DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 presented for examination and currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/3/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are subject to interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the limitation recites “means to provide a power flow to the at least one device.” The use of the term “means” creates a presumption that § 112(f) applies. However, the claim does not clearly recite sufficient corresponding structure for performing the claimed function, and the specification must therefore disclose adequate corresponding structure, material, or acts for providing the power flow. To the extent the specification fails to clearly identify such corresponding structure, the claim may be indefinite under § 112(b).
Applicant is required to:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be a means plus function limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links or associates the corresponding structures to the claimed functions without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) State on the record where the corresponding structures are set forth in the written description of the specification that perform the claimed functions. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification, while describing certain exemplary embodiments involving a configuration file, an electrical library interface, electrical connection type elements, electrical port type elements, electrical placeholder symbols, and power-consumption-related properties, fails to clearly and sufficiently describe the full scope of the claimed subject matter. In particular, the disclosure uses multiple overlapping and inconsistent terms, including “electrical information”, “electrical property information”, “electrical library interface”, “electrical placeholder element”, “electrical placeholder symbol” and “symbol element” without clearly defining the relationship among these terms or the bounds of their respective scope. As a result, it is unclear whether the recited electrical placeholder elements are required components, optional components, or merely examples. The specification therefore fails to provide adequate written description support for the full breadth of the claimed subject matter of claims 1-20.
In claims 3 and 13, the recited “information of the type of the electrical power flow” appears to be a generalized data limitation, and the specification does not provide adequate support for all possible forms of such information.
In claims 8 and 18, the specification does not sufficiently support the breadth of providing “at least one default symbol” for assignment to devices across all possible device classes or symbol types.
In claims 10 and 20, the claim broadly recites creating “a new type or a new interface” for “a certain power consumption aspect” without sufficiently limiting the structure or content of that aspect. The specification does not support all such variants.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “type of the electrical power flow” in claim 3 and 13 is vague and does not clearly define the scope of the claimed interface or type.
The phrase “certain power consumption aspect” in claim 10 and 20 is vague and does not clearly define the scope of the claimed interface or type.
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as described above under 112(f) invocation/interpretation section.
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 thereof, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. These claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method for configurating an electrical information associated with a module representing a modular industrial plant. The claim 1 requires: (1) creating a configuration file; (2) configuring the configuration file by adding an electrical library interface; (3) providing electrical placeholder elements comprising an electrical connection type, an electrical port type, and/or an electrical placeholder symbol; (4) determining a symbol element using at least one of the placeholder element; and (5) adding electrical property information associated with the symbol element.
These limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are directed principally to collecting, organizing, associating and manipulating information concerning electrical devices and their relationships within a configuration file. The claimed ‘configuration file’, ‘electrical library interface’, ‘electrical connection type element’, ‘electrical placeholder symbol’, ‘symbol element’ and ‘electrical property information’ are all forms of information or data structures used to represent electrical characteristics and relationships.
The claimed steps of ‘creating’, ‘configuring’, ‘determining’ and ‘adding’ merely describes manipulating such information according to specified organizational relationships. For example, the limitation requiring an “electrical connection type element providing a representation of an electrical power cabling connection” merely organizes information representing a known physical connection. Likewise, the limitation requiring an “electrical port type element” merely associates a device with the representation of that connection. The “electrical placeholder symbol” and “symbol element” likewise represent information concerning an electrical component. The final limitation “adding an electrical property information for the determined symbol element” merely associates additional information with the represented device.
Accordingly, the claimed method can be characterized as a process of creating, organizing, associating, and updating information representing electrical components and their properties, performed using an engineering tool and stored in a configuration file. The specification confirms this characterization. For example, paragraph [0006] describes the problem as the absence of electrical information in an MTP configuration file, while paragraphs [0028], [0040]-[0043] and [0049] describe adding electrical properties, including power-consumption information, to represented devices.
Although the claimed information relates to an industrial plant, the claim does not require that the claimed information actually control, operate or modify the physical industrial plant. Nor does the claim require a particular improvement to an electrical circuit, electrical apparatus or industrial control process.
Thus, claim 1 is directed to an abstract information processing concept.
The additional elements of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The “engineering tool” is recited at a high level of generality and performs conventional computer functions, including creating and modifying a configuration file. The “configuration file” merely provides a conventional location for storing information. The electrical connection type, electrical port type, placeholder symbol, symbol element and electrical property information merely define different categories or relationships of information maintained in the configuration file. Taken individually, none of these elements provide an unconventional technological implementation. Nor their ordered combination provide an inventive concept. The claim merely combines conventional computer-based file manipulation with a particular organization of electrical engineering information. The specification itself describes alternative implementations in which the electrical placeholder elements may be created manually in the configuration file, created in an engineering tool and imported into the configuration file, or generated using templates/default symbols. See paragraphs [0025]-[0028] and [0037]-[0038].
These alternatives demonstrate that the claimed operation constitute different ways of organizing and transferring electrical engineering information rather than a particular unconventional computer technology. Accordingly, the claim does not recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the identified abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
The additional limitations of the dependent claims 2-10 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 11-20 are directed to a computer program product comprising instructions for performing substantially the same operations recited in claim 1-10. The recitation of a “processor of a computer” and a “computer program product” does not alter the eligibility analysis. The claimed instructions merely cause a generic computer to perform the same information processing operations discussed above. Claims 11-20 therefore remain directed to the same abstract idea and do not recite additional elements sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schultz et al. (USPN: 2022/0197253) hereinafter, Schultz.
As per claim 1, Schultz teaches a computer-implemented method for configurating an electrical information (see paragraphs [0022] and [0046]) of at least one module (i.e. the “extender unit”; see paragraphs 35, 44, 63-64) using an engineering tool (i.e. the “modular engineering tool”; see paragraphs 15, 17, 22-23, 41, 65, 71), wherein the at least one module is used as a representation of a modular industrial plant (i.e. 10 in Fig. 1 and “physical process module”; see paragraphs 5 and 82), the method comprising:
creating, by the engineering tool, a configuration file (i.e. vMTP 120, see paragraph 12) to configure the at least one module;
configuring the configuration file by adding an electrical library interface (see paragraphs 12-13 and 65) to the configuration file for being able to configure the electrical information of the at least one module (see paragraphs 63-64), wherein the electrical library interface comprising at least one of the following electrical placeholder elements to be able to configure an electrical function of at least one device of the at least module (see paragraph 85):
an electrical connection type element providing a representation of an electrical power cabling connection of the at least one device used in the at least one module (i.e. the “binary signals”; see paragraph 85);
an electrical port type element to be assigned to the at least device in order to connect the at least one device of the at least one module to the electrical connection type element (i.e. see paragraphs 54 and 85);
an electrical placeholder symbol representing an electrical element (i.e. “visualization”; see paragraph 49);
determining a symbol element in the electrical interface library of the configuration file by using at least one of the electrical placeholder elements, wherein the symbol element represents the at least one physical component of the device in the at least one module for which the electrical information is added (see paragraphs 63-64); and
adding an electrical property information for the determined symbol element in the engineering tool to configure the electrical information for the at least one device of the at least one module (see paragraphs 6, 13-14, 16, 22, 54 and 71).
As per claim 4, Schultz further teaches that the electrical connection type element is added to an existing connector interface library within the configuration file (see paragraph 20).
As per claim 5, Schultz further teaches that the electrical placeholder symbol is grouped under an existing library element of the configuration file, or it is grouped under a newly created library element (see paragraph 20).
As per claim 6, Schultz further teaches that the electrical placeholder element is created manually and directly in the electrical interface library of the configuration file (see paragraphs 20 and 28).
As per claim 7, Schultz further teaches that the electrical placeholder element is created in the engineering tool and then imported into the configuration file while the configuration file is generated (see paragraphs 64-65).
As per claim 8, Schultz further teaches that the symbol element is created manually in the electrical interface library of the configuration file or at least one default symbol is provided that is used to be assigned to the at least one device (see paragraph 28).
As per claim 9, Schultz further teaches at least one electrical property information for the determined symbol element is provided to a tag list and/or to an information representation tool within the engineering tool (an electrical property information of a symbol element is considered inherent in the information representing tool of the industrial modular plant).
As per claim 10, Schultz further teaches that for the electrical property information a new type or a new interface within the configuration file is created that specify a certain power consumption aspect of the at least one device (see paragraph 63).
Claims 11 and 14-20 are computer program product claims and substantially like claims 1 and 4-10, except are drawn to computer program product claims. Claims 11 and 14-20 are also rejected for the same reasons as for claims 1 and 4-10, respectively.
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 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz.
As per claims 2-3, Schultz teaches a “smart connector” having “I/O signals” (see paragraphs 44 and 45). Although Schultz does not clearly disclose further limitations of the electrical connection type element as claimed, it would have been obvious to a person of having ordinary skills in the art to configure the components of an industrial plant by correctly choosing the type elements (parameters) needed to configure such a power cable or power connector with proper electrical power flow based on the Schultz teachings concerning the parametrization of the smart connector. In doing so, it would have provided a predictable and convenient way to represent power-related connectivity within the configuration file, improving consistency, reuse, and downstream processing of the electrical configuration data.
Claims 12-13 are computer program product claims and substantially like claims 2-3, except are drawn to computer program product claims. Claims 12-13 are also rejected for the same reasons as for claims 2-3, respectively.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoernicke et al. (US 2022/0147025) hereinafter, “Hoernicke” in view of R. Drath et al. (“Vendor-Independent Modeling and Exchange of Fieldbus Topologies with AutomationML,” 5th AutomationML User Conference, Oct. 24–25, 2018, hereafter, “Drath” and further in view of Gupta (US 2008/0244498).
As per claim 1, Hoernicke teaches a computer-implemented method for configurating an electrical information of at least one module using an engineering tool, wherein the at least one module is used as a representation of a modular industrial plant, the method comprising: creating, by the engineering tool, a configuration file to configure the at least one module; configuring/editing the configuration file for being able to configure one/more services of the at least one module (see [0003]-[0007] and Claim 1). Hoernicke teaches the basic architecture: engineering tool → modular industrial plant → modules → module engineering → placeholder configuration file; and further teaches about editing the configuration file by selectively enabling/disabling at least one optional service of the module (see [0022]).
Hoernicke does not specifically teach about configuring the configuration file by adding an electrical library interface. Drath, however, teaches an AutomationML-based engineering representation in which device configurations and topologies are modeled using reusable libraries, interfaces, ports, and physical wires (See Section IV.(C)). Drath teaches configuring the configuration file by adding an electrical library interface (i.e. three technology-specific role-class libraries (i) ExampleIOLinkRoleClassLib, (ii) ExampleEthernetRoleClassLib and (iii) ExamplePowerPortRoleClassLib) to the configuration file for being able to configure the electrical information of the at least one module, wherein the electrical library interface comprising at least one of the following electrical placeholder elements to be able to configure an electrical function of at least one device of the at least module: an electrical connection type element providing a representation of an electrical power cabling connection of the at least one device used in the at least one module (i.e. interlinking between ports connecting the end points of physical or logical wires to the related ports; see Fig. 16); an electrical port type element to be assigned to the at least device in order to connect the at least one device of the at least one module to the electrical connection type element (i.e. physical wires are modeled in a user-defined CAEX system-unit class library containing: (i) IOLinkWire, (ii) EthernetWire and (iii) PowerSupplyWire); an electrical placeholder symbol representing an electrical element (see Figs. 7-8 and 16 and their description).
Although Hoernicke and Drath failed to teach the further limitations of “determining” and “adding” as claimed, Gupta teaches of having a component library with a visual representation (symbol) for each component and its electrical property information (e.g. electrical/logical definition for each pin of each electronic component (see paragraphs [0004] and [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the module configuration system of Hoernicke to incorporate the reusable electrical-interface and power-topology modeling of Drath. Such a modification would have provided a standardized and reusable representation of electrical equipment and power connections within the existing modular-plant configuration model. A person of ordinary skill in the art would further have been motivated to associate graphical symbols and electrical property definitions with the resulting electrical library objects as taught by Gupta, thereby permitting the electrical devices and their associated power interfaces to be represented, configured and connected within the engineering environment. The combination would merely have applied known AutomationML library/interface techniques and known electrical component-library techniques to the modular-plant engineering framework of Hoernicke for their established purposes. The resulting arrangement would have been predictable because Drath already provides reusable AutomationML classes for power ports and power-supply wires, while Gupta already provides library-based symbols, pins and electrical definitions.
Claims 11 is a computer program product claim and substantially like claim 1, except is drawn to computer program product claim. Claim 11 is also rejected for the same reasons as for claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hetul Patel whose telephone number is (571)272-4184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
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.
/Hetul Patel/
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights