ROCKWELL AUTOMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 10, 20212020000122 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/995,989 01/14/2016 Bijan Sayyarrodsari 2013P-174- US1_ALBR0560-1 3902 42982 7590 05/10/2021 Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY Attention: Linda H. Kasulke E-7F19 1201 South Second Street Milwaukee, WI 53204 EXAMINER ALMANI, MOHSEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2159 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/10/2021 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): docket@fyiplaw.com raintellectualproperty@ra.rockwell.com todd@fyiplaw.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. SMITH Appeal 2020-000122 Application 14/995,989 Technology Center 2100 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, SCOTT E. BAIN, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1–20 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by Appellant, and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1 See Final Act. 1–2; Appeal Br. 19.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. See Appeal Br. 2. 2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Jan. 14, 2016 (claiming benefit of US 14/077,006, filed Nov. 11, 2013); Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Mar. 29, 2019; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed Appeal 2020-000122 Application 14/995,989 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter, according to Appellant, “generally relates to control systems, and more particularly, to the use of a database within a control system decision cycle.” Spec. ¶ 2. More specifically, Appellant’s claimed automation system includes an actuator, a sensor to measure operational parameters of the actuator, and a control system. The control system determines automation state data including various inputs and outputs to the automation process, the relationship between the inputs and the outputs, and constraints on the inputs. A controller of the control system (one of multiple controllers in the control system) self-configures an interconnection with another controller based on the automation system state data. See Spec. ¶¶ 8–10; Abstract. Claims 1 (directed to a system), 10 (directed to a computer-readable medium), and 17 (directed to a method) are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An automation system comprising: an actuator configured to implement a control action to facilitate performing an automation process in the automation system; a sensor configured to measure an operational parameter of the actuator; and a control system communicatively coupled to the actuator and the sensor, wherein: the control system comprises a plurality of processors and memory implemented in a plurality of controllers; and Oct. 3, 2019. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed Oct. 29, 2018; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Aug. 6, 2019. Appeal 2020-000122 Application 14/995,989 3 the memory is configured to store instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of the plurality of processors, cause the one or more processors to: determine holistic state data comprising a first field that indicates input variables to the automation process, a second field that indicates output variables from the automation process, a third field that indicates a process model that describes relationship between the input variables and the output variables of the automation process, a fourth field that indicates constraints on the input variables of the automation process, and a fifth field that indicates an objective function, wherein a first controller of the plurality of controllers is configured to self-configure an interconnection with a second controller selected from the plurality of controllers based on the holistic state data; determine the control action to be implemented by the actuator based at least in part on the operational parameter of the actuator measured by the sensor and the process model, the input variables, the output variables, the constraints, and the objective function indicated in fields of the holistic state data; and instructing the actuator to implement the control action to facilitate optimizing performance of the automation process. Appeal Br. 36 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Appeal 2020-000122 Application 14/995,989 4 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Bladow US 6,175,770 B1 Jan. 16, 2001 Pietrzyk et al. (“Pietrzyk”) US 6,549,034 B1 Apr. 15, 2003 Wojsznis et al. (“Wojsznis”) US 2004/0049299 A1 Mar. 11, 2004 Attarwala US 2005/0075738 A1 Apr. 7, 2005 Lawson et al. (“Lawson”) US 2013/0212129 A1 Aug. 15, 2013 REJECTIONS3, 4 1. The Examiner rejects claims 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Attarwala. See Final Act. 5–8. 2. The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 5–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wojsznis and Bladow. See Final Act. 8–16. 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 102. Because the present application has an effective filing date after the AIA’s effective date (March 16, 2013), this decision refers to 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 103. 4 The Examiner withdrew a subject matter eligibility rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Ans. 3. We do not address Appellant’s arguments directed to the withdrawn rejection. The Examiner also rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. See Final Act. 4–5. Appellant amended claim 7 (see Amendment filed Dec. 21, 2018 at 4, 8) and the Examiner entered the amendment (see Advisory Action (“Adv. Act.”) mailed Jan. 14, 2019). The Examiner did not explicitly withdraw the rejection (in the Adv. Act. or the Examiner’s Answer), nor did the Examiner renew the rejection in the Answer. We deem the indefiniteness rejection to be withdrawn. Appeal 2020-000122 Application 14/995,989 5 3. The Examiner rejects claims 2–4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wojsznis, Bladow, and Pietrzyk. See Final Act. 16– 19. 4. The Examiner rejects claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wojsznis, Bladow, and Lawson. See Final Act. 19–20. ANALYSIS Anticipation Rejection of Claims 17–20 The Examiner rejects independent claim 17 (as well as dependent claims 18–20) as anticipated by Attarwala. See Final Act. 5–7; Ans. 4–5. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Attarwala discloses every feature of claim 17, including the disputed limitation of “simulating, using the one or more processors, operation of the controller based at least in part on the holistic state data while the controller performs one or more other operations.” Final Act. 6 (quoting claim 17 (Appeal Br. 40 (Claim App.))). Appellant contends that Attarwala does not disclose the disputed limitations of claim 17. See Appeal Br. 26–28; Reply Br. 2. Specifically, Appellant contends, inter alia, that [C]ontrary to the Examiner’s understanding, Appellants respectfully submit that the simulation package described in Attarwala merely appears to simulate the process responses, but not actually determining the processes responses resulting from actually performing the process. . . . . Attarwala explicitly describes that the simulation “package utilizes two sets of response models, one for simulating actual process responses and another for prediction of actual process responses used in the controller.” Attarwala, paragraph 262. In other words, the simulation package described in Attarwala Appeal 2020-000122 Application 14/995,989 6 appears to simulate operation of the controller by simulating predictions of process responses that would be made by the controller. Additionally, the simulation package described in Attarwala appears to simulate the process by simulating process responses of the process. With this understanding, Appellants emphasize that the “actual process responses” used in the simulation package of Attarwala appear to be simulated and, thus, not determined from actually performing the process. In other words . . . the simulation package described in Attarwala does not appear to [disclose] operating a controller to control a process while its operation is concurrently being simulated by the simulation package, as contended by the Examiner. As such . . . Attarwala does not . . . disclose using one or more processors to simulate operation of a controller, while the controller performs one or more other operations . . . as . . . recited in independent claim 17. Reply Br. 2; see Appeal Br. 26–28. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of Attarwala (Final Act. 6; Ans. 4–5 (citing Attarwala ¶¶ 261, 262, 268)) do not disclose a processor of a controller implemented in a control system, simulating operation of the controller while the controller performs other operations (i.e., concurrently or in parallel with the simulation). Here, according to Appellant’s Specification, the “operation” or “operations” refer to the controller performing control operations of the automation system and process under control. See Spec. ¶¶ 28, 29, 62, 63. Appellant’s Specification distinguishes performing a simulation (by a processor in a control system) from a controller performing actual control operations. The Examiner, however, equates simulating operations with actual operations, and maintains that Attarwala discloses performing a simulation concurrently with other operations. Appeal 2020-000122 Application 14/995,989 7 Claim 17 stimulates a controller action while the controller performs at least one other operation. The one at least on other operation in the cited paragraph is the operation that is based on “actual process responses” and simulating operation of the controller based at least on the holistic state data is an operation that is based on “the prediction of actual responses[.”] These operations are independent operations whose results are compared for optimizing the operation of a controller through “Model Mismatch error”; the operation based on “actual process responses” is based on what controller actually does using certain parameters while the operation based on “the prediction of actual responses” is based on different set of parameters according to different control models because it is based on “the response models used in the prediction of actual process response in the controller[.”] Ans. 4–5. The Examiner misconstrues the required nature of the claimed operation(s). Claim 17 explicitly requires “while the controller performs one or more other operations.” (Emphasis added). In the context of claim 17, based on Appellant’s disclosure (in the Specification), operations are not merely operations of a processor, but rather are operations of a controller while controlling a process under control (i.e., actual rather than simulated operations). At best, the Examiner-cited portions of Attarwala describe concurrent simulated operations. See Appeal Br. 26–28; Reply Br. 2; Attarwala ¶¶ 261, 262, 268. The Examiner has not shown Attarwala discloses the disputed features of claim 17. To anticipate a prior art reference must “disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, and it must disclose those elements arranged as in the claim.” Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc., 878 F.3d 1052, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). See Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Appeal 2020-000122 Application 14/995,989 8 Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Manual Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2131. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding Attarwala anticipates Appellant’s claim 17. Dependent claims 18–20 depend from and stand with claim 17. Accordingly, Appellant’s contentions persuade us of error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of representative independent claim 17 and we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17–20. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1 and 5–15 The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (as well as independent claim 10 and dependent claims 5–9 and 11–15) as obvious in view of Wojsznis and Bladow. See Final Act. 8–11; Ans. 6–8. Specifically, the Examiner relies on Bladow to teach the feature of “a first controller of the plurality of controllers is configured to self-configure an interconnection with a second controller selected from the plurality of controllers based on the holistic state data” (Appeal Br. 36 (Claim App.) (claim 1)). See Final Act. 11; Ans. 6–8. Appellant contends that Bladow does not disclose the disputed limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 28–32; Reply Br. 3–4. Specifically, Appellant contends, inter alia, that Bladow does not teach a controller “that self-configures an interconnection with another controller” because Bladow describes controllers “connected via fixed interconnections.” Appeal Br. 30; see Appeal Br. 31; Reply Br. 3–4. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of Bladow (in combination with Wojsznis) do not disclose a controller self-configuring an interconnection with a second controller. The Examiner-cited portions of Bladow (see Bladow col. 3, l. 53–col. 4, l. 40; col. 4, ll. 52–59; col. 5, ll. 2– Appeal 2020-000122 Application 14/995,989 9 8; Fig. 2) describe self-configuring controllers, in that Bladow describes that “the controller can identify its assigned tasks and functions and automatically adopt the appropriate one of the plurality of operating programs stored therein for execution” (Bladow col. 4, ll. 22–25), but Bladow does not describe a controller capable of self-configuring which controllers it is interconnected with. Appellant’s Specification explains that such self-configuration involves determining other controllers to be used in computations and performing control operations using the determined configuration of controllers (e.g., a first controller interconnecting with a second controller and utilizing data determined by the second controller). See Spec. ¶ 61; Fig. 8. The Examiner-cited portions of Bladow do not describe a similar self-configuration. As shown on Bladow’s Figure 2, the controllers have fixed connections with one another, and self-configure the programs that they execute. Bladow’s controllers do not choose which controllers they interconnect with, and do not utilize information computed by other controllers. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in concluding Bladow (in combination with Wojsznis) teaches a controller that self-configures its interconnections with other controllers. Wojsznis and Bladow do not teach the disputed features of claim 1. Independent claim 10 includes limitations of commensurate scope. Dependent claims 5–9 and 11–15 depend from and stand with claims 1 and 10, respectively. Accordingly, Appellant’s contentions persuade us of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 1 and we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 5–15. Appeal 2020-000122 Application 14/995,989 10 Obviousness Rejection of Claims 2–4 and 16 The Examiner rejects claims 2–4 as obvious over Wojsznis, Bladow, and Pietrzyk. See Final Act. 16–19. The Examiner also rejects claim 16 as obvious over Wojsznis, Bladow, and Lawson. See Final Act. 19–20. The Examiner does not suggest, and we do not find, that the additional cited references (Pietrzyk and Lawson) cure the deficiencies of Bladow (in combination with Wojsznis) (supra). Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 2–4, and 16 for the same reasons set forth for claim 1 (supra). CONCLUSION Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 17– 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). Appellant has also shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20. Appeal 2020-000122 Application 14/995,989 11 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 17–20 102(a)(2) Attarwala 17–20 1, 5–15 103 Wojsznis, Bladow 1, 5–15 2–4 103 Wojsznis, Bladow, Pietrzyk 2–4 16 103 Wojsznis, Bladow, Lawson 16 Overall Outcome 1–20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation