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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to foreign application EP23191437 (filling date 08/15/2023). Certified copy of the foreign priority application has been filed with this application on 01/16/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/13/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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:
wherein the operator station client is configured to generate, via the visualization information, a graphical presentation for an operator of the technical installation of a temporal progression of a measured variable of the control system assigned to a technical object of the technical installation within a specific, past time period, in claim 1.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 and 21-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation
wherein the operator station client is configured to generate, via the visualization information, a graphical presentation for an operator of the technical installation of a temporal progression of a measured variable of the control system assigned to a technical object of the technical installation within a specific, past time period, in claim 1.
invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
With regards to operator station client, as recited, the published specification in ¶0067 recites a “The operator station client 13 is configured to display a visualization, i.e., a graphical presentation, in particular of installation images, for operating and monitoring the processing installation”, however, there is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, describing an operator station client. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the function described can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-13 and 21-22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph due to their dependency on independent claims 1.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-13 and 21-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regards to instructions configured to operator station client, as recited in claims 1, as described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-13 and 21-22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, due to their dependency on independent claims 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11, 13-17, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lutz (US20210141367A1) in view of Fujiwara (US20220246456A1)
Regarding claim 1,
Lutz teaches, A control system for a technical installation, the method comprising:
at least one operator station server; and (¶0033 teaches, an operator station server 2)
at least one operator station client operatively coupled to the operator station server; (¶0033 teaches, operator station client 3 connected to the operator station server 2)
wherein the operator station server is configured to transmit visualization information to the at least one operator station client; (¶0036 teaches operation station sever transmits visualization data to operation station client)
wherein the operator station client is configured to generate, via the visualization information, a graphical presentation for an operator of the technical installation of a temporal progression of a measured variable of the control system assigned to a technical object of the technical installation within a specific, past time period; (¶0040-¶0042 teaches, receiving measurement values of at least one technical object, generating a trend progression and visually present trend progression data to an operator by the operator station client based on data transmitted from the operation station server.)
Lutz doesn’t teach, wherein the control system is configured to visually indicate to an operator on the operator station client operating actions which have been implemented by the operator or another operator within the specified, past time period. (Fujiwara in Fig. 7 ¶0054 teaches, In FIG. 7, the display control unit 404 displays a line 606 indicating an occurrence of the event at a time position corresponding to the timing of the occurrence of the event A on the graph 601. ¶0046 teaches, event include resetting, parameter change, command execution, and reticle replacement)
Fujiwara is an art in the area of interest as it relates to graphical display of events occurring in a manufacturing environment (see ¶0054 and ¶0046). One of ordinary skill in the art could modify the trend curve as taught by Lutz to include visual indication of operating actions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Fujiwara with Lutz. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow the user to determine a timing of a change in operating setting as taught by Fujiwara in ¶0060.
Regarding claim 2,
Lutz and Fujiwara teaches, The control system as claimed in claim 1, where the control system is further configured to visually present the indication of the operating actions on the operator station client in response to a request from the operator. (Fujiwara in ¶0053-¶0054, ¶0058 and ¶0060 teaches line 606 indicating an event is displayed in response to user request on event display window 605)
Regarding claim 3,
Lutz and Fujiwara teaches, The control system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the control system is further configured to provide a selection field visually presented by the operator station client in response to the request from the operator. (Fujiwara in ¶0053-¶0054, ¶0058 and ¶0060 teaches selection fields on event display window 605)
Regarding claim 4,
Lutz and Fujiwara teaches, The control system as claimed in claim 3, wherein the selection field is visually presented at a short visual distance from the temporal progression of the measured variable assigned to the technical object of the technical installation. (Fujiwara in ¶¶0053-¶0054, ¶0058 and ¶0060 and Fig. 9 teaches event display window 605 a short visual distance from the graph 701)
Regarding claim 5,
Lutz and Fujiwara teaches, The control system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the control system is further configured to draw the attention of the operator to the operating actions by marking points in time at which one of the operating actions was implemented respectively in the temporal progression of the measured variable of the control system assigned to the technical object of the technical installation. (Fujiwara in ¶0054 teaches, a line 606 indicating an occurrence of the event at a time position corresponding to the timing of the occurrence of the event A on the graph 601. ¶0046 teaches, event information about an event that occurs in the exposure apparatus 204 include resetting, parameter change, command execution, and reticle replacement)
Regarding claim 6,
Lutz and Fujiwara teaches, The control system as claimed in claim 5, wherein the marking is formed as a vertical line. (Fujiwara in ¶0053-¶0054, ¶0058 and ¶0060 and Fig. 7 teaches, a vertical line 606 indicating an occurrence of the event)
Regarding claim 7,
Lutz and Fujiwara teaches, The control system as claimed in claim 6, wherein the vertical line has a coloring which differs from a coloring of the temporal progression of the measured variable of the control system assigned to the technical object of the technical installation. (Fujiwara in ¶0054 teaches, The color and shape of the line 606 can be freely set for each event type. For example, at least one of the color and shape can be changed in displaying an event of a different type. With the color and shape of the line 606 set for each event type, user analysis of a cause of an abnormality in the exposure apparatus 204 is facilitated in a case where event information about a plurality of events is displayed in a super imposed manner on the graph 601.)
Regarding claim 11,
Lutz and Fujiwara teaches, The control system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the control system is further configured to perform the visual presentation of the indication of the operating actions only with respect to the technical object to which the measured variable, to which the graphically presented temporal progression relates, is assigned. (Fujiwara in ¶0058, ¶0063 and Fig. 9 and 13 teaches, occurrence of event indicated by line 606 a to 606 d with respect to particular recipe and particular apparatus)
Regarding claim 13,
Lutz and Fujiwara teaches, The control system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the technical installation comprises a manufacturing or processing installation. (Lutz in ¶0020 teaches, a manufacturing installation or process installation)
Regarding claim 14,
Lutz teaches, A method for operating a control system for a technical installation including at least one operator station server and at least one operator station client operatively coupled to the operator station server, the method comprising: (¶0033 teaches, an operator station server 2, operator station client 3 connected to the operator station server 2.)
a) transmitting visualization information by the operator station server to the operator station client; (¶0036 teaches operation station sever transmits visualization data to operation station client)
b) generating a graphical presentation of a temporal progression of a measured variable of the control system assigned to a technical object of the technical installation within a specific, past time period for an operator of the technical installation via the visualization information and by the operator station client; and(¶0040-¶0042 teaches, receiving measurement values of at least one technical object, generating a trend progression and visually present trend progression data to an operator by the operator station client based on data transmitted from the operation station server.)
Lutz doesn’t teach, c) visually indicating to the operator operating actions by the operator station client, the operating actions being previously implemented by the operator or another operator within the specified, past time period. (Fujiwara in Fig. 7 ¶0054 teaches, In FIG. 7, the display control unit 404 displays a line 606 indicating an occurrence of the event at a time position corresponding to the timing of the occurrence of the event A on the graph 601. ¶0046 teaches, event include resetting, parameter change, command execution, and reticle replacement)
Fujiwara is an art in the area of interest as it relates to graphical display of events occurring in a manufacturing environment (see ¶0054 and ¶0046). One of ordinary skill in the art could modify the trend curve as taught by Lutz to include visual indication of operating actions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Fujiwara with Lutz. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow the user to determine a timing of a change in operating setting as taught by Fujiwara in ¶0060.
Regarding claim 15,
Lutz and Fujiwara teaches, The method as claimed in claim 14, wherein the operator station client performs the visual presentation of the indication of the operating actions in response to a request from the operator; and(Fujiwara in ¶0053-¶0054, ¶0058 and ¶0060 teaches line 606 indicating an event is displayed in response to user request on event display window 605)
wherein a selection field presented visually by the operator station client is provided in response to the request from the operator at a small visual distance from the temporal progression of the measured variable assigned to the technical object of the technical installation. (Fujiwara in ¶0053-¶0054, ¶0058 and ¶0060 teaches selection fields on event display window 605. Fujiwara in ¶¶0053-¶0054, ¶0058 and ¶0060 and Fig. 9 teaches event display window 605 a short visual distance from the graph 701)
Regarding claim 16,
Lutz and Fujiwara teaches, The method as claimed in claim 14, wherein the operator station client draws the attention of the operator to the operating actions by marking points in time at which one of the operating actions was implemented respectively in the temporal progression of the measured variable of the control system assigned to the technical object of the technical installation. (Fujiwara in ¶0054 teaches, a line 606 indicating an occurrence of the event at a time position corresponding to the timing of the occurrence of the event A on the graph 601. ¶0046 teaches, event information about an event that occurs in the exposure apparatus 204 include resetting, parameter change, command execution, and reticle replacement)
Regarding claim 17,
Lutz and Fujiwara teaches, The method as claimed in claim 15, wherein the operator station client draws the attention of the operator to the operating actions by marking points in time at which one of the operating actions was implemented respectively in the temporal progression of the measured variable of the control system assigned to the technical object of the technical installation. (Fujiwara in ¶0054 teaches, a line 606 indicating an occurrence of the event at a time position corresponding to the timing of the occurrence of the event A on the graph 601. ¶0046 teaches, event information about an event that occurs in the exposure apparatus 204 include resetting, parameter change, command execution, and reticle replacement)
Regarding claim 22,
Lutz and Fujiwara teaches, The method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the technical installation comprises a manufacturing or processing installation. (Lutz in ¶0020 teaches, a manufacturing installation or process installation)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lutz (US20210141367A1) in view of Fujiwara (US20220246456A1) and further in view of Spek (US20120141301A1)
Regarding claim 8,
Lutz and Fujiwara doesn’t teach, The control system as claimed in claim 7, wherein the coloring is a red coloring. (Spek in ¶0129-¶0130 and Fig. 19 teaches a vertical red line on a curve graph that denotes a time when pump maintenance was carried out)
Spek is an art in the area of interest as it relates to a displaying trend plots. A combination of Spek with Lutz and Fujiwara would allow the vertical line of Fujiwara to have red coloring. Fujiwara already teaches, setting color for the line 606. However, it doesn’t teach setting red color. One of ordinary skill in the art could modify Lutz and Fujiwara to have the line in red color. It would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the line of Lutz and Fujiwara to have red color as taught by Spek, since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (i.e. color for the line) to the indicate a change in the trend graph and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lutz (US20210141367A1) in view of Fujiwara (US20220246456A1) and further in view of Morita (US20170010187A1)
Regarding claim 9,
Lutz and Fujiwara doesn’t teach, The control system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the control system is further configured to provide the visual presentation of the indication of the operating actions in the form of a message sequence display; (Morita in in Fig. 4 and ¶0040-¶0042 teaches, providing content of the change point change point of the production condition)
and wherein the message sequence display comprises operating messages which each relate to an operating action. (Morita in in Fig. 4 and ¶0040-¶0042 teaches, The content of the improvement procedure operation which is pop-up displayed is based on the change point display data Hc, and made of 3 columns, such as the date of the procedure, the operator, and the procedure. )
Morita is an art in the area of interest as it relates to displaying transition graph. A combination of Morita with Lutz and Fujiwara would allow the system to provide the visual presentation of the indication of the operating actions in the form of a message sequence display; and wherein the message sequence display comprises operating messages which each relate to an operating action. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Morita with Lutz and Fujiwara. One would have been motivated to do so because a content of the operator action can’t be understood just from an indication on the trend graph. By providing a content display related to the event/action operator can understand the details related to the action/event, as taught by Morita in ¶0040.
Regarding claim 10,
Lutz, Fujiwara and Morita teaches, The control system as claimed in claim 9, wherein the operating messages each include the operating action performed, a point in time of the operating action and an identity of the operator who performed the operating action. (Morita in Fig. 4 and ¶0040-¶0042 teaches, providing content of the change point change point of the production condition including the date of the procedure, the operator, and the procedure)
Regarding claim 18,
Lutz and Fujiwara doesn’t teach, The method as claimed in claim 14, wherein the operator station client provides the visual presentation of the indication of the operating actions as a message sequence display; (Morita in in Fig. 4 and ¶0040-¶0042 teaches, providing content of the change point change point of the production condition)
and wherein the message sequence display comprises operating messages which each relate to an operating action. (Morita in in Fig. 4 and ¶0040-¶0042 teaches, The content of the improvement procedure operation which is pop-up displayed is based on the change point display data Hc, and made of 3 columns, such as the date of the procedure, the operator, and the procedure. )
Morita is an art in the area of interest as it relates to displaying transition graph. A combination of Morita with Lutz and Fujiwara would allow the system to provide the visual presentation of the indication of the operating actions in the form of a message sequence display; and wherein the message sequence display comprises operating messages which each relate to an operating action. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Morita with Lutz and Fujiwara. One would have been motivated to do so because a content of the operator action can’t be understood just from an indication on the trend graph. By providing a content display related to the event/action operator can understand the details related to the action/event, as taught by Morita in ¶0040.
Regarding claim 19,
Lutz and Fujiwara doesn’t teach, The method as claimed in claim 15, wherein the operator station client provides the visual presentation of the indication of the operating actions as a message sequence display; (Morita in in Fig. 4 and ¶0040-¶0042 teaches, providing content of the change point change point of the production condition)
and wherein the message sequence display comprises operating messages which each relate to an operating action. (Morita in in Fig. 4 and ¶0040-¶0042 teaches, The content of the improvement procedure operation which is pop-up displayed is based on the change point display data Hc, and made of 3 columns, such as the date of the procedure, the operator, and the procedure. )
Morita is an art in the area of interest as it relates to displaying transition graph. A combination of Morita with Lutz and Fujiwara would allow the system to provide the visual presentation of the indication of the operating actions in the form of a message sequence display; and wherein the message sequence display comprises operating messages which each relate to an operating action. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Morita with Lutz and Fujiwara. One would have been motivated to do so because a content of the operator action can’t be understood just from an indication on the trend graph. By providing a content display related to the event/action operator can understand the details related to the action/event, as taught by Morita in ¶0040.
Regarding claim 20,
Lutz and Fujiwara doesn’t teach, The method as claimed in claim 16, wherein the operator station client provides the visual presentation of the indication of the operating actions as a message sequence display; (Morita in in Fig. 4 and ¶0040-¶0042 teaches, providing content of the change point change point of the production condition)
and wherein the message sequence display comprises operating messages which each relate to an operating action. (Morita in in Fig. 4 and ¶0040-¶0042 teaches, The content of the improvement procedure operation which is pop-up displayed is based on the change point display data Hc, and made of 3 columns, such as the date of the procedure, the operator, and the procedure. )
Morita is an art in the area of interest as it relates to displaying transition graph. A combination of Morita with Lutz and Fujiwara would allow the system to provide the visual presentation of the indication of the operating actions in the form of a message sequence display; and wherein the message sequence display comprises operating messages which each relate to an operating action. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Morita with Lutz and Fujiwara. One would have been motivated to do so because a content of the operator action can’t be understood just from an indication on the trend graph. By providing a content display related to the event/action operator can understand the details related to the action/event, as taught by Morita in ¶0040.
Claim(s) 12 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lutz (US20210141367A1) in view of Fujiwara (US20220246456A1) and further in view of Havekost (US7023440B1)
Regarding claim 12,
Lutz and Fujiwara doesn’t teach, The control system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the control system is further configured to perform the graphical presentation of the temporal progression of the measured variable assigned to the technical object of the technical installation based on a selection of an operating message in a message sequence display by the operator; and (Havekost in Column 3 Line 26-32 teaches, the user may select an event in the event table. In response, the process history view application highlights the selected event marker in the trend chart. This function permits the user to easily correlate changes in process parameters with process events.))
wherein an operating action of the operating message relates to the technical object assigned to the temporal progression. (Havekost Column 2 Line 44-46 teaches, an event table containing information describing process events that are related to the selected process parameters and that occurred during the selected time window.)
Havekost is an art in the area of interest as it relates to a workstation that generates and displays an event table containing information describing process events that are related to the selected process parameters and that occurred during the selected time window (see Abstract). A combination of Havekost with Lutz and Fujiwara would allow the system to perform the graphical presentation of the temporal progression of the measured variable assigned to the technical object of the technical installation based on a selection of an operating message in a message sequence display by the operator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Havekost with Lutz and Fujiwara. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow the user to easily correlate changes in process parameters with process events, as taught by Havekost in Column 3 Line 26-32.
Regarding claim 21,
Lutz and Fujiwara doesn’t teach, The method according to claim 11, wherein the operator station client performs the graphical presentation of the temporal progression of the measured variable assigned to the technical object of the technical installation based on a selection of an operating message in a message sequence display by the operator; and (Havekost in Column 3 Line 26-32 teaches, the user may select an event in the event table. In response, the process history view application highlights the selected event marker in the trend chart. This function permits the user to easily correlate changes in process parameters with process events.))
wherein an operating action of the operating message relates to the technical object assigned to the temporal progression. (Havekost Column 2 Line 44-46 teaches, an event table containing information describing process events that are related to the selected process parameters and that occurred during the selected time window.)
Havekost is an art in the area of interest as it relates to a workstation that generates and displays an event table containing information describing process events that are related to the selected process parameters and that occurred during the selected time window (see Abstract). A combination of Havekost with Lutz and Fujiwara would allow the system to perform the graphical presentation of the temporal progression of the measured variable assigned to the technical object of the technical installation based on a selection of an operating message in a message sequence display by the operator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Havekost with Lutz and Fujiwara. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow the user to easily correlate changes in process parameters with process events, as taught by Havekost in Column 3 Line 26-32.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISTIAQUE AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-7087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 10AM -6PM and alternate Fridays.
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, Kenneth M Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/ISTIAQUE AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights