DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 9/11/2024.
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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims Status
Claims 1-12 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1 is independent.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Generating Sensor Data Displays on a Host Computer
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) or 112(1st)
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(s) 1-12 are/is 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) contain(s) subject matter which was/were 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “A method for building a menu page on a host with a display” and “building and displaying the menu page on the display with the current value of at least one sensor-referenced parameter”. However, the Instant Specification doesn’t sufficiently clarify the why the displayed parameters is referred to as a “menu page”, which traditionally implies a list of selectable options.
Claim 1 recites “at least one sensor-referenced parameter” several times. However, the Instant Specification doesn’t sufficiently describe what qualifies the claimed “parameter” as being “sensor-referenced” or how it relates to sensor readings, such as whether it refers to configuration settings, measured values, or data received by a host.
Claim 1 recites “transmitting the value…as soon as the list is on the field device and as soon as the value of the at least one sensor-referenced parameter changes”. However, the Instant Specification doesn’t sufficiently describe timing and conditions of the transmitting step. E.g., it fails to describe whether the transmitting occurs after the first condition is met and then again when the second condition is met, or only after both have been met. Furthermore, the Instant Specification doesn’t sufficiently describe the meaning of “as soon as the list is on the field device” or when the list can be considered as being “on the field device”.
Claim 3 recites the terms “frequently” and “quickly”, which are terms of degree. However, the Instant Specification doesn’t sufficiently describe a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the cache contains all sensor-referenced parameters of all lists”. However, the Instant Specification doesn’t sufficiently describe the apparent functional contradiction of requiring a cache––which by definition stores data temporarily and transiently––to contain “all sensor-referenced parameters of all lists”, or describe whether these parameters must coexist in the cache simultaneously or if the cache must simply have the capacity to hold them over time at different times.
Claim 7 recites “wherein a backup is created and/or restored thereby”. However, the Instant Specification doesn’t sufficiently describe the phrase of a backup that is created and/or restored “thereby”, or what specific action triggers the backup and who performs the creation or restoration.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the list is iterative and adaptive”. However, the Instant Specification doesn’t sufficiently describe the terms “iterative” and “adaptive” or how a list is “iterative and adaptive”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the previous list” within the phrase “wherein a new list replaces the previous list”. However, the Instant Specification doesn’t sufficiently describe where the list is replaced or what structure performs the replacing step.
Claim 12 recite “wherein the list is created in advance and stored separately”. However, the Instant Specification doesn’t sufficiently describe the precise point in time or structural boundaries relative to other claim steps, and fails to provide support for when the list is created and where it is kept open.
Claims 2-12 are also rejected as they depend on claim(s) above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or 112(2nd)
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “A method for building a menu page on a host with a display” and “building and displaying the menu page on the display with the current value of at least one sensor-referenced parameter”. Here, the use of “menu page” is not clear because a menu page traditionally implies a list of selectable options. As described in the Instant Specification, the seems to refer to an interface used for displaying sensor parameter values, and not a page with selectable options. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the claimed “menu page” as being directed to a display interface for displaying sensor parameter values. Correction required.
Claim 1 recites “at least one sensor-referenced parameter” several times. Here, it is unclear what qualifies the claimed “parameter” as being “sensor-referenced” or how it relates to sensor readings, such as whether it refers to configuration settings, measured values, or data received by a host. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) of “sensor-referenced” as being directed to the parameter being sensor-related. Correction required.
Claim 1 recites “transmitting the value…as soon as the list is on the field device and as soon as the value of the at least one sensor-referenced parameter changes”. Here, it is unclear as to the timing and conditions of the transmitting step. E.g., it’s unclear whether the transmitting occurs after the first condition is met and then again when the second condition is met, or only after both have been met. Furthermore, the meaning of “as soon as the list is on the field device” is unclear, since it creates ambiguity as when the list can be considered as being “on the field device”. E.g., is it after it has been received, downloaded, and/or stored by the field device? For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to the transmitting occurs after the first condition is met and then again when the second condition is met, and that the list is considered as being “on the field device” when the list is received by the field device. Correction required.
Claim 1 recites “transmitting the list from the host to the field device (subscribe)” and “transmitting the value of the at least one sensor-referenced parameter from the field device to the host as soon as the list is on the field device and as soon as the value of the at least one sensor-referenced parameter changes (stream)”. Here, placing the terms “subscribe” and “stream” in parentheses at the end of the limitations makes the claim unclear because it creates an ambiguity regarding the exact scope and limiting effect of the words in parentheses. E.g., a person having ordinary skill in the art cannot verify if the steps are infringed by any claimed transmissions of the list and values, or only by transmissions in a formal subscribe-stream protocol. Even though the specification discusses that the steps can be considered as subscribe and stream steps, as claimed, it’s unclear whether the terms “subscribe” and “stream” are a mandatory structural limitations of the transmission, or merely unlimiting labels. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the terms “subscribe” and “stream” within the parentheses as being unlimiting labels, or otherwise non-limiting name for the claimed steps. Correction required.
In claim 3, the terms “frequently” and “quickly” are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “frequently” and “quickly” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) of parameters that change “frequently” and “quickly” as including dynamic parameters like temperature and pressure. Correction required.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the host is designed as an FDI host, EDD host, FDT host or FDT-based FDI host”. The metes and bounds of this claim is unclear. It is unclear whether or not the acronyms FDI, EDD, and FDT are limited to the examples in the Instant Specification, since the instant specification doesn’t provide a special definition for the acronyms. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the acronyms as being limited to the examples provided in the Instant Specification. Correction required.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the cache contains all sensor-referenced parameters of all lists”. The phrase is unclear because it creates a functional contradiction by requiring a cache––which by definition stores data temporarily and transiently––to contain “all sensor-referenced parameters of all lists”, leaving it ambiguous whether these parameters must coexist in the cache simultaneously or if the cache must simply have the capacity to hold them over time at different times. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the being directed to a cache that has the capacity to hold parameters over time at different times. Correction required.
Claim 7 recites “wherein a backup is created and/or restored thereby”. The phrase is unclear because placing “thereby” at the end leaves it ambiguous concerning which specific action triggers the backup and who performs the creation or restoration. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) ending with “thereby” as being directed to include a backup and/or restoration process of information in the cache. Correction required.
Claim(s) 8 recite(s) the limitation(s) “each menu page” in the phrase “wherein one list is created for each menu page”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The phrase “each menu page” introduces a plural or collective concept (“each”) without a clear antecedent basis, since the previous limitation only established the existence of a single “menu page”.
Further concerning claim 8, the phrase “wherein one list is created for each menu page” is also unclear concerning whether the “one list” is referring to the same list creating in claim 1, and if it refers to a list comprising at least one sensor-related parameter or something else. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) of wherein one list is created for each menu page includes a list of parameters that are displayed on separate pages for separate devices. Correction required.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the list is iterative and adaptive”. Here, the use of “iterative and adaptive” is unclear because these terms are inherently subjective, and fail to provide a person having ordinary skill in the art with an objective boundary for what structures, algorithms, or steps actually constitute an “iterative” and/or “adaptive” list. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to the list consisting of information that is updated periodically or cyclically, which evolves through repetitive updates while adapting to changing external conditions. Correction required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the previous list” within the phrase “wherein a new list replaces the previous list”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) the previous list as being directed to the list of claim 1. Correction required.
Claim 12 recite “wherein the list is created in advance and stored separately”. Here, this is unclear because using “in advance” and “stored separately” the claim fails to specify the precise point in time or structural boundaries relative to other claim steps, leaving the scope of when the list is created and where it is kept open to multiple interpretations. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) “created in advance and stored separately” as being directed to that a list can be created and stored before being retrieved for use. Correction required.
Claims 2-12 are also rejected as they depend on claim(s) above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibamura; Junpei (hereinafter Shibamura – US 20190286626 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Shibamura teaches:
A method for building a menu page on a host (e.g., apparatus 18) with a display, (display screen of apparatus 18 displaying list of field devices and parameters, ¶ 131 and figs. 10 and 11. The host 18 can be integrated with a change detection apparatus 16, ¶ 139. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the claimed “menu page” as being directed to a display interface for displaying sensor-related parameter values. Note that the maintenance and management apparatus 18 teaches a host used to perform maintenance and management of field devices because paragraph 36 explicitly states it is part of a system used for that purpose, and paragraph 132 describes it allowing a manager to select a field device, display its detailed information, and track changes to its setting parameter history, ¶¶ 36 and 132 and figs. 1 and 11)
wherein a field device is connected to the host, (field devices 11 indirectly connected to maintenance and management apparatus 18, figs. 1,10,11 and ¶¶ 51 and 55.)
the method comprising the steps of:
creating a list for the host, the list comprising at least one sensor-referenced parameter; (apparatus 18, also referred to as a device lifecycle manager, ¶ 55, which creates a detection target list including setting parameters for the field devices, ¶ 59 and figs. 1-2. Because the field devices can be sensors, so the parameters are sensor-related, ¶ 38. Inasmuch as the field device list is created by and displayed by the host 18, it is interpreted as being a list created “for the host”. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) of sensor-referenced parameter as being directed to the parameter being sensor-related.)
transmitting the list from the host to the field device (subscribe); (apparatus 16/18 [host] transmits request for listed parameters from the field devices, ¶¶ 98-99 and 138. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the terms “subscribe” and “stream” within the parentheses as being unlimiting labels, or otherwise non-limiting name for the claimed steps.)
transmitting the value of the at least one sensor-referenced parameter from the field device to the host as soon as the list is on the field device and as soon as the value of the at least one sensor-referenced parameter changes (stream); (each of the field devices that received the list of parameters, respond to the request by providing the values of the requested parameters, ¶ 99 and fig. 7 [as soon as the list is on the field device]. Furthermore, when the values of the parameters change, see ¶¶ 101-103, the field devices also transmit the values to the host 18, ¶¶ 104 and 109-110. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to the transmitting occurs after the first condition is met and then again when the second condition is met, and that the list is considered as being “on the field device” when the list is received by the field device, and the terms “subscribe” and “stream” within the parentheses as being unlimiting labels, or otherwise non-limiting name for the claimed steps.)
and building and displaying the menu page on the display with the current value of at least one sensor-referenced parameter. (values for parameters displayed on a display screen [menu page], ¶ 132 and fig. 11. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the claimed “menu page” as being directed to a display interface for displaying sensor parameter values.)
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Shibamura further teaches:
wherein the at least one sensor-referenced parameter is the field device settings, field device measured values, field device diagnostic information, field device event counters, and/or field device system status indicators. (field device settings parameters are designated, tracked, and changed, such as a zero-point adjustment amount or model name for the field devices, ¶¶ 59 and 74-75)
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Shibamura further teaches:
wherein the at least one sensor-referenced parameter is a dynamic parameter that changes frequently and quickly. (values of the parameters can be changed frequently, ¶ 70, such as pressure and temperature, ¶ 38, which a person having ordinary skill in the art would have realized are values that can change both frequently and quickly. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) of parameters that change “frequently” and “quickly” as including dynamic parameters like temperature and pressure.)
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Shibamura further teaches:
further comprising the step of:
storing the transmitted value of at least one sensor-referenced parameter in a cache on the host, and building the menu page based on the values in the cache. (Shibamura teaches that transmitted/received parameters values, discussed above, are stored temporarily in the RAM because it explicitly describes using the RAM as a “frame buffer,” a “transmission buffering region,” and a temporary staging area where external data is read, processed, and subsequently written back to an external recording medium, ¶¶ 144-146 and 150-151. The received information is used for displaying the values on the menu page, as explained for claim 1 [and building the menu page based on the values in the cache])
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Shibamura further teaches:
wherein the cache contains all sensor-referenced parameters of all lists. (because the RAM is necessarily used as a buffer or temporary staging area [cache] where external data is read, processed, and subsequently written back to an external recording medium, ¶¶ 144-146 and 150-151, the cache contains all sensor-referenced parameters of all lists. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the being directed to a cache that has the capacity to hold parameters over time at different times)
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Shibamura further teaches:
wherein one list is created for each menu page. (Shibamura teaches that details, including parameters display list can be displayed separately for each device, based on the selected device, ¶¶ 132 and fig. 11. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) of wherein one list is created for each menu page includes a list of parameters that are displayed on separate pages for separate devices.)
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Shibamura further teaches:
wherein the list is iterative and adaptive. (a continuous loop of repeatedly acquiring data at predetermined intervals [iterative] and dynamically updating or generating the detection target list based on calculated changes in parameter frequency over time [adaptive], ¶¶ 108 and 137. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as including a list that has information that is updated periodically or cyclically, and which evolves through repetitive updates while adapting to changing external conditions)
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Shibamura further teaches:
wherein a new list replaces the previous list. (update the detection target list “by replacing existing detection targets”, ¶ 60. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) the previous list as being directed to the list of claim 1.)
Claim 11:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Shibamura further teaches:
wherein the list is created by a parser on the host. (The list can be automatically created, e.g., by the parameter acquiring section 162, the change detecting section 163, and the setting parameter selecting section 165 of change detection apparatus, by acquiring device setting parameters, detecting parameter changes over a specific timeframe, and generating a detection target list from the parameters with the highest change frequencies, ¶ 137. The automatic creation of the list includes parsing because extracting, interpreting, and structuring raw data––such as individual setting parameters and their change statuses from field devices––is necessary to analyze the information and calculate change frequencies. As mentioned above, the host 18 can be integrated with a change detection apparatus 16 [the host], ¶ 139.)
Claim 12:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Shibamura further teaches:
wherein the list is created in advance and stored separately. (the list “may be created by the manager” or acquired “by communicating with an external apparatus,” after which the acquiring section retrieves the pre-existing list to supply it to another component, ¶¶ 59-60. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) “created in advance and stored separately” as being directed to that a list can be created and stored before being retrieved for use)
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibamura (US 20190286626 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (Instant Specification, ¶¶ 3-7, hereinafter – AAPA).
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Shibamura does not appear to expressly teach, but AAPA teaches:
wherein the host is designed as an FDI host, EDD host, FDT host or FDT-based FDI host. (FDI hosts, EDD hosts, FDT hosts, and/or FDT-based FDI hosts are known software or hardware systems used to configure, diagnose, and maintain field devices, ¶¶ 3-7).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify method of Shibamura to include wherein the host is designed as an FDI host, EDD host, FDT host or FDT-based FDI host, as taught by Applicant Admitted Prior Art.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to implement field management using any known type of field device management host to accomplish the same functions as Shibamura, AAPA ¶¶ 3-7.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibamura (US 20190286626 A1), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kuiawa, Christian L. et al. (hereinafter Kuiawa – US 20030033550 A1).
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Shibamura further teaches:
Shibamura does not appear to expressly teach, but Kuiawa teaches:
wherein a backup is created and/or restored thereby. (backing up data from a volatile, temporary memory like RAM to a stable, non-volatile memory like a disk drive, ¶ 2. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) ending with “thereby” as being directed to include a backup and/or restoration process of information in the cache.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Shibamura to include wherein a backup is created and/or restored thereby, as taught by Kuiawa.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve data safety afforded by the method, Kuiawa ¶ 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Silvester; Kelan C. US 20100100279 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a vehicle's computer that displays and stores real-time sensor data about the vehicle's parts, allowing the operator to access both live and recorded information while driving, (Silvester Claim 1)
MICHEL; Francois et al. US 20170154627 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a computer that processes sensor and database information to generate display commands, each featuring multiple selectable options, ¶ 36.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
