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 .
Remarks
Claims 1-15 are pending.
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.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims lack the necessary physical articles or objects to constitute a machine or a manufacture within the meaning of 35 USC 101. They are clearly not a series of steps or acts to be a process nor are they a combination of chemical compounds to be a composition of matter. As such, they fail to fall within a statutory category. They are, at best, functional descriptive material per se.
Descriptive material can be characterized as either “functional descriptive material” or “nonfunctional descriptive material.” Both types of “descriptive material” are nonstatutory when claimed as descriptive material per se, 33 F.3d at 1360, 31 USPQ2d at 1759. When functional descriptive material is recorded on some computer-readable medium, it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized. Compare In re Lawry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Merely claiming nonfunctional descriptive material, i.e., abstract ideas, stored on a computer-readable medium, in a computer, or on an electromagnetic carrier signal, does not make is statutory. See Diehr, 450 U.S. at 185-186, 209 USPQ at 8 (noting that the claims for an algorithm in Benson were unpatentable as abstract ideas because “[t]he sole practical application of the algorithm was in connection with the programming of a general purpose computer.”).
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pereira (Pereira, Hugo Filipe da Silveira Teixeira. "Study on influence of the new CoDeSys V3. 0 on the existing CoDeSys discipline of the Mind8 Engineering Center." (2012)) in view of Maturana et al. (‘Maturana’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20060167667).
As per claim 1, Pereira teaches
A method for testing an automation application, the method comprising: (see abstract and Section 2.3)
processing data from an automation language for a test environment is processed; (test whether the tasks will be imported correctly, pages 29-30; software tested, page 49; Epas-5 software for testing, pages 95-97 & figures 123-126)
and performing at least one test of the test environment; (testing using Epas-5 software, pages 96 & 100)
wherein the test environment includes at least one of a test environment for an actual system of the automation application
Pereira does not explicitly indicate “and at least one simulation of the automation application”.
However, Maturana discloses ”and at least one simulation of the automation application” (simulation solution tested, paragraphs [0062]-[0063]; see also paragraphs [0034],[0047]-[0048] & figure 3 that teach simulation of industrial control solutions including PLCs in industrial controls; note that in the alternative Pereira also teaches a simulate tool on page 97).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pereira and Maturana because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by utilizing simulated testing to reduce expenses and time as compared to conventional methods of testing (see Maturana, paragraph [0008]). This gives the user the advantage of reducing costs that would be incurred with re-designing physical systems.
As per claim 2, Pereira teaches
the data of the automation language comprises elements or modules of the automation language, which are provided to the test unit. (automation project uses modules of PLC code, page 7; software tested, page 49)
As per claim 3, Pereira teaches
the automation language is a programming language for programmable logic controllers, in particular a programming language according to or based on the 61131-3 standard. (development environment for programming in the area of automation controllers and programming languages as defined in IEC 61131-3, Section 1: Abstract, page 7)
As per claim 4, Pereira teaches
the programming language for programmable logic controllers is in accordance with or based on the 61131-3 standard. (development environment with programming languages for application development as device in IEC 61131-3, Section 1: Abstract, page 7; programmable logic controllers, Section 2.1: Packaging Machinery, page 8)
As per claim 5, Pereira teaches
the data of the automation language for the test environment is processed in accordance with at least one of the following actions (i) extraction of input/output variables for the test environment, (ii) adaptation of data types and (iii) generation of test classes based on the data of the automation language. (data types and variables, pages 28, 39;
As per claim 6, Pereira teaches
the data of the automation language for the test environment is processed based on additional reference data. (library to generate code, page 7)
As per claim 7, Pereira teaches
the data of the automation language for the test environment is processed based on additional reference data in accordance with the following action: the data is mapped to permissible values or value ranges using the reference data, an adjustment being performable based on data types. (outputs for lamps have Boolean datatype and allowable status conditions, see figure 20 & pages 27-29).
As per claim 8,
Pereira does not explicitly indicate “a validation is performed by comparing an actual system of the automation application with the at least one simulation of the automation application”.
However, Maturana discloses “a validation is performed by comparing an actual system of the automation application with the at least one simulation of the automation application” (control logic and simulations are concurrently utilized to simulate the system and control, paragraph [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pereira and Maturana because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by utilizing simulated testing to reduce expenses and time as compared to conventional methods of testing (see Maturana, paragraph [0008]). This gives the user the advantage of reducing costs that would be incurred with re-designing physical systems.
As per claim 9,
Pereira does not explicitly indicate “a validation is performed by comparing at least two simulations of the automation application with one another”.
However, Maturana discloses “a validation is performed by comparing at least two simulations of the automation application with one another” (comparing control scenarios, paragraph [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pereira and Maturana because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by utilizing simulated testing to reduce expenses and time as compared to conventional methods of testing (see Maturana, paragraph [0008]). This gives the user the advantage of reducing costs that would be incurred with re-designing physical systems.
As per claim 10, Pereira teaches
elements of the automation language are converted into a program of a higher programming language and at least one simulation of the test environment is generated or modified via the program. (standardized IEC 61131-3 programming language implemented in different programming language, page 12, where when the instruction list (IL) of the standard is implemented then this is essentially a conversion, see also pages 21-22; simulate tool, page 97).
As per claim 11, Pereira teaches
the program is tested. (tested with the appropriate hardware and the intersection traffic light gain live in the visualization, pages 31 & figure 25, pages 96 & 100)
As per claim 12,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 13,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 14,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 15,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAY A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights