).
With respect to claim 13 (Currently Amended), claim 13 recites a limitation similar to claim 5 in apparatus form and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 5. Law teaches wherein the parameter information includes a real-time data value for the defined data type associated with the process parameter (Law discloses that the parameter information displayed to the operator includes the live value of the process parameter generated by the running process. See Law, paragraph [0020] (“values of process parameters and/or signals) may be displayed within the process graphic at the appropriate location”). In combination with Eldridge’s property-sheet display of parameter information according to the parameter’s data type (column 25 lines 52-63, column 22 line 55 – column 23 line 20), the parameter information includes a real-time data value for the defined data type associated with the process parameter.) The same motivation set forth for claim 5 applies (same Eldridge in view of Kumar, and further in view of Law combination).
With respect to claim 15 (Currently Amended), Eldridge teaches wherein the apparatus is further configured to: store the initial association of the [[undefined]] data type with the process parameter in an automation controller program file [[at a time of design of the control system]] (Eldridge discloses that the parameter, carrying its Data Type attribute, is stored as part of the controller program that is downloaded to and held in the target automation controller. See Eldridge, column 22 line 55 – column 23 line 20 (the parameter name “is the name used when downloading the parameter to a target machine”) and column 18 line 56 – column 19 line 2 (the configuration is downloaded to controllers 10A, 10B). The initial association is thereby stored in an automation controller program file.)
and permit modification of the initial association to a subsequent association [[at a time of configuration of the control system to a particular industrial process]]. (Eldridge discloses that a parameter and its attributes, including its data type, may be assigned and modified during configuration without recompilation. See Eldridge, column 9 line 66 – column 10 line 9 (“Objects used by an apparatus according to the invention can be defined or modified without recompilation. This is, in part, because the parameters on which they are based can be assigned and modified during configuration”). The modification of the initial association to a subsequent association is thereby permitted.)
Eldridge is silent to disclose; however, Kumar teaches undefined (Kumar discloses that the data type initially associated with the element and stored therewith is the type generic placeholder rather than a defined data type. See Kumar, paragraph [0079] (“a data type that is a placeholder for a specific type”) and paragraph [0108] (the type generic program “may be stored on a memory medium”).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Eldridge and Kumar in the manner set forth for claim 1; the same motivation set forth for claim 1 applies to this claim (same Eldridge in view of Kumar combination).
Eldridge in view of Kumar is silent to disclose; however, Law teaches at a time of design of the control system (Law discloses that a generic library is created at design time identifying the parameters while deferring their process-specific definition to a later configuration stage. See Law, paragraph [0026] (the generic library identifies the elements “while leaving the specific [definition] to be defined later when a specific process control system is configured”). The initial association is thus stored at a time of design of the control system.)
at a time of configuration of the control system to a particular industrial process (Law discloses that an instance is subsequently configured by binding process-specific values to the generic placeholders of the library for the particular process control system being configured. See Law, paragraph [0038] (configuration of the instance by supplying the process-specific information to the generic elements). The modification of the initial association to the subsequent association thus occurs at the time the control system is configured to a particular industrial process.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have organized the Eldridge in view of Kumar configuration so that the initial placeholder-type association is stored at a time of design and modified at the time of configuration to a particular industrial process, as taught by Law, in order to reuse a single generically-defined control configuration across multiple comparable processes and to defer process-specific specification until the specific process is known, thereby reducing redundant configuration effort, as Law expressly teaches (Law, paragraphs [0021]-[0026]).
With respect to claim 19 (Currently Amended), claim 19 recites a limitation similar to claim 5 in computer-readable-medium form and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 5. Law teaches comprising instructions that when executed cause the processor to display, via the graphical user interface, real-time data values for the defined data type (Law discloses displaying, via the process-graphic user interface, the live values of the process parameters generated by the running process. See Law, paragraph [0020] (“values of process parameters and/or signals) may be displayed within the process graphic at the appropriate location”) and paragraph [0037] (the process control application renders the process graphic via the display). The displayed values are those of the parameter’s now-defined data type per the combination set forth for claim 16.) The same motivation set forth for claim 5 applies (same Eldridge in view of Kumar, and further in view of Law combination).
With respect to claim 20 (Currently Amended), Eldridge in view of Kumar is silent to disclose; however, Law teaches comprising instructions that when executed cause the processor to control the industrial process based at least in part on the real-time data values for the defined data type (Law discloses controlling the industrial process on the basis of the real-time process values. See Law, paragraph [0037] (the process control application “controls and/or operates the process control system based on a control strategy” using the process measurements and signals) and paragraph [0033] (the control routines are downloaded to and executed by the controller). The industrial process is thereby controlled based at least in part on the real-time data values for the defined data type.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the real-time process control of Law with the system of Eldridge in view of Kumar for the same reasons set forth for claim 5, control of the running process being the express purpose of displaying the real-time parameter values, as Law teaches (Law, paragraphs [0020], [0037]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldridge et al. (US Pat. No. 7,272,815, hereinafter “Eldridge” – previously presented) in view of Kumar et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0049424, hereinafter “Kumar”) in view of Law et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0338836, hereinafter “Law” – previously presented) and further in view of Xiao et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0235691, hereinafter “Xiao” – previously presented).
With respect to claim 6 (Original), Eldridge in view of Kumar, in view of Law is silent to disclose; however, in the field of GUI-based industrial-controller variable configuration, Xiao teaches wherein the graphical user interface is configured to display a data placeholder for the process parameter associated with the undefined data type (Xiao discloses a configuration graphical user interface presenting a table having a row for each variable and columns including Name, Type and Address, in which an attribute that has not yet been assigned appears as an empty placeholder cell. See Xiao, paragraph [0034] (the display screen presents the table with a row for each variable and the recited columns) and paragraph [0037] (the tool “can check the Address column for empty cells as an indicator of which row … has an I/O binding variable without” the attribute assigned). The empty placeholder cell displayed for the not-yet-assigned attribute corresponds to a data placeholder displayed for the process parameter while its data type remains undefined.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the graphical user interface of Eldridge in view of Kumar, in view of Law to display a data placeholder for a process parameter whose data type is undefined, as taught by Xiao, in order to visually indicate to the user, within the configuration table, which parameters remain unspecified and require subsequent attention, thereby reducing configuration errors and omissions, as Xiao teaches the use of empty cells to flag unassigned attributes (Xiao, paragraph [0037]).
With respect to claim 7 (Original), Eldridge in view of Kumar, in view of Law is silent to disclose; however, Xiao teaches wherein the graphical user interface is configured to display an absence of data for the process parameter associated with the undefined data type (Xiao discloses that, for a variable whose attribute has not been assigned, the graphical user interface presents an empty cell, i.e., displays an absence of data, for that variable. See Xiao, paragraph [0037] (“empty cells” in the table indicate a variable “without” the assigned attribute). Because a process parameter associated with an undefined data type has no assigned, typed value to display, the graphical user interface displays an absence of data for that parameter.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the graphical user interface of Eldridge in view of Kumar, in view of Law to display an absence of data for a process parameter whose data type is undefined, as taught by Xiao, for the same reasons set forth for claim 6 (same Eldridge in view of Kumar, in view of Law, and further in view of Xiao combination).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dardinski et al. (US Pat. No. 7,096,465) discloses a process control configuration system with parameterized objects, including parameter definitions, parameter property sheets and placeholder objects for configurable objects placed in a configuration (see abstract). 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 ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1200. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM.
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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at 5712726799. 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.
/ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights