Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 23, 2021

2020001248 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2021)

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 06/23/2021
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
06/23/2021 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 2020-001248
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

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001248
Application 14/077,006

2
The present invention relates generally to using a database within a
control system decision cycle. See Spec. ¶ 1.
Claims 1, 8, and 15, reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized, are representative:
1. A control method, comprising:
storing, using a first controller in a control system,
a first value of an operational parameter of an actuator
measured by one or more sensors at a first time in a
database implemented in the control system, wherein the
actuator operates to facilitate performing an industrial
automation process;
retrieving, using a second controller in the control
system, the first value of the operational parameter from
the database implemented in the control system;
performing, using the second controller, an
optimization search based at least in part on the first
value of the operational parameter to determine an
intermediate search result;
storing, using the first controller, a second value of
the operational parameter of the actuator measured by
the one or more sensors at a second time after the first
time in the database implemented in the control system;
retrieving, using the second controller, the second
value of the operational parameter from the database
implemented in the control system;
updating, using the second controller, the
optimization search based at least in part on the
intermediate search result and the second value of the
operational parameter measured at the second time after
the first time at which the first value of the operational
parameter is measured to facilitate determining a final
search result that indicates a control action to be
implemented by the actuator; and
controlling, using the control system, performance
of the industrial automation process at least in part by
instructing the actuator to implement the control action
indicated by the final search result.
Appeal 2020-001248
Application 14/077,006

3

8. A control method, comprising:
receiving, using a first controller in a control
system, an operational parameter of an actuator measured
by one or more sensors, wherein the actuator operates to
facilitate performing an industrial automation process;
performing, using the first controller, an
optimization search to determine a search result that
indicates a control action to be implemented by the
actuator, wherein performing the optimization search
comprises:
performing the optimization search based at least
in part on the operational parameter of the actuator to
determine an intermediate search result; and
in response to determining that the intermediate
search result is a branching search result:
pausing the optimization search in the first
controller;
instructing a second controller in the control
system to perform a first branch optimization search
based at least in part on the intermediate search result and
the operational parameter of the actuator to determine a
first candidate search result that indicates a first
candidate control action;
instructing a third controller in the control system
to perform a second branch optimization search based at
least in part on the intermediate search result and the
operational parameter of the actuator in parallel with the
first branch optimization search performed by the second
controller to determine a second candidate search result
that indicates a second candidate control action; and
resuming the optimization search in the first
controller based at least in part on the first candidate
search result and the second candidate search result to
determine the search result that indicates the control
action to be implemented by the actuator; and
controlling, using the control system, performance
of the industrial automation process at least in part by
Appeal 2020-001248
Application 14/077,006

4
instructing the actuator to implement the control action
indicated by the search result.

15. A control system, comprising:
a plurality of controllers communicatively coupled
to one or more sensors configured to measure an
operation parameter of an actuator, wherein the plurality
of controllers comprise:
a first controller comprising first processing
circuitry configured to control performance of an
industrial automation process at least in part by
instructing the actuator to implement a control action;
and
a second controller comprising second processing
circuitry configured to determine first holistic state data
associated with the second controller, 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 server communicatively coupled to the each of
the plurality of controllers, wherein the server comprises
a database and third processing circuitry configured to:
instruct the server to store the first holistic state
data associated with the second controller in the database
when the first holistic state data is received from the
second controller; and
instruct the server to transmit the first holistic state
data from the database 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 associated with the second controller
such that the second controller is used to determine the
control action to be implemented by the actuator
controlled by the first controller while the first controller
is controlling performance of the industrial automation
process based at least in part on a previously determined
control action.
Appeal 2020-001248
Application 14/077,006

5
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
R1. Claims 1–3, 7, and 15–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Attarwala (US 2005/0075738
A1, Apr. 7, 2005) and Caldwell (US 2007/0078533 A1, Apr. 5, 2007). Final
Act. 2–13.
R2. Claims 4–6 and 11–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Attarwala, Caldwell, and Jang
(US 2005/0075993 A1, Apr. 7, 2005). Final Act. 13–19, 24–28.
R3. Claims 8–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Attarwala and Jang. Final Act. 19–24.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).

ANALYSIS
Rejection under Attarwala and Caldwell
1–3, and 7
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that Attarwala and Caldwell
collectively teaches or suggests a second value . . . measured by the one or
more sensors at a second time after the first time, as set forth in claim 1?
Appellant contends “that Attarwala does not appear to describe
performing an optimization search based on values of a variable determined
at different times. Instead, . . . the integrated steady state optimizer
described in Attarwala appear to correspond with the same time.” Appeal
Br. 16. Appellant highlights that “[s]ince Attarwala does not appear to
describe updating the value of an evaluated variable after a cycle has already
started, Appellant[] emphasize[s] Attarwala appears to suggest that the value
Appeal 2020-001248
Application 14/077,006

6
of each variable evaluated during the cycle effectively corresponds with the
same time – namely the initiation time of the cycle.” Id. at 16–17.
In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that in Attarwala “[t]he
purpose of starting an optimization process is finding optimized solution by
‘[] manipulating the appropriate variable’ after the optimization process is
started.” Ans. 6. The Examiner highlights that in Attarwala “the actual
dynamic move action by the controller would vary depending on the
localized stability of each [“Embedded Regulatory Controller Manipulated
Variables” (ERCMVs)] and stability of quality related controlled variables”
(id., citing Attarwala ¶¶ 317, 328 and Fig. 27), resulting in “the time
associated with step 101 . . . is different from step 102 . . . and 103 . . . and
104.” Id. Specifically, Attarwala discloses “manipulated variables are
progressively included and removed as the optimization solution progresses
from 102 to 104.” Attarwala ¶ 317.
In other words, as noted by the Examiner, “Claim 1 distinguishes the
second time as a time after the first time. The stages 102, 103 . . . in
[Attarwala’s] optimization process [] appeared in a second time after the first
time when optimization starts in 101.” Ans. 8. Stated differently, in
Attarwala, because each of the stages 102, 103, etc., include dynamically
modified solutions from the previous stages, the second value necessarily is
measured at a second time after the first value is measured.
Appellant also contends that “Caldwell does not appear to obviate the
deficiencies of Attarwala.” Appeal Br. 17. However, the Examiner finds
that “Caldwell further discloses a data collection function 58 . . . which
collects values of an operational parameter measured at different times.”
Ans. 10 (citing Caldwell ¶ 56: “For each of these parameters, values are
Appeal 2020-001248
Application 14/077,006

7
collected and stored over a time period beginning before a trigger event and
lasting until steady state is reached.”).
Therefore, the Examiner has sufficiently shown that both Attarwala
and Caldwell teaches a second value measured at a second time after the first
time.
Appellant further contends that “Attarwala appears to describe
including different types of variable in different steps . . . [instead] of the
same variable in a different step of its steady state optimizer.” Appeal Br.
18.
In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that in Attarwala “the
same manipulated pressure or temperature variable of the controller with
satisfactory performance will move from a current stage in a first time to a
next stage in a second time after the first time.” Ans. 11 (citing Attarwala
¶ 318: “[I]f the optimization at 102 results in a feasible solution then the
optimization process proceeds to 103 with those ERCMVs whose controller
performance is evaluated to be satisfactory.”). In other words, Attarwala
moves that same variable to the next stage, if the result is a feasible solution.
Additionally, as noted above, Caldwell also teaches measuring the same
variable at different times. See Caldwell ¶ 56.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellant does not argue separate patentability for the dependent claims 2,
3, and 7. See Appeal Br. 12–18. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2, 3, and 7.

Appeal 2020-001248
Application 14/077,006

8
Rejection under Attarwala and Caldwell
Claims 15–20
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that Attarwala and Caldwell
collectively teaches or suggests the first controller to select the second
controller from the plurality of controllers, as set forth in claim 15?
Appellant contends:
Attarwala appears to suggest that each of multiple controllers
deployed in a control system is incorporated into the integrated
steady state optimizer. Since all of the controllers are included,
Appellant[] respectfully submit[s] that Attarwala does not
appear to teach or suggest selecting between different
controllers deployed in the control system.
Appeal Br. 20. Appellant further contends that “Caldwell does not appear to
obviate the deficiencies of Attarwala.” Id.
In response, the Examiner finds that in Attarwala “while monitoring
interrelated controller’ input/output in a system, based on the actual
monitored data/holistic data, the optimizer selects models/controller that can
drive the process from its current state to optimal [state].” Ans. 19 (citing
Attarwala ¶¶ 5, 91, 103–109, 196, 241, 262, 294–295, 318, 328).
For example, as highlighted by the Examiner, “the actual dynamic
move action by the controller would vary depending on the localized
stability of each ERCMVs and stability of quality related controlled
variables” Ans. 20 (citing Attarwala ¶ 328). Further, Attarwala discloses
that “[i]f the optimization at 102 results in a feasible solution then the
optimization process proceeds to 103 with those ERCMVs whose controller
performance is evaluated to be satisfactory.” Attarwala ¶ 318.
In other words, Attarwala’s process selects the Embedded Regulatory
Controller (ERC) whose manipulated variables are satisfactory, and excludes
Appeal 2020-001248
Application 14/077,006

9
those ERCMVs whose performance is not satisfactory, i.e., selects a
controller from the plurality of controllers. Our previous Decision dated
February 21, 2018 (Decision) similarly found that Attarwala teaches
“selecting controllers whose performance are satisfactory.” Decision 9.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Attarwala in view of Caldwell,
likewise with the rejection of dependent claims 16–20, which are not argued
separately with particularity.

Rejection under at least Attarwala and Jang
Claims 8–14
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding that Attarwal and Caldwell
collectively teaches or suggests “a second branch optimization search . . . in
parallel with the first branch optimization search,” as set forth in claim 8?
Appellant contends “that Attarwala, at most, appears to describe
performing one steady state optimization search per control cycle and, thus,
does not appear to teach or suggest . . . instructing a third controller to
perform a second branch optimization search . . . in parallel with the first
branch optimization search.” Appeal Br. 24.
In response, the Examiner outlines how in Attarwala “a change in
behavior of the first controller directly influence the behavior of the second
controller . . . and serially moving from one step to another step does not
mean there is only one controller involved.” See Ans. 13. However, this
explanation fails to show sufficiently that Attarwala teaches performing a
second search in parallel with the first search, as required in claim 8. At
best, the Examiner is highlighting serial operations, as opposed to parallel
Appeal 2020-001248
Application 14/077,006

10
searches. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record before us to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 8, and claims 9–14, which are dependent
thereon.

Rejection under Attarwala, Caldwell, and Jang
Claims 4–6
Claims 4–6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Attarwala,
Caldwell, and Jang. Appellant does not separately argue the aforementioned
claims, but, instead, relies on the arguments presented with respect to claim
1. See Appeal Br. 26. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 4–6, for the reasons discussed supra.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–7 and 15–20 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 8–14 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.
Appeal 2020-001248
Application 14/077,006

11
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 7, 15–20 103 Attarwala,
Caldwell
1–3, 7,
15–20

4–6 103 Attarwala,
Caldwell, Jang
4–6
8–10 103 Attarwala, Jang 8–10
11–14 103 Attarwala, Jang,
Caldwell
11–14
Overall
Outcome
1–7,
15–20
8–14

No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED IN PART