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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This is in response to application filed on 12/19/2024 in which claims1-20 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claim 1, 8 and 15 are in independent form.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent 11, 231,911, 1-20 of U.S. Patent 11, 675,570 and 1-20 of U.S. Patent 12,175,212.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as claims 1-20 of the current application are broadened versions of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent 11, 231,911, 1-20 of U.S. Patent 11, 675,570 and 1-20 of U.S. Patent 12,175,212.
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.
3. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US PG Pub 2016/0296940) published on October 13, 2016 in view of Berestov et al. (US PG Pub 2011/0179376) published on July 21, 2011.
As per claim 1, 8 and 15, Cook teaches Cook teaches: A method for developing a virtual programmable logic controller (PLC) application using a graphical user interface (GUI), the method comprising:
generating the virtual PLC application comprising at least two objects arranged in at least a horizontal section, wherein the horizontal section is configured to execute the two objects at the same time, wherein one or more of the two objects are communicatively coupled to a machine and are configured to transmit control instructions to the machine to cause the machine to perform an operation(Para[0051] operating mode can be achieved by simultaneous depression of two buttons, either the first and second buttons 88a, 88b, the first and third buttons 88a, 88c or the second and third buttons 88b, 88c. In this “air-only” mode, the blower 34 within the blowing machine 10 is configured to operate in the “full-on” mode, as taught by Cook); and
Cook does not explicitly teach
executing the virtual PLC application by enabling changes to be made to one or more of the two objects and transmitting modified control instructions based on the changes.
Berestov teaches executing the virtual PLC application by enabling changes to be made to one or more of the two objects and transmitting modified control instructions based on the changes(Para[0069] executing the virtual PLC application by enabling changes to be made to one or more of the two objects and transmitting modified control instructions based on the changes, as taught by Berestov).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Cook invention with the teaching of Berestov because doing so would
result in a User Interface (UI) which enables the various supplementary functions to be more conveniently
managed.
As per claim 2, 9 and 16, the combination of Cook and Berestov teaches further comprising inserting, into the horizontal section of a portion of the GUI representing the virtual PLC application, the two objects. (Para[0063-0069], as taught by Berestov).
As per claim 3, 10 and 17, the combination of Cook and Berestov teaches further comprising compiling code implementing the two objects to generate the virtual PLC application. (Para[0083-0086], as taught by Berestov).
As per claim 5, 12 and 19, the combination of Cook and Berestov teaches further comprising receiving, from a first portion of the GUI representing a tool box, a first selection of the at least one of the two objects from a plurality of objects represented in the GUI, wherein each of the plurality of objects performs a respective function(Para[063][00103-0106] fig 1, 3A each elements perform different function, as taught by Berestov).
As per claim 6 and 13, the combination of Cook and Berestov teaches wherein the horizontal section is encapsulated in a vertical section of a portion of the GUI(Para[063] fig 1, 3A, as taught by Berestov).
As per claim 7, 14 and 20, the combination of Cook and Berestov teaches wherein the machine performs a manufacturing operation(Para[005-008], as taught by Cook).
4. Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US PG Pub 2016/0296940) published on October 13, 2016 in view of Berestov et al. (US PG Pub 2011/0179376) published on July 21, 2011 in further view of Shin(US PG Pub 2010/008597) published on April 08, 2010.
As per claim 4, 11 and 18, the combination of Cook and Berestov does not teach further
comprising adding a shortcut of the virtual PLC application to a virtual tray of an operating system.
On the other hand, Shin teaches further comprising adding a shortcut of the virtual PLC application to a virtual tray of an operating system(Para[0049] e.g. widget icon, as taught by Shin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Cook and Berestovinvention with the teaching of Berestov because doing so would
result in providing the widget set information in the form of a group icon which is distinct from a typical
widget icon so that widgets can be fetched more conveniently according to the widget set information.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hays(US 2008/0046755) discloses a first executable program running on a first computer system attempts to exchange information with a second executable program running on the first computer system, the second executable program may challenge the first executable program for a digital certificate. Unless a valid digital certificate is exchanged, the first computer system may preclude the first executable program from exchanging information with the second executable program
6. The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
7. When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYEEZ R CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-3069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6:30PM EST.
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, William L Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/RAYEEZ R CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174 Wednesday, September 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights