DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the application filed on 07/24/2024 in which claims 1-11 are pending in the application. Claims 1-11 were amended by Applicant. Claims 12-14 have been canceled by Applicant. Claims 1, 7, and 11 are independent forms.
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 foreign priority based on an application filed in CN2022075059 on 01/29/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN2022075059 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/24/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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: “graphical interface module for”; “editing and processing module to” in claim 7 and “analyzing and deploying module to” in claim 10.
[0167] “The graphical interface module 120 is configured to provide a GUI for users to perform a behavior tree construction operation on the basis of the behavior tree nodes in the node library. In addition, addition and connection operations of data blocks may also be performed on the GUI.”
[0170] “The editing and processing module 130 is configured to generate a behavior tree corresponding to one workflow in response to the behavior tree construction operation.”
[0175] “Corresponding to the method shown in FIG. 1A, the workflow generation system in this embodiment may further include: an analyzing and deploying module 140, configured to analyze the behavior tree, and deploy the workflow corresponding to the behavior tree to a runtime of the corresponding workcell so that the runtime executes the workflow to control the resources in the workcell to execute the service operations according to the workflow.
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 (a)
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 7 and 10 are 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. The specification lacks corresponding recitation of structure for the “graphical interface module for”; “editing and processing module to” in paragraph [0167] and [0170] and “analyzing and deploying module to” in paragraph [0175]. The examiner recommends to explicitly point out the structure for the claimed modules in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 limitations “graphical interface module for”, “editing and processing module to” and “analyzing and deploying module to” 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. For the software-implemented functions, the specification lacks any structure that performs the function in the claim. 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartlett (US 9184988), in view of Lu (CN113515272A)
As per claim 1, Bartlett discloses
receiving […] operation that is entered on a graphical user interface (GUI) by a user wherein the behavior tree construction [col 3: 62-65] “For example, an embodiment of a configurable workflow service may provide one or more interfaces for use by a client, such as a defined GUI (“graphical user interface”), operation comprises an addition operation and a line connection operation which are performed [….] [col 3:67, col 4 :1-5] “ When using a provided GUI, a user representative of a client may, for example, use a visual editor to specify particular workflow components for a workflow being defined, and may further specify interconnections between particular workflow components corresponding to data flows the configurable workflow service may represent the defined workflow as a graph that logically represents the workflow, with various graph nodes corresponding to particular workflow components. FIG. 2A provides additional illustrative details with respect to an example of such a workflow graph.”, [col 2: 6-11] “In addition, interconnections may be defined between workflow components that correspond to data flows between workflow components, such that data output from a first component may be supplied as input to a second component, with that relationship being represented as a connection from the first component to the second component.” that comprise function block nodes,[…] [col 7 60-67, col 8:1] “In particular, the workflow definition may be constructed with various logical nodes that each correspond to defined operations and are interconnected in various manners, and the workflow engine module 130 may select particular computing nodes to use to perform particular such operations, as well as to further perform activities to provision and initiate execution of corresponding workflow worker processes on each such selected computing node.” and the function block nodes are used for implementing the service operations in the workflow; [col 7 60-67, col 8:1] “In particular, the workflow definition may be constructed with various logical nodes that each correspond to defined operations and are interconnected in various manners, and the workflow engine module 130 may select particular computing nodes to use to perform particular such operations, as well as to further perform activities to provision and initiate execution of corresponding workflow worker processes on each such selected computing node.”
Examiner Note: Bartlett “workflow components” encompasses “function block node”
instantiating the behavior tree nodes and establishing connection relationships among the instantiated behavior tree nodes in response to the behavior tree construction operation, wherein some or all of the instantiated function block nodes are associated with resources for executing corresponding service operations; and [col 4: 13-25] In some embodiments, each time that a defined workflow is to be used, the configurable workflow service instantiates a physical copy of the logical graph representing the defined workflow, such as by using multiple computing nodes that each implement at least one workflow component for the defined workflow. In particular, in at least some embodiments, some or all of the computing nodes are provisioned by the configurable workflow service to configure those computing nodes to implement particular workflow components (e.g., to load corresponding software and/or data on those computing nodes), such as to each execute a workload worker process corresponding to each such implemented workflow component.
generating a behavior tree corresponding to one workflow using the connection relationships among the instantiated behavior tree nodes [col 16: 28-31] “…. the logical defined workflow graph 200 of FIG. 2A is implemented via a physical instantiation of that defined workflow using the computing nodes 140 illustrated with respect to FIG. 2B…”
Bartlett discloses a workflow graph operation as detailed above but does not specifically teach “receiving a behavior tree construction operation” as recited in the claim.
Bartlett further discloses a construction operation as detailed above but does not specifically teach “one behavior tree is used for representing one workflow of service operations to be executed by resources in one workcell” as recited in the claim.
However, Lu discloses
receiving a behavior tree construction […]“At present, when a visual programming scheme is adopted, a user can firstly select a command building block required by the user in a building block list field of a programming interface, then the building block is placed in a programming operation field, and a command sequence is formed through bonding and nesting, so that the compiling of a graphical programming language is realized.” “The embodiment of the invention unifies the behaviour tree node combination structure and the operation mechanism of the instruction building block generating behaviour tree node by the instruction building block behaviour tree universal node combination frame.” (see fig 5/6)
[….] one behavior tree is used for representing one workflow of service operations to be executed by resources in one workcell […] “the father node of the behaviour tree node combination is the behaviour tree root node of the programmable object, for managing the operation of the parameter branch father node and the function branch father node.” “As shown in FIG. 5 501, instruction building father node management parameter branch and function branch operation, instruction building father node can manage a plurality of parameter branches and function branch.”
Examiner Note: Lu “father node” encompasses the “workcell” which is required for the limitation, further so the behavior tree is then construction to the represent the workflow operation that needs to be executed in one workcell.
Both Bartlett and Lu are in similar field of endeavor, as they both are in managing/arranging data and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to modify the system of Bartlett, to include receiving a behavior tree to be used for representing one workflow of service operations to be executed by resource in one workcell as disclosed by Lu in order to provide order and result based on the nodes to construct a behavior tree.
Motivation to combine would be to improve the system, by providing a visual representation for behavior tree by defining the workflow which would represent the workflow of service to be executed by the resource in a workcell. (Lu [0005], [0017]-[0025])
As per claim 2, Barlett further disclose
before receiving the behavior tree construction operation, respectively associating resources for executing service operations corresponding to the function block nodes for some or all of the function block nodes in advance. [Col 6:35-40] “In some embodiments, the defining of a particular workflow may include actions by the user in selecting one or more defined workflow components and specifying the interactions between those workflow components, such as by using one or more predefined system-provided workflow component definitions 116…”
As per claim 3 Barlett further disclose
wherein behavior tree construction further comprises associating resources for the added function block nodes. [col 6:43-47] “As part of defining a new workflow, the user may further specify one or more source locations at which source data is to be retrieved and used for the workflow definition, and one or more destination locations to which data that is produced by the defined workflow will be provided.” [col 6:54-59] “the client may optionally in some embodiments define one or more new workflow components as part of defining a new workflow, and if so, such client-defined workflow components may further have definition information stored in information 116 in at least some embodiments.”
As per claim 5
Bartlett further disclose “deploying the workflow corresponding to the behavior tree to a runtime of the corresponding workcell so that the resources in the workcell execute the operations according to the workflow.” [col 7:55-63] “When the execution of a defined workflow is initiated, the workflow engine module 130 in the example embodiment retrieves workflow definition information for that defined workflow from the information 114 and initiates the execution of the defined workflow on one or more computing nodes. In particular, the workflow definition may be constructed with various logical nodes that each correspond to defined operations and are interconnected…”
Bartlett does not explicitly disclose
Bartlett, does not explicitly disclose
“analyzing the behavior tree;”
However, Lu discloses “analyzing the behavior tree;” “the instruction building block sequence analysis module is used for analyzing the arrangement data of the instruction building blocks into behavior tree node combined structure data, analyzing the parameters of the instruction building blocks into parameter data of the behavior tree nodes of the instruction building blocks, and analyzing the variable data of the instruction building blocks into behavior tree…”
Both Bartlett and Lu are in similar field of endeavor, as they both are in managing data and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to modify the system Bartlett, to include analyzing the behavior tree then to deploy a workflow corresponding to the behavior tree to a runtime of the corresponding workcell so that the resources in the workcell execute the operations according to the workflow as disclosed by Lu in order to provide a visual representation of the behavior tree using different modules to display results.
Motivation to combine would be to improve the system by ensuring data under each behavior tree node is correct before deploying which would allow the workflow engine to be built properly after analyzing the behavior tree node that corresponds to a workcell.(Lu [0010] [0129], [0146])
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 5, therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 7, Barlett discloses
a node library storing behavior tree nodes for constructing a behavior tree, [col 16: 67, col 17:1-5] “The client computer systems 350 each includes a browser program 358 executing in memory 357, such as to enable a user of such a client computer system to interact with a Web-based GUI provided by the configurable workflow service system 340, and also optionally stores information 355 about client-specific workflow components on the local storage” wherein the behavior tree nodes comprise function block nodes, […] , and the function block nodes are used for implementing the service operations in the workflow; [col 5:51-58] “As part of implementing a defined workflow, the configurable workflow service 110 further provisions particular computing nodes to each perform specified activities corresponding to the defined workflow. In some embodiments, the configurable workflow service 110 optionally provides a group of computing nodes 140 on which defined workflows for clients may be executed.”
Examiner Note: “local storage” encompasses “node library” the local storage stores the “computing node” that corresponds the “defined workflow” which is configured into a “workflow service”.
a graphical interface module (GUI) for a user to perform a behavior tree construction operation,
[col 7: 53-55] “the workflow engine module 130 may in some embodiments provide a GUI interface and/or and API interface for use by clients.” wherein the behavior tree construction operation comprises an addition operation and a line connection operation which are performed on the behavior tree nodes that comprise the function block nodes; and [col 7:55-67, col 8:1] “When the execution of a defined workflow is initiated, the workflow engine module 130 in the example embodiment retrieves workflow definition information for that defined workflow from the information 114, and initiates the execution of the defined workflow on one or more computing nodes. In particular, the workflow definition may be constructed with various logical nodes that each correspond to defined operations and are interconnected in various manners, and the workflow engine module 130 may select particular computing nodes to use to perform particular such operations, as well as to further perform activities to provision and initiate execution of corresponding workflow worker processes on each such selected computing node.”
an editing and processing module to: instantiate the behavior tree nodes [col 7 52-53] “As with the workflow editor module 120, the workflow engine module 130” and establish connection relationships among the instantiated behavior tree nodes in response to the behavior tree construction operation, wherein some or all of the instantiated function block nodes are associated with resources for executing corresponding service operations; [col 7 :60-63 and initiates the execution of the defined workflow on one or more computing nodes. In particular, the workflow definition may be constructed with various logical nodes that each correspond to defined operations and are interconnected in various manners, and generate a behavior tree corresponding to one workflow on the basis of the connection relationships among the instantiated behavior tree nodes. [col 7:55-67, col 8:1] “When the execution of a defined workflow is initiated, the workflow engine module 130 in the example embodiment retrieves workflow definition information for that defined workflow from the information 114, and initiates the execution of the defined workflow on one or more computing nodes. In particular, the workflow definition may be constructed with various logical nodes that each correspond to defined operations and are interconnected in various manners, and the workflow engine module 130 may select particular computing nodes to use to perform particular such operations, as well as to further perform activities to provision and initiate execution of corresponding workflow worker processes on each such selected computing node.”
Bartlett discloses a workflow graph operation as detailed above but does not specifically teach “behavior tree nodes for constructing a behavior tree” as recited in the claim.
Bartlett further discloses a construction operation as detailed above but does not specifically teach “one behavior tree is used for representing one workflow of service operations to be executed by resources in one workcell” as recited in the claim.
However, Lu discloses “behavior tree nodes for constructing a behavior tree” […]“At present, when a visual programming scheme is adopted, a user can firstly select a command building block required by the user in a building block list field of a programming interface, then the building block is placed in a programming operation field, and a command sequence is formed through bonding and nesting, so that the compiling of a graphical programming language is realized.” “The embodiment of the invention unifies the behaviour tree node combination structure and the operation mechanism of the instruction building block generating behaviour tree node by the instruction building block behaviour tree universal node combination frame.” (see fig 5/6)
[….] one behavior tree is used for representing one workflow of service operations to be executed by resources in one workcell […] “the father node of the behaviour tree node combination is the behaviour tree root node of the programmable object, for managing the operation of the parameter branch father node and the function branch father node.” “As shown in FIG. 5 501, instruction building father node management parameter branch and function branch operation, instruction building father node can manage a plurality of parameter branches and function branch.”
Examiner Note: Lu “father node” encompasses the “workcell” which is required for the limitation, further so the behavior tree is then construction to the represent the workflow operation that needs to be executed in one workcell.
Both Bartlett and Lu are in similar field of endeavor, as they both are in managing/arranging data and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to modify the system of Bartlett, to include behavior tree nodes for constructing a behavior tree to be used for representing one workflow of service operations to be executed by resource in one workcell as disclosed by Lu a visual programming.
Motivation to combine would be to improve the programming language within system, by providing a visual representation for defining workflow which would represent the workflow of service to be executed by the resource in a workcell. (Lu [0005])
As per claim 11, Bartlett and Lu disclosed the method of claim 1 detailed above.
A workflow generation system comprising: [col 3:67, col 4 :1-5] “ When using a provided GUI, a user representative of a client may, for example, use a visual editor to specify particular workflow components for a workflow being defined, and may further specify interconnections between particular workflow components corresponding to data flows the configurable workflow service may represent the defined workflow as a graph that logically represents the workflow, with various graph nodes corresponding to particular workflow components. FIG. 2A provides additional illustrative details with respect to an example of such a workflow graph.”,
at least one memory storing computer-readable codes; and [col 18:36-40] “Some or all of the modules, systems and data structures may also be stored (e.g., as software instructions or structured data) on non-transitory computer-readable storage media, such as a hard disk or flash drive or other non-volatile storage device, volatile or non-volatile memory (e.g., RAM) …”
at least one processor configured to call the computer-readable codes to execute the workflow generation method according to claim 1. [col 18: 16-25] “Thus, in some embodiments, some or all of the described techniques may be performed by hardware means that include one or more processors and/or memory and/or storage when configured by one or more software programs (e.g., by the system 340) and/or data structures (e.g., defined workflow information 324 and/or defined workflow component information 326), such as by execution of software instructions of the one or more software programs and/or by storage of such software instructions and/or data structures.”
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartlett (US 9184988), in view of Lu (CN113515272A), in view of Kujawinski (US 20200387803 A1), in view of Tur (US 20150161107 A1).
As per claim 4, Bartlett and Lu disclose the method of claim 2 detailed above.
Bartlett and Lu do not explicitly discloses
“the resources are represented in the form of resource nodes, and all the resource nodes are associated and stored in the form of a resource knowledge graph; and
the resource knowledge graph comprises the resource nodes and connecting lines representing relationships among the resource nodes.”
However, Kujawinski discloses
the resources are represented in the form of resource nodes, and all the resource nodes are associated and stored in the form of a resource knowledge graph [0013]” As shown in FIG. 2, the retraining KG 200 is comprised of nodes (may also be referred to as entities) that represent data, and edges linking together nodes that represent relationships between nodes. The retraining KG 200 includes a user node 207, a step node 201, a resource node 202, a pipeline node 203, a run node 204, a model node 205, and a model code node 206. The retraining KG 200 may be a full knowledge graph, …” [0044] “Shown in column B are components and steps for generating the retraining KG with the specific instances of data stored in the knowledge graph instance storage 124, as well as dataset information received from the resource storage 117.
Bartlett, Lu and Kujawinski are in similar fields of endeavor, as they are all in arrangement of data/models and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to modify the system of Bartlett, and Lu, to include the resource be represented in the form of resource nodes, and all the resource nodes are associated and stored in the form of a resource knowledge graph as disclosed Kujawinski in order to automatically retain data within a machine learning model.
Motivation to combine would be to improve the system performance evaluation by efficiently and effectively displaying a representation of the knowledge graph, showing the relationship between the resources nodes. Which by doing would enable retraining dataset from a specific instance within a store resource data. Which would then further allow the system to monitor the resources. (Kujawinski [0009], [0010])
Bartlett, Lu, and Kujawinski do not explicitly discloses
“the resource knowledge graph comprises the resource nodes and connecting lines representing relationships among the resource nodes.”
However, Tur discloses
“the resource knowledge graph comprises the resource nodes and connecting lines representing relationships among the resource nodes. [0078] “The knowledge resource 716 may correspond to any data structure which describes entities and the relations among the entities. For instance, the knowledge resource 716 may correspond to a knowledge graph which represents entities as nodes in a graph and relations as links which connect the nodes together.” (See Fig 7)
PNG
media_image1.png
533
417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bartlett, Lu, Kujawinski, and Tur are in similar fields of endeavor, as they are all in arrangement of data/network and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to modify the system of Bartlett, Lu, and Kujawinski to include the resource knowledge graph comprises the resource nodes and connecting lines representing relationships among the resource nodes as disclosed by Tur in order to improve the quality of training data fed into a machine learning model.
Motivation to combine would be to improve the quality of the train data within system by providing more flexibility by capturing any resource relationship within the knowledge graph. (Tur (0004], [0074])
As per claim 8, Barlett and Lu disclose the system of claim 7 detailed above.
Bartlett further disclose “wherein each resource can execute at least one service operation; and” [ col 4;19-22, 23-25} “some or all of the computing nodes are provisioned by the configurable workflow service to configure those computing nodes to implement particular workflow components…. such as to each execute a workload worker process corresponding to each such implemented workflow component.”
Barlett and Lu do not explicitly discloses
further comprising a resource library storing the resources in the form of a resource knowledge graph;
the resource knowledge graph comprises nodes representing the resources, and connecting lines representing relationships among the nodes.
However, Kujawinski discloses
further comprising a resource library storing the resources in the form of a resource knowledge graph; [0044] Shown in column B are components and steps for generating the retraining KG with the specific instances of data stored in the knowledge graph instance storage 124, as well as dataset information received from the resource storage 117.
Examiner Note: “resource storage” reads on “resource library”
Bartlett, Lu and Kujawinski are in similar fields of endeavor, as they are all in arrangement of data and networks and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to modify the system of Bartlett and Lu, to include comprising a resource library storing the resources in the form of a resource knowledge graph. wherein the resource executes at least a service operation as disclosed by Kujawinski in order to automatically retain data within a machine learning model.
Motivation to combine would be to improve the system performance by automating retraining the model which would provide more efficiency within the model. (Kujawinski [0009], [0011], [0012])
Barlett, Lu, and Kujawinski do not explicitly discloses
“the resource knowledge graph comprises nodes representing the resources, and connecting lines representing relationships among the nodes.”
However, Tur further discloses “the resource knowledge graph comprises nodes representing the resources, and connecting lines representing relationships among the nodes.” [0078] “The knowledge resource 716 may correspond to any data structure which describes entities and the relations among the entities. For instance, the knowledge resource 716 may correspond to a knowledge graph which represents entities as nodes in a graph and relations as links which connect the nodes together.”
Bartlett, Lu, Kujawinski and Tur are in similar fields of endeavor, as they are all in arrangement of data/network and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to modify the system of Bartlett, Lu, and Kujawinski to include comprising a resource library storing the resources in the form of a resource knowledge graph. wherein the resource execute at least a service operation, which then resource knowledge graph would further comprise node representing the resources, and connecting lines representing relationships among the nodes as disclosed by Tur in order to improve the quality of training data fed into a machine learning model.
Motivation to combine would be to improve the quality of the train data within system by capturing the operation between each resource within the graph. Which would then allow the system to identify which resource is currently processing an operation before adjusting the resources. (Tur (0004], [0074])
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartlett (US 9184988), in view of Lu (CN113515272A), in view of Maturana (US 20200097430 A1).
As per claim 6, Bartlett and Lu disclose the method of claim 5 detailed above.
Bartlett and Lu do not explicitly discloses
“the workflow is an OT domain workflow;
the workcell is a workcell in an OT domain; and
the resources comprise OT devices.”
However, Maturana discloses
the workflow is an OT domain workflow; [0046] “The microservice 84 may guide or generate a definition of components of an industrial OT/IT architecture, determine functions and data associations between the IT network and the OT network, determine actionable workflows
the workcell is a workcell in an OT domain; and [0048] “During runtime (e.g., while the machines are performing their respective operations), each node (e.g., computer, gateway, router, cloud element, edge device, controller) of the OT or IT networks that communicates with the OT/IT mapping system 38 may include the manifest data describing how to process the logical associations between certain data types or datasets with certain data tags with respect to routing the data to a destination.”
the resources comprise OT devices. [0008] “The first microservice may receive a dataset from an operation technology (OT) device” [0075] “By using the microservices 84 at various levels in the industrial (e.g., OT network) environments or enterprise (e.g., IT network) environments, actionable commands may be performed by various microservices 84, devices in the industrial environment (e.g., OT machines 44), devices in the enterprise environment (e.g., enterprise computing system 32), or the like based on the respective analysis performed by the respective microservices 84.”
Examiner note: “microservice” encompasses “resource”
Bartlett, Lu and Maturana are in similar fields of endeavor, as they are all in arrangement of data/model and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed inventions to modify system of Bartlett, and Lu, to include the workflow is an OT domain, the workcell is a workcell in an OT domain and the resources comprise OT devices as disclosed by Maturana in order to automatically map data within an operation/information technology.
Motivation to combine would be to improve operating devices within an industrial automation system by routing data to the correct destination and expanding workflow generation into an industrial control environment. Which would then provide further efficiency and flexibility. (Maturana [0003], [0022], [0029])
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartlett (US 9184988), in view of Lu (CN113515272A), in view of Kujawinski (US 20200387803 A1), in view of Tur (US 20150161107 A1), in view of Sedky (US 20050243368 A1).
As per claim 9, Bartlett, Lu, Kujawinski, and Tur disclose the system of claim 8 detailed above.
Bartlett, Lu, Kujawinski, and Tur do not discloses
“wherein each resource in the resource library is respectively associated with one function block node in the node library.”
However, Sedky discloses “wherein each resource in the resource library is respectively associated with one function block node in the node library.” [0071] “The package associated with root node 302 can also include a collection of resources. These resources are associated with root node 302, but can be referenced or used by different nodes in the job. Such collection of resources thus defines a shared library of resources that can be applied at different points within a document represented by the package. However, this shared library of resources remains associated with a single node, and thus all resources can be maintained in a single location (e.g., a single folder or directory) associated with the single node…”
Bartlett, Lu, Kujawinski, Tur and Sedky are in similar fields of endeavor, as they are all in arrangement of data within a system and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed inventions to modify system of Bartlett, Lu, Kujawinski, and Tur to include wherein each resource in the resource library is respectively associated with one function block node in the node library as disclosed by Sedky providing a more efficient strategies for using spool storage.
Motivation to combine would be to improve the efficiency of the system by reducing multiple resources across a workflow, which would then improve performance and scalability within the system. (Sedy [0006], [0007], [0017])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Freche; Julien (US-20190171390-A1) disclose determining whether the proposed modification violates a structural consistency of the hierarchical resource tree based on the working value, and replacing the value of the memory parameter with the working value of the memory parameter in response to determining that the proposed modification does not violate a structural consistency of the hierarchical resource tree based on the working value.
Saunders; Jeffery (US-20220035339-A1) discloses a method is provided for causing one or more robots to execute a mission.
Liao; Min (US-20130073994-A1) disclose a workflow service structure underlying the visualization is constructed with the extracted service information. A hierarchical node visualization of the service structure is displayed in a service explorer GUI.
YANG, Xue-jun (CN-113534662-A) disclose an unmanned system cluster control technology field, specifically claims an unmanned system cluster control method based on behavioural tree, aiming at solving the technical problem of lack of realizing support of large-scale heterogeneous unmanned system cluster.
STYRUD JONATHAN (SE 2150130 A1) disclose a method of automatically generating software (S, P1, P2, P3) for controlling an industrial robot (190) to perform a predefined robot task, the method comprising: executing an automated planning algorithm to generate a behavior tree, BT.
TENORTH MORITZ (WO 2017148830 A1) disclose a method for controlling a robot, the method including usage of a behavior tree architecture for tasks performed by the robot.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHMEED ACHILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am -4pm.
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, PIERRE VITAL can be reached at (571)272-4215. 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.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights