Ex Parte Sayyarrodsari et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2018

14077006 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/077,006 11/11/2013 Bijan Sayyarrodsari 2013P-174-US
(ALBR:0560)
5618
42982 7590 02/21/2018
Rnrlcwe.11 Automation Tnr /FY
EXAMINER
Attention: Linda H. Kasulke E-7F19
1201 South Second Street
ALMANI, MOHSEN
Milwaukee, WI 53204 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
howell@fyiplaw.com
docket@fyiplaw.com
raintellectu alproperty @ ra.rockwell .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BIJAN SAYYARRODSARI, KADIR LIANO, and
ALEXANDER B. SMITH1
Appeal 2017-006290
Application 14/077,006
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20, all the pending claims in the
present application. See Claims Appendix. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
appellants name Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. as the real party
in interest (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2017-006290
Application 14/077,006
The present invention relates generally to using a database within a
control system decision cycle. See Spec. 11.
Claims 1,8, and 15 are illustrative:
1. A control method, comprising:
controlling, using a first controller in a control
system, an industrial automation process;
receiving, using the first controller, configuration data
from a database when the first controller is initially connected
to the control system, wherein the configuration data comprises
first holistic state data that describes characteristics, operation,
or both of a second controller in the control system; and
selecting, using the first controller, the second controller
from a plurality of controllers in the control system based at
least in part on the configuration data, wherein the first
controller utilizes the second controller to determine a first
control action during control of the industrial automation
process by the first controller;
wherein controlling operation of the industrial
automation process comprises controlling operation based at
least in part on the first control action.
8. A control method, comprising:
controlling, using a first controller in a control system,
operation of an industrial automation process, wherein
controlling operation of the process comprises:
performing a first optimization search to determine a
branching search result;
pausing the first optimization search and instructing a
second controller in the control system to perform a second
optimization search to determine a first search result based at
least in part on the branching search result;
resuming the first optimization search based at least in
part on the first search result to determine a control action; and
2
Appeal 2017-006290
Application 14/077,006
implementing the control action to control operation of
the industrial automation process.
15. A control system, comprising:
a plurality of controllers, wherein the plurality of
controller comprise:
a first controller configured to control operation of an
industrial automation process based at least in part on a control
action; and
a second controller configured to determine first holistic
state data, wherein the first holistic state data indicates type of
operational parameters determined by the second controller,
processing capabilities of the second controller, or both; and
a database communicatively coupled to the each of the
plurality of controllers, wherein the database is configured to:
receive the first holistic state data from the second
controller;
store the first holistic state data received from the second
controller; and
transmit the first holistic state data to the first controller
in response to a request from the first controller to enable the
first controller to select the second controller from the plurality
of controllers based at least in part on the first holistic state
data, wherein the first controller utilizes the second controller to
determine the control action during control of the industrial
automation process by the first controller.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Rl. Claims 15—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
R2. Claims 1—3 and 15—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Gould (US 2006/0265098 Al, Nov. 23, 2006);
R3. Claims 8—14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
3
Appeal 2017-006290
Application 14/077,006
anticipated by Attarwala (US 2005/0075738 Al, Apr. 7, 2005); and
R4. Claims 4—7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gould and Attarwala.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
ANALYSIS
Rejection under § 101
Claims 15—20
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that the claims are directed
to non-statutory subject matter?
Appellants contend that “although possibly including software, the
[Ajppellants emphasize that the first controller, the second controller, and/or
the database . . . include one or more devices. . . . [T]he database would at
least include a computer store and/or a computer server[,]. . . thus, is
directed to a machine” (App. Br. 11).
In response, the Examiner finds that “[a]ll controllers and database[s]
as recited in the claim and Specification are software” (Ans. 4). We agree
with the Examiner.
Specifically, we note that claim 15 fails to recite that the database is
included in a “server.” Although Appellants’ Specification states that “the
database 22 may be optionally located within a controller 14, the server 22,
as a standalone module, or any combination thereof,” and “[t]he database 22
may utilize a storage device” (see 138), it clearly need not be contained in a
server, or include a computer store, as highlighted by Appellants.
4
Appeal 2017-006290
Application 14/077,006
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that the
Specification dose not limit the claimed controllers and database to a
machine or apparatus. A claim that recites no more than software, logic, or a
data structure (i.e., an abstraction) does not fall within any statutory
category. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Significantly, “[ajbstract software code is an idea without physical
embodiment.” Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15—20
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rejection under § 102 over Gould
Claims 1, 3, 15, and 17—20
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that Gould discloses
configuration data, as set forth in claim 1 ?
Appellants contend that “Gould merely appears to describe a database
that stores metrology results and prior controller states” (App. Br. 14), not
configuration data, because “Gould appears to describe that the controller
utilized is selected based on the recipe” (id. at 15).
In response, the Examiner finds the “Appellants ignore the explicit
disclosure in Gould[‘s] 10036 in which a specific controller is selected from
multiple controllers based on the specification that is specified in the recipe”
(Ans. 5; see also Final Act. 4). We agree with the Examiner.
We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions set forth in the Answer. Our discussions here will be limited to
the following points of emphasis.
5
Appeal 2017-006290
Application 14/077,006
For example, Gould discloses:
The process level controller 110 is operative to implement a recipe,
... the recipe specifying which type a semiconductor processing tool
102 to use, what process should [be] performed . . . and what should
be the initial state or set point of the control parameters of the selected
controller 202. . . . The recipe specifies which of theses controllers
202 to utilize for the particular process.
(136). In other words, Gould discloses that the recipe includes a
specification on what should be the initial state or set point of the control
parameters of the selected controller. Appellants’ arguments fail to
distinguish the claimed “configuration data” from Gould’s recipe and how
the same is use to select a controller.
Appellants also contend that “the process . . . controller receives the
recipe from an external source . . . the recipe is not stored in the database
included in the process level controller” (App. Br. 16). We find that claim 1
fails to specify where the “database” is located, i.e., local database vs. an
external database (see claim 1); therefore, the aforementioned contention is
not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, nor similar claim 15.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellants’ arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 15 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellants do not
argue separate patentability for dependent claims 3 and 17—20 (see App. Br.
12—16). We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 15,
and 17—20.
6
Appeal 2017-006290
Application 14/077,006
Claims 2 and 16
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding that Gould discloses holistic
state data, as set forth in claim 2?
Appellants contend that “Gould does not appear to teach or suggest
holistic state data [or] any combination of the specific fields recited in
claims 2 or 16” (App. Br. 18).
In response, the Examiner finds that “only one field is required to be
included in the holistic state data” (Ans. 7) and previously found in the Final
Office Action that Gould discloses “a first model field” (Final Act. 4, citing
Gould 122). We agree with the Examiner.
Although claim 2 lists nine different fields, claims 2 ends with the
phrase — or any combination thereof (see claim 2), which reads on only one
field being required, as noted by the Examiner. Thus, the Examiner is
correct in that he/she needs only to show that Gould discloses one of the
fields, and Appellants fail to rebut the Examiner’s specific findings in the
Final Office Action regarding the first model field.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2, and
claim 16 for similar reasons.
Rejection under § 102 over Attarwala
Claims 8—11, 13, and 14
Issue 4: Did the Examiner err in finding that Attarwala discloses
pausing the first optimization search, as set forth in claim 8?
Appellants contend that “Attarwala does not appear to teach or
suggest pausing a first optimization search . . . and resuming the first
optimization search . . . Instead, Attarwala appears to describe a sequential
7
Appeal 2017-006290
Application 14/077,006
steady state optimizer that waits for a [prejvious step to complete before
proceeding to a subsequent step” (App. Br. 19—20).
The Examiner finds that “the optimization process in Attarwala, fig.
27 begins at 101, where only controlled variables are used for. . . the process
branches in 102 . . . where manipulated variables are used; the controllers
that are successful [continue] to the next level. . . [and] have to wait/pause
for the result of the other controllers because the variables . . . are
interconnected” (Ans. 7—8, citation omitted). We agree with the Examiner.
Although Appellants contend that “the Examiner’s contention does
not appear to be supported by Attarwala” (Reply Br. 6), Appellants admit
that in Attarwala “the integrated steady state optimizer combines steady state
optimization operation of all the controllers” {id. at 8), i.e., that the
operations are interconnected. Appellants further contend that in Attarwala
“the integrated steady state optimizer would still be performing steady state
operations associated with the other controller and, thus, not paused” {id.).
We find that such a response from Appellants fail to rebut the
Examiner’s specific finding that the results in Attarwala are interconnected,
necessitating a pause/wait feature until all results are completed. (Ans. 7—8.)
Furthermore, we highlight that claim 8 merely requires “pausing the first
optimization search,” not pausing all steady state operations, as argued by
Appellants. Thus, we find unavailing Appellants’ contentions that Attarwala
does not appear to teach or suggest pausing a first optimization search.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8, and
claims 9—11, 13, and 14 for similar reasons.
8
Appeal 2017-006290
Application 14/077,006
Claim 12
Issue 5: Did the Examiner err in finding that Attarwala discloses
selecting the second controller, as set forth in claim 12?
Appellants contend that “Attarwala does not appear to describe
selecting controllers used to solve the optimization problem from multiple
controllers — let alone based on holistic state data including any combination
of the fields recited in claim[] 12” (App. Br. 22). In other words,
Appellants’ emphasis appears to be that Attarwala fails to disclose
“selecting” controllers.
In response, the Examiner finds that Appellants’ contention “is
irrelevant because claim 12 only describes a holistic state data corresponding
[to] at least one field” (Ans. 11) and Attarwala discloses “an objective
function J with a set of variables and the economic price associated with
each set of variables for selecting controllers whose performance are
satisfactory” {id., citing Attarwala 1318).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants fail to rebut the Examiner’s specific
findings that only one field is required in claim 12, and Attarwala discloses a
set of variables and selecting controllers whose performance are satisfactory.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12.
Rejection under 103(a)
Claims 4—7
Because Appellants have not presented separate patentability
arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those
previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above (see App. Br. 23),
claims 4—7 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
9
Appeal 2017-006290
Application 14/077,006
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 101, § 102(a), and § 103(a) rejections
Rl—R4 of claims 1—20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10