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 .
This Office Action is in response to amendments filed on January 27, 2026.
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Claims 2 and 5 have been amended.
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5 and 7-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-5 state “The software architecture method according…” and are dependent on claim 1. In the interest of consistency, it is recommended that this be amended to “The method according…”
Claims 7-10 state “The software architecture according…” and are dependent on claim 6. In the interest of consistency, it is recommended that this be amended to “The device according…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-5 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; Claims 6-10 are directed to a device and fall within the statutory category of machines; and Claim 11 is directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of machines. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 6 and 11: The limitation “establishing a foundation layer, the foundation layer comprising a public information model”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate data and mentally establish, with or without the use of pen and paper, a foundation layer that comprises a public information model. The limitation “an OT domain workflow generated by using the public information model”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate a public information model and mentally generate, with or without the use of pen and paper, an OT domain workflow.
The limitation “establishing a domain layer that depends on the foundation layer, the domain layer comprising a domain protocol, a device tree of an application domain and the device tree comprising a connection relationship between devices”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate an application domain and mentally establish, with or without the use of pen and paper, a domain layer that depends on a foundation layer wherein the domain layer comprises a domain protocol, a device tree of the application domain that consists of a connection relationship between devices. The limitation “establishing a user case layer depending on the domain layer, the user case layer comprising user-defined function modules”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate data and mentally establish, with or without the use of pen and paper, a user case layer depending on the domain layer, the user case layer comprising user-defined function modules.
The limitation “the user-defined function modules capable of conversion into the field bus, the domain protocol and the device tree in the domain layer”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate user-defined function modules and mentally set, with or without the use of pen and paper, the user-defined function modules to be capable of conversion into the field bus, the domain protocol and the device tree in the domain layer.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 6 and 11 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 6 and 11: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements –“Operational Technology (OT) domain low-code development tool”, “workflow generated by the OT domain low-code development tool deployed on the runtime”, “domain layer comprising a field bus”, “a processor, a memory and instructions stored in the memory, wherein the instructions are executed by the processor”, “using the transmitted data to control OT domain processes with a manufacturing operation management system”, (claims 1 and 11) “a first communication connection”, (claim 6) “a second communication connection between the domain layer and the foundation layer” (claim 6) and “a manufacturing operation management system using the transmitted data to control OT domain processes” (claim 6) which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claims 1, 6 and 11 recite the following additional elements – “runtime” and “the data platform spanning over the domain layer and the user case layer as well as communicating with third-party software through a third-party interface” which are merely recitations of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further still, claims 1, 6 and 11 recite the following additional elements – “obtaining data from a data platform” (claims 1 and 11), “transmitting the obtained data between the user layer and the domain layer and between the domain layer and the foundation layer, using the public information model” (claims 1 and 11) “transmitting data obtained from a data platform” (claim 6) and “transmitting data received from the domain layer” (claim 6) which are merely recitations of insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and will also be addressed below in Step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 6 and 11 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 6 and 11: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components, mere instructions to apply an exception and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, the recitations of insignificant data gathering activity as also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1, 6 and 11 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 2, it recites additional elements of “performing data communication with third-party software through the third-party interface” which is merely an insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further, claim 2 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 2 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 3 and 8, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “the domain layer comprises a meta function block and a domain function block” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a domain layer, just as in the independent claims above, mentally include, with or without the use of pen and paper, a meta function block and a domain function block in the domain layer. Further, claims 3 and 8 recite additional abstract idea recitations of “the meta function block comprises a system node, a data block, a behavior tree logic and a language database” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a meta function block, just as in the independent claims above, mentally include, with or without the use of pen and paper, a system node, a data block, a behavior tree logic and a language database in the meta function block. Further, claims 3 and 8 recite additional abstract idea recitations of “the domain function block comprises a resource and a logic node, a Standard domain protocol, and a specific domain protocol that correspond to the resource.” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a domain function block, just as in the independent claims above, mentally include, with or without the use of pen and paper, a resource and a logic node, a Standard domain protocol, and a specific domain protocol that correspond to the resource in the domain function block. Further, claims 3 and 8 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 3 and 8 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 3 and 8 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 4 and 9, they recite additional elements of “wherein the data platform obtains semantic knowledge from a knowledge graph” which is merely an insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further, claims 4 and 9 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 4 and 9 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 4 and 9 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 5, it recites additional elements of “wherein the data platform obtains data from the manufacturing operation management system” which is merely an insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further, claim 5 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 5 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 7, it recite additional elements of “the user case layer further comprises a third-party interface” which is merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further, claim 7 recites additional elements of “performing data communication with third-party software through the third-party interface” which is merely an insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further still, claim 7 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 7 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 10, it recite additional elements of “wherein the data platform obtains data from the manufacturing operation management system or a manufacturing execution system” which is merely an insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further, claim 10 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 10 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, Claims 1-11 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Briant et al. (US 2021/0149376) in view of Barker et al. (US 11,016,468).
With respect to Claim 1, Briant et al. disclose:
establishing a foundation layer, the foundation layer comprising an Operational Technology (OT) domain low-code development tool, (computing device provides a user interface (OT domain low-code development tool), Paragraph 29) runtime, (see Figure 1; computing device connected to one or multiple control systems, Paragraph 42) and a public information model, (data model(s) can be defined by user(s) and not restricted (public), Paragraph 29) and an OT domain workflow generated by the OT domain low-code development tool deployed on the runtime by using the public information model; (the computing device may provide a user interface (OT domain low-code development tool deployed on the runtime) to define a workflow (OT domain workflow) for transferring datasets using the context and/or data model associated with one or more datasets (public information model), Paragraph 29; the computing device 24 may present the available data destination components 118 in which the data, data model 108, or both may be sent, (deployed on the runtime) in response to the applications tab 198 is selected. For example, FIG. 11 may include a visualization 240 that may depict the application tab 198 of the configuration tab 192. The application tab 198 may include multiple data destination components 118. The application tab 198 may enable the user to select one or multiple data destination components 118. The data destination components 118 may include a local data center 110, the cloud-based data center 112, and various other applications or programs that may be used to store, organize, or analyze the data. (deploy on the runtime) The user may associate the new data model 108 or specific components of the new data model 108 to one or multiple data destination components, Paragraph 89)
establishing a domain layer that depends on the foundation layer, (see Figure 1; example industrial automation system that consists of a computing device connected to one or multiple control systems (domain layer) that utilizes the data model to provide context to received data from various control systems (depends on the foundation layer), Paragraph 42) the domain layer comprising a field bus, (control system (domain layer) may be coupled to one or more sensors which may monitor various aspects of the machine components or conveyor sections of a packaging factory (field bus), Paragraph 55; the industrial automation components may include programming terminals, automation controllers, input/output (I/O) modules, communication networks, human-machine interface (HMI) terminals, and the like, to receive statuses and/or information in the form of data (field bus), Paragraph 4) a domain protocol, (transaction data 122 may define the communication protocol (domain protocol) for each component or each type of component (domain layer) that may be associated with the factories, areas, cells, and the like (domain layer), Paragraph 72) and a device tree of an application domain, and the device tree comprising a connection relationship between devices; (The control systems 102, 104, and/or 106 may each identify a relationship (connection relationship/device tree) of the one or more components 20 to a respective cell 18 or area 16 (application domain) based on the data model 108. Subsequently, the control systems 102, 104, and/or 106 may provide the identified relationships to the computing device, Paragraph 63; the scopes of the packaging factory 50 may be categorized based on functions of the components 20 and/or the cells 18 of the packaging factory 50. For instance, referring to FIG. 3, the loading station 52 may be categorized as cell 1, the washing station 56 may be categorized as cell 2, the sealing station 60 may be categorized as cell 3, the sterilization station 64 may be categorized as cell 4, the labeling station may be categorized as cell 5, and the packaging station 68 may be categorized as cell 6 (devices), Paragraph 59)
and establishing a user case layer depending on the domain layer, (computing device provides a user interface (user case layer) that allows a user to input transition conditions or transaction conditions such as to control the transition of data between a data generating component of the industrial automation system and a data destination component (depending on the domain layer), Paragraph 29; the computing device may provide a user interface (user case layer) that enables a user to provide the context or information model associated with a particular dataset. In this way, the user may add a data model or context to datasets, such that the retrieved data may continue to be transmitted to other devices with the appropriate context (depending on the domain layer), Paragraph 27) the user case layer comprising user-defined function modules, (the user interface allows a user to define a workflow that includes transaction conditions and conditional transactions between components (user-defined function modules), Paragraph 29) and the user-defined function modules capable of conversion into the field bus, the domain protocol, and the device tree in the domain layer; (for example, a transaction condition (user-defined function module) that defines a triggering event (e.g., when data value exceeds 300) for data retrieved from a first data source (e.g., a temperature sensor) to initiate capturing data from a second data source (e.g., pressure sensor) (relationship/device tree in the domain layer). In addition, the transaction conditions may define how data will be collected from a data source. That is, the transaction conditions may detail that data is accessed from a data source using a particular driver and collection path, Paragraph 29; the transaction condition (user-defined function module) is “converted” when one or more multiple conditions are satisfied and certain actions (e.g. data transfer, control equipment) using the specified communication protocol (field bus) (FactoryTalk Live Data, EtherNet/IP, OPC Direct Access or any suitable communication protocol) (domain protocol) with respect to the retrieved data or other components in the industrial automation system (device tree in the domain layer), Paragraphs 72 and 86)
obtaining data from a data platform, (receiving raw data associated with a selected control system (data platform), Paragraph 77; providing a different data model by a third party provider in a local data center or a cloud-based data center, Paragraph 67) the data platform spanning over the domain layer and the user case layer (see Figure 1; control system(s) (data platform) are interfaced/communicating with a computing system (domain layer) to transmit raw data which is utilized by a user to define a data model using a user interface (user case layer) of a computing system, Paragraphs 66-70) as well as communicating with third-party software through a third-party interface; (the user may define a transaction to retrieve datasets from data components of a data model associated with a data source, and transferring the retrieved datasets (data communication) to data components of a different data model that may be part of the data destination component. (third-party software/third-party interface) The different data model may be data model provided by a third party provider in the local data center 110 or the cloud-based data center 112 to facilitate the transfer (third-party software/third-party interface, Paragraph 67)
transmitting the obtained data between the user case layer and the domain layer (using the data model (public information model) to define transaction conditions that detail a custom workflow for data communication through an industrial automation system, Paragraph 29; the data model may provide structure to the received raw data 114, such that the received raw data 114 may be provided (transferred) to the user in the form of structured data 116. (transferring data between the user case layer and the domain layer) The structured data 116 may include datasets and/or one or more hierarchal representations of the datasets., Paragraph 67) and between the domain layer and the foundation layer, using the public information model; (The data model 108 (public information model) may also be incorporated into a workflow that may include transaction conditions and conditional transactions between components of the data model 108 while providing the structured data 116 with the transferred datasets. In some embodiments, the user may define such transactions by determining one or more aspects of the datasets based on the data model 108 via the computing device 24. In different embodiments, the user may define the transactions by specifying how the datasets are to be retrieved and transferred based on one or more relationships between the datasets of the data model 108. (transferring data between domain layer and the foundation layer) For example, the user may define a transaction to retrieve datasets from data components of a data model associated with a data source, and transferring the retrieved datasets to data components of a different data model that may be part of the data destination component. The different data model may be data model provided by a third party provider in the local data center 110 or the cloud-based data center 112 to facilitate the transfer. (transferring data between domain layer and the foundation layer), Paragraph 67)
Briant et al. do not disclose:
using the transmitted data to control OT domain processes with a manufacturing operation management system.
However, Barker et al. disclose:
using the transmitted data to control OT domain processes with a manufacturing operation management system. (collecting real-time operational data (transmitted data) to compare with operational baseline and reference thresholds in order to warn a user that operating parameters exceed reference thresholds and then the user can transmit operating commands to shut off or reduce the operation of independent machine(s) (OT domain processes with a manufacturing operation management system), Column 19, lines 21-30; machine or machines can also include a series of machines operating together, such as in a production, manufacturing or assembly working together or working independently at a location. Further, a machine or machines may include moving and non-moving components, rotating components, reciprocating components and/or electrical components working together or independently. As used herein the term “industrial operation” includes manufacturing operations, assembly operations, transporting operations, and production operations having a plurality of machines, such as an assembly line, a production line, a transportation line (conveyor line), a manufacturing line, a packaging line, and the like (manufacturing operation management system), Column 5, lines 55-67)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Barker et al. into the teaching of Briant et al. to include using the transmitted data to control OT domain processes with a manufacturing operation management system in order to help monitor an industrial operation that consists of a plurality of different apparatus and machines and utilizing different types of information and data to optimize maintenance scheduling to minimize disruptions of the industrial operation. (Barker et al., Column 2, lines 18-23)
With respect to Claim 2, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Briant et al. further disclose:
further comprising:
performing data communication with third-party software through the third-party interface. (the user may define a transaction to retrieve datasets from data components of a data model associated with a data source, and transferring the retrieved datasets (data communication) to data components of a different data model that may be part of the data destination component. (third-party interface) The different data model may be data model provided by a third party provider in the local data center 110 or the cloud-based data center 112 to facilitate the transfer., Paragraph 67)
With respect to Claim 5, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Briant et al. further disclose:
wherein the data platform obtains data from the manufacturing operation management system. (transmitting raw data from the control systems and/or to the computing system, Paragraph 70; control systems can include various machine components in a packaging factory (manufacturing operation management system), Paragraphs 56-57)
With respect to Claim 6, Briant et al. disclose:
establishing a foundation layer, the foundation layer comprising an Operational Technology (OT) domain low-code development tool, (computing device provides a user interface (OT domain low-code development tool), Paragraph 29) runtime, (see Figure 1; computing device connected to one or multiple control systems, Paragraph 42) and a public information model, (data model(s) can be defined by user(s) and not restricted (public), Paragraph 29) and an OT domain workflow generated by the OT domain low-code development tool deployed on the runtime by using the public information model; (the computing device may provide a user interface (OT domain low-code development tool deployed on the runtime) to define a workflow (OT domain workflow) for transferring datasets using the context and/or data model associated with one or more datasets (public information model), Paragraph 29; the computing device 24 may present the available data destination components 118 in which the data, data model 108, or both may be sent, (deployed on the runtime) in response to the applications tab 198 is selected. For example, FIG. 11 may include a visualization 240 that may depict the application tab 198 of the configuration tab 192. The application tab 198 may include multiple data destination components 118. The application tab 198 may enable the user to select one or multiple data destination components 118. The data destination components 118 may include a local data center 110, the cloud-based data center 112, and various other applications or programs that may be used to store, organize, or analyze the data. (deploy on the runtime) The user may associate the new data model 108 or specific components of the new data model 108 to one or multiple data destination components, Paragraph 89)
establishing a domain layer that depends on the foundation layer, (see Figure 1; example industrial automation system that consists of a computing device connected to one or multiple control systems (domain layer) that utilizes the data model to provide context to received data from various control systems (depends on the foundation layer), Paragraph 42) the domain layer comprising a field bus, (control system (domain layer) may be coupled to one or more sensors which may monitor various aspects of the machine components or conveyor sections of a packaging factory (field bus), Paragraph 55; the industrial automation components may include programming terminals, automation controllers, input/output (I/O) modules, communication networks, human-machine interface (HMI) terminals, and the like, to receive statuses and/or information in the form of data (field bus), Paragraph 4) a domain protocol, (transaction data 122 may define the communication protocol (domain protocol) for each component or each type of component (domain layer) that may be associated with the factories, areas, cells, and the like (domain layer), Paragraph 72) and a device tree of an application domain, and the device tree comprising a connection relationship between devices; (The control systems 102, 104, and/or 106 may each identify a relationship (connection relationship/device tree) of the one or more components 20 to a respective cell 18 or area 16 (application domain) based on the data model 108. Subsequently, the control systems 102, 104, and/or 106 may provide the identified relationships to the computing device, Paragraph 63; the scopes of the packaging factory 50 may be categorized based on functions of the components 20 and/or the cells 18 of the packaging factory 50. For instance, referring to FIG. 3, the loading station 52 may be categorized as cell 1, the washing station 56 may be categorized as cell 2, the sealing station 60 may be categorized as cell 3, the sterilization station 64 may be categorized as cell 4, the labeling station may be categorized as cell 5, and the packaging station 68 may be categorized as cell 6 (devices), Paragraph 59)
and establishing a user case layer depending on the domain layer, (computing device provides a user interface (user case layer) that allows a user to input transition conditions or transaction conditions such as to control the transition of data between a data generating component of the industrial automation system and a data destination component (depending on the domain layer), Paragraph 29; the computing device may provide a user interface (user case layer) that enables a user to provide the context or information model associated with a particular dataset. In this way, the user may add a data model or context to datasets, such that the retrieved data may continue to be transmitted to other devices with the appropriate context (depending on the domain layer), Paragraph 27) the user case layer comprising user-defined function modules, (the user interface allows a user to define a workflow that includes transaction conditions and conditional transactions between components (user-defined function modules), Paragraph 29) and the user-defined function modules capable of conversion into the field bus, the domain protocol, and the device tree in the domain layer; (for example, a transaction condition (user-defined function module) that defines a triggering event (e.g., when data value exceeds 300) for data retrieved from a first data source (e.g., a temperature sensor) to initiate capturing data from a second data source (e.g., pressure sensor) (relationship/device tree in the domain layer). In addition, the transaction conditions may define how data will be collected from a data source. That is, the transaction conditions may detail that data is accessed from a data source using a particular driver and collection path, Paragraph 29; the transaction condition (user-defined function module) is “converted” when one or more multiple conditions are satisfied and certain actions (e.g. data transfer, control equipment) using the specified communication protocol (field bus) (FactoryTalk Live Data, EtherNet/IP, OPC Direct Access or any suitable communication protocol) (domain protocol) with respect to the retrieved data or other components in the industrial automation system (device tree in the domain layer), Paragraphs 72 and 86)
a first communication connection between the user case layer and the domain layer transmitting data obtained from a data platform, (receiving raw data associated with a selected control system (data platform), Paragraph 77; the data model may provide structure to the received raw data 114, such that the received raw data 114 may be provided (transmitted) to the user in the form of structured data 116. (transmitting data between the user case layer and the domain layer) The structured data 116 may include datasets and/or one or more hierarchal representations of the datasets., Paragraph 67; providing a different data model by a third party provider in a local data center or a cloud-based data center, Paragraph 67)) the data platform spanning over the domain layer and the user case layer (see Figure 1; control system(s) (data platform) are interfaced/communicating with a computing system (domain layer) to transmit raw data which is utilized by a user to define a data model using a user interface (user case layer) of a computing system, Paragraphs 66-70) as well as communicating with third-party software through a third-party interface; (the user may define a transaction to retrieve datasets from data components of a data model associated with a data source, and transferring the retrieved datasets (data communication) to data components of a different data model that may be part of the data destination component. (third-party software/third-party interface) The different data model may be data model provided by a third party provider in the local data center 110 or the cloud-based data center 112 to facilitate the transfer (third-party software/third-party interface, Paragraph 67)as well as communicating with third-party software through a third-party interface; (the user may define a transaction to retrieve datasets from data components of a data model associated with a data source, and transferring the retrieved datasets (data communication) to data components of a different data model that may be part of the data destination component. (third-party software/third-party interface) The different data model may be data model provided by a third party provider in the local data center 110 or the cloud-based data center 112 to facilitate the transfer (third-party software/third-party interface, Paragraph 67)
a second communication connection between the domain layer and the foundation layer transmitting data received from the domain layer; (The data model 108 (public information model) may also be incorporated into a workflow that may include transaction conditions and conditional transactions between components of the data model 108 while providing the structured data 116 with the transferred datasets. In some embodiments, the user may define such transactions by determining one or more aspects of the datasets based on the data model 108 via the computing device 24. In different embodiments, the user may define the transactions by specifying how the datasets are to be retrieved and transferred based on one or more relationships between the datasets of the data model 108. (transmitting data between domain layer and the foundation layer) For example, the user may define a transaction to retrieve datasets from data components of a data model associated with a data source, and transferring the retrieved datasets to data components of a different data model that may be part of the data destination component. The different data model may be data model provided by a third party provider in the local data center 110 or the cloud-based data center 112 to facilitate the transfer. (transmitting data between domain layer and the foundation layer), Paragraph 67)
Briant et al. do not disclose:
a manufacturing operation management system using the transmitted data to control OT domain processes.
However, Barker et al. disclose:
a manufacturing operation management system using the transmitted data to control OT domain processes. (collecting real-time operational data (transmitted data) to compare with operational baseline and reference thresholds in order to warn a user that operating parameters exceed reference thresholds and then the user can transmit operating commands to shut off or reduce the operation of independent machine(s) (OT domain processes with a manufacturing operation management system), Column 19, lines 21-30; machine or machines can also include a series of machines operating together, such as in a production, manufacturing or assembly working together or working independently at a location. Further, a machine or machines may include moving and non-moving components, rotating components, reciprocating components and/or electrical components working together or independently. As used herein the term “industrial operation” includes manufacturing operations, assembly operations, transporting operations, and production operations having a plurality of machines, such as an assembly line, a production line, a transportation line (conveyor line), a manufacturing line, a packaging line, and the like (manufacturing operation management system), Column 5, lines 55-67)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Barker et al. into the teaching of Briant et al. to include a manufacturing operation management system using the transmitted data to control OT domain processes in order to help monitor an industrial operation that consists of a plurality of different apparatus and machines and utilizing different types of information and data to optimize maintenance scheduling to minimize disruptions of the industrial operation. (Barker et al., Column 2, lines 18-23)
With respect to Claim 7, all the limitations of Claim 6 have been addressed above; and Briant et al. further disclose:
wherein:
the user case layer further comprises a third-party interface; (the application tab 198 (user case layer) may include multiple data destination components 118. The application tab 198 may enable the user to select one or multiple data destination components 118. The data destination components 118 may include a local data center 110, (third-party interface) the cloud-based data center 112, and various other applications or programs that may be used to store, organize, or analyze the data. The user may associate the new data model 108 or specific components of the new data model 108 to one or multiple data destination components, Paragraph 90; third party provider in a local data center, Paragraph 67)
and data communication with third-party software is performed through the third-party interface. (the user may define a transaction to retrieve datasets from data components of a data model associated with a data source, and transferring the retrieved datasets (data communication) to data components of a different data model that may be part of the data destination component. (third-party interface) The different data model may be data model provided by a third party provider in the local data center 110 or the cloud-based data center 112 to facilitate the transfer., Paragraph 67)
Claim 11 is an electronic device claim corresponding to the method claim above (Claim 1) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Briant et al. (US 2021/0149376) in view of Barker et al. (US 11,016,468)
in view of Duggal et al. (US 2021/0360083) and in further view of R.E. Mackiewicz (“Overview of IEC61850 and Benefits”, 2006).
With respect to Claim 3, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Briant et al. and Barker et al. further disclose:
wherein:
the domain layer comprises a meta function block and a domain function block; (Briant et al., see Figure 1; example industrial automation system that consists of a computing device connected to one or multiple control systems (domain function block) that utilizes the data model (meta function block) to provide context to received data from various control systems, Paragraph 42)
the meta function block comprises a system node, (Briant et al., computing device (system node) that collects and preserves the context of the data acquired from various devices, Paragraph 26) a data block, (Briant et al., raw data 114 may be unstructured and may include all the data provided by the control systems 102, 104, and 106, Paragraph 70), a behavior tree logic (Briant et al., a transaction condition defining a triggering event (e.g., when data value exceeds 300) for data retrieved from a first data source (e.g., a temperature sensor) to initiate capturing data from a second data source (e.g., pressure sensor) (behavior tree logic). In addition, the transaction conditions may define how data will be collected from a data source (behavior tree logic), Paragraph 29)
and the domain function block comprises a resource (Briant et al., different types of automation components such as jelly bean making area, a packaging area, a water filtration area and the like (resource), Paragraph 31; packaging factory may include machine components (resource) configured to conduct a particular function with respect to the beverage packaging process. For example, the beverage packaging process begins at a loading station 52, where pallets of empty cans or bottles to be filled are fed into packaging factory 50 via a conveyor section 54. The conveyor section 54 transports the empty cans from the loading station 52 to a washing station 56, where the empty cans and bottles are washed and prepared for filling. As the washed cans and bottles exit the washing station 56, the conveyor section 54 may gradually transition into an aligning conveyor section 58, such that the washed cans and bottles enter a filling and sealing station 60 in a single-file line, Paragraph 52) and a logic node, (Briant et al., control system may be a controller, such as a programmable logic controller (PLC) a programmable automation controller (PAC) or any other controller that may monitor, control and operate an industrial automation component (logic node), Paragraph 37) a Standard domain protocol, (Briant et al., a user may select a driver that represents the manner (e.g., format) in which the requested datasets are to be retrieved from a data source. By way of example, the driver may be defined as FactoryTalk Live Data, EtherNet/IP (Common Industrial Protocol (CIP)), OPC Direct Access (e.g., machine to machine communication protocol for industrial automation developed by the OPC Foundation), or any suitable communication protocol, (standard domain protocol) Paragraph 72)
Briant et al. and Barker et al. do not disclose:
the meta function block comprises a language database;
and the domain function block comprises a specific domain protocol that correspond to the resource.
However, Duggal et al. disclose:
the meta function block comprises a language database; (Graph Knowledge base (language database) supports an umbrella abstraction that enables the modeling of complex business and infrastructure domains. The Graph Knowledge base provides the domain semantics and metadata (language database)for declarative composition of event-driven, data-centric, distributed applications and end-to-end automated dataflow processes., Paragraph 537)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Duggal et al. into the teaching of Briant et al. and Barker et al. to include the meta function block comprises a language database in order to enable the modeling of complex business and infrastructure domains. (Duggal et al., Paragraph 537)
Briant et al., Barker et al. and Duggal et al. do not disclose:
and the domain function block comprises a specific domain protocol that correspond to the resource.
However, R.E. Mackiewicz discloses:
and the domain function block comprises a specific domain protocol that correspond to the resource. (using IEC61850 (a specific domain protocol) to exchange data between devices (resource), Page 8, B. Major Benefits, Paragraph 3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of R.E. Mackiewicz into the teaching of Briant et al., Barker et al. and Duggal et al. to include the domain function block comprises a specific domain protocol that correspond to the resource in order to take advantage of the benefits of using the IEC61850 Standard such as lowering costs related to installation, transducer, commissioning, equipment migration and extension. (R.E. Mackiewicz, Pages 7-8, B. Major Benefits)
Claim 8 is a device claim corresponding to the method claim above (Claim 3) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 3.
Claims 4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Briant et al. (US 2021/0149376) in view of Barker et al. (US 11,016,468) and in further view of Chatterji et al. (US 2022/0121965).
With respect to Claim 4, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Briant et al. and Barker et al. do not disclose:
the data platform obtains semantic knowledge from a knowledge graph.
However, Chatterji et al. disclose:
the data platform obtains semantic knowledge from a knowledge graph. (communicating knowledge graphs which define large network entities, semantic types of the entities, properties of the entities and relationships between the entities, Paragraph 35)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Chatterji et al. into the teaching of Briant et al. and Barker et al. to include the data platform obtains semantic knowledge from a knowledge graph in order to learn about real-world entities and their interrelations organized in a graphical interface as well as possible classes and relationships of entities in a schema. (Chatterii et al., Paragraph 35)
Claim 9 is a device claim corresponding to the method claim above (Claim 4) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
With respect to Claim 10, all the limitations of Claim 9 have been addressed above; and Briant et al. further disclose:
wherein the data platform obtains data from the manufacturing operation management system or a manufacturing execution system. (transmitting raw data from the control systems and/or to the computing system, Paragraph 70; control systems can include various machine components in a packaging factory (manufacturing operation management system or a manufacturing execution system), Paragraphs 56-57)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page6, filed January 27, 2026, with respect to §112 rejection of claims 2 and 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The §112 rejection of claims 2 and 5 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to §101 and §103 rejections filed January 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits that the question of whether the claims cover abstract ideas should not be the first question asked. Rather, the first question is whether the elements of Applicant's Claims constitute an improvement that sufficiently limits any preemptive effect. Applicant respectfully submits that they do.
For example, Applicant's Specification describes that the systems and methods described therein provide multilevel, extensible, and stable software architectures (see, e.g., Paragraph 5 of the Specification as published). Applicant respectfully submits that Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) informs: if the focus of a claim is on a technological improvement, such as to a computer simulation, the claim is patent-eligible subject matter and there is no need to evaluate step two of the test in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. CT. 2347 (2014), or simply the Alice test. Moreover, the Examiner analyzes "...independent claim 1 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG)." (Current Office Action: p. 14). Applicant respectfully points out that "Example 38 - Simulating an Analog Audio Mixer" describes a claim of a simulation that is patent eligible.
For example, in Step 2A - Prong 1, "Judicial Exception Recited?", the answer is:
No. The claim does not recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The claim does not recite a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation. While some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims. With respect to mental processes, the claim does not recite a mental process because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind. Finally, the claim does not recite a certain method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic concept or commercial and legal interactions. The claim is eligible because it does not recite a judicial exception.
("Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas", p. 7) (emphasis added). Applicant respectfully submits that the features of Applicant's independent Claims do not recite mathematical concepts (even though they may be based on mathematical concepts), are not "practically performed in the human mind," and do "not recite a certain method of organizing human."
Ex Parte Desjardins elaborates, explaining:
Enfish ranks among the Federal Circuit's leading cases on the eligibility of technological improvements. In particular, Enfish recognized that "[m]uch of the advancement made in computer technology consists of improvements to software that, by their very nature, may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes." 822 F.3d at 1339. Moreover, because "[s]oftware can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology, just as hardware improvements can," the Federal Circuit held that the eligibility determinations should turn on whether "the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea." Id. at 1336. (Desjardins, Page 8).
The claims presented herein recite an improvement to computer functionality, namely an improved software architecture. For at least the reason(s) provided, Applicant respectfully submits that Applicant's Independent Claims are patent eligible and are allowable. Since Applicant's independent Claims are patent eligible and are allowable, Applicant also submits that each dependent Claim is also patent eligible and are allowable for at least the reason(s) provided.
Withdrawal of the § 101 rejections is respectfully requested.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that “the question of whether the claims cover abstract ideas should not be the first question asked. Rather, the first question is whether the elements of Applicant's Claims constitute an improvement that sufficiently limits any preemptive effect.” However, as can be seen in the 101 rejection above, the Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019. The analysis starts with Step 1 in determining if the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. If yes, the analysis goes to Step 2A inquiry. In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry, “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?”, we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If the claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e. an improvement).
Therefore, in order to determine if the claims are directed to an “improvement” (Step 2A, Prong 2), it first must be determined if the claims recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1) because if the claims are not directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1) then determining if the claims are directed to an “improvement” (Step 2A, Prong 2) is not required. Thus, the question of whether the claims cover abstract ideas comes before any question of whether the claims recite an improvement.
Further Applicant argues that “the features of Applicant's independent Claims do not recite mathematical concepts (even though they may be based on mathematical concepts), are not "practically performed in the human mind," and do "not recite a certain method of organizing human." However, as can be seen in the §101 rejection above, it is the Examiner’s position that the claims recite an abstract idea mainly a mental process that can be "practically performed in the human mind". Specifically, the limitation “establishing a foundation layer, the foundation layer comprising a public information model”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate data and mentally establish, with or without the use of pen and paper, a foundation layer that comprises a public information model. The limitation “an OT domain workflow generated by using the public information model”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate a public information model and mentally generate, with or without the use of pen and paper, an OT domain workflow.
The limitation “establishing a domain layer that depends on the foundation layer, the domain layer comprising a domain protocol, a device tree of an application domain and the device tree comprising a connection relationship between devices”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate an application domain and mentally establish, with or without the use of pen and paper, a domain layer that depends on a foundation layer wherein the domain layer comprises a domain protocol, a device tree of the application domain that consists of a connection relationship between devices. The limitation “establishing a user case layer depending on the domain layer, the user case layer comprising user-defined function modules”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate data and mentally establish, with or without the use of pen and paper, a user case layer depending on the domain layer, the user case layer comprising user-defined function modules.
The limitation “the user-defined function modules capable of conversion into the field bus, the domain protocol and the device tree in the domain layer”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate user-defined function modules and mentally set, with or without the use of pen and paper, the user-defined function modules to be capable of conversion into the field bus, the domain protocol and the device tree in the domain layer.
Further still, Applicant argues that the “claims presented herein recite an improvement to computer functionality, namely an improved software architecture.” However, as can be seen in the §101 rejection above, the Examiner has analyzed each and every limitation, individually and as a whole, and has not identified any additional elements that can be considered an “improvement to computer functionality”.
Therefore, for at least the reasons set forth above, the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. §101 is proper and thus, maintained.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
The claims recite elements not found in any of the cited references and are not, therefore, rendered obvious by the proposed combinations. For example, Independent Claim 1 recites a method for operating an Operational Technology domain, the method comprising:
establishing a foundation layer, the foundation layer comprising an Operational Technology (OT) domain low-code development tool, runtime, and a public information model, and an OT domain workflow generated by the OT domain low-code development tool deployed on the runtime by using the public information model;
establishing a domain layer that depends on the foundation layer, the domain layer comprising a field bus, a domain protocol, and a device tree of an application domain, and the device tree comprising a connection relationship between devices;
establishing a user case layer depending on the domain layer, the user case layer comprising user-defined function modules, and the user-defined function modules capable of conversion into the field bus, the domain protocol, and the device tree in the domain layer;
obtaining data from a data platform, the data platform spanning over the domain layer and the user case layer as well as communicating with third-party software through a third-party interface;
transmitting the obtained data between the user case layer and the domain layer and between the domain layer and the foundation layer, using the public information model; and
using the transmitted data to control OT domain processes with a manufacturing operation management system.
The current rejection asserts that Briant teaches
establishing a foundation layer, the foundation layer comprising an Operational Technology (OT) domain low-code development tool, runtime, and a public information model, and an OT domain workflow generated by the OT domain low-code development tool deployed on the runtime by using the public information model.
Specifically, the rejection cites Paragraph 39 as teaching "data model(s) can be defined by user(s) and not restricted (public)" (Office Action, Page 12). That paragraph of Briant, however, does not describe a public information model, nor does it describe public data models in general. It states:
In addition to retrieving datasets with SmartTags and/or other data structures related to the respective data model, the computing device may provide a user interface for a user to input transition conditions or transaction conditions to define a workflow for transferring the datasets using the context and/or data model associated with one or more datasets. For instance, the user may describe a workflow using the SmartTags and the transaction conditions to control the transition of data between a data generating component of the industrial automation system and a data destination component. For example, the user may describe a transaction condition by defining a triggering event (e.g., when data value exceeds 300) for data retrieved from a first data source (e.g., a temperature sensor) to initiate capturing data from a second data source (e.g., a pressure sensor). In addition, the transaction conditions may define how data will be collected from a data source. That is, the transaction condition may detail that data is accessed from a data source using a particular driver and collection path. In this way, the present embodiments described below better enable the user to describe different datasets, associate a dataset to one or more other datasets by defining a relationship between the respective datasets, define transaction conditions to detail a custom workflow for data communication through an industrial automation system using the data model described herein. Additional details with regard to providing context with datasets and defining the manner in which the datasets are retrieved from a source and sent to a destination will be described below with reference to FIGS. 1-13.
Other description throughout Briant also fails to detail a public information model as required by Independent Claim 1. For at least these reasons, Independent Claim 1 is not rendered obvious by the cited references, whether considered alone or in combination. Independent Claim 6 recites analogous limitations and is allowable for analogous reasons. The remaining claims depend from these allowable Independent Claims and are likewise allowable. Applicant, therefore, respectfully requests favorable action on all claims as presented herein.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that “Briant, however, does not describe a public information model, nor does it describe public data models in general.” It is the Examiner’s position that Briant discloses “a public information model”. Specifically, Briant discloses that users such as factory operator personnel are able to “define, access, and/or modify a data model” (see Paragraph 60). Briant makes no mention of any restrictions, such as an authentication, to the definition, access or modification of the data model which would make the data model “private”. The Applicant has also not provided clarification in the claims to how the “information model” is “public”. Therefore, the Examiner has interpreted Briant’s data model being able to be defined, accessed and modified by factory operator personnel as being “public”.
Also, Briant discloses that “[t]he models tab 196 may include the data models 108 selectable by the user to be used with the selected sources of data (e.g., one or multiple control systems 22).” (Paragraph 79) The display of the data models selectable by a user could be reasonably interpreted as being a “public” data model.
Therefore, for at least the reasons set forth above, the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. §103 with respect to claims 1, 6 and 11 are proper and thus, maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LANNY N UNG whose telephone number is (571)270-7708. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-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, Bradley Teets can be reached at 571-272-3338. 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.
/LANNY N UNG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights