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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2024, 1/26/2026, and 1/29/2026 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-18 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,217. Please see chart below for comparison of independent claim 1 of the instant patent application and independent claim 13 of the US Patent.
Instant Patent Application
US Patent No. 12,190,217
Notes
1. A method performed by an industrial distributed process control system (DCS) of an industrial process plant, the method comprising:
13. A method performed by an industrial distributed process control system (DCS) of an industrial process plant, the method comprising:
same
populating at least a portion of a plant information model, the plant information model stored on one or more tangible, non-transitory memories of the industrial distributed process control system, and the plant information model describing a control framework of the industrial process plant, a control network of the industrial
process plant utilized to control an industrial process during run-time operations of the industrial process plant, a set of physical components of the industrial process plant, respective locations of the set of physical components, and respective interconnections among the set of physical components;
exposing a set of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), thereby providing a plurality of applications of the industrial
US Patent’s “describing a control framework…” found in “executing” limitation of the instant application
executing, by the industrial DCS and during run-time operations of the industrial process plant, a process control loop to control an industrial process, including utilizing an exposed set of APIs to access a plant information model of the industrial DCS, the plant information model describing a control framework and a control network of the industrial process plant utilized to control the industrial process, the process control loop including a physical component of the industrial process plant, a control routine, and an I/O data delivery mechanism, and the process control loop included in the control network.
executing, during the run-time operations of the industrial process plant, a process control loop to control the industrial process by utilizing the exposed set of APIs to access the plant information model, the process control loop including a physical component of the set of physical components, an I/O data delivery mechanism, and a control routine, and the process control loop included in the control network.
The instant application’s “describing a control framework..” found in prior limitation of the US Patent
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant patent application and the US Patent No. 12,190,217 teach executing a process control loop to control an industrial process by utilizing an exposed set of APIs to access a plant information model. However, the instant patent application is merely a broader version of the US Patent and therefore not patentably distinct. Independent claim 12 of the instant patent application is rejected un Double Patenting for the same reasons as independent claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art and would be in condition for allowance with resolution to the above Double Patenting rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art, for example Nixon et al. (US Patent No. 10,311,015); Worek et al. (US PGPub 2015/0005903); and Zhang et al. (US PGPub 2021/0208545), teaches a method and system for controlling an industrial process based on a model.
However, Neither Nixon, Worek, or Zhang (individually or in combination)
teaches a method and system executing, by the industrial DCS and during run-time operations of the industrial process plant, a process control loop to control an industrial process, including utilizing an exposed set of APls to access a plant information model of the industrial DCS, the plant information model describing a control framework and a control network of the industrial process plant utilized to control the industrial process, the process control loop including a physical component of the industrial process plant, a control routine, and an I/O data delivery mechanism, and the process control loop included in the control network. Accordingly, the present patent application is allowable over the prior art and would be in condition for allowance with a timely filed Terminal Disclaimer to obviate the above Double Patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J. Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 5:30am-4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571)272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael J Brown/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights