Ex Parte Ahangar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2018

13489852 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 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.
13/489,852 06/06/2012 Abdolmehdi Kaveh Ahangar 11AB129-US (ORG) 5663
70640 7590 02/28/2018
ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC / SR
Attn: Linda Kasulke
1201 S. 2nd Street
E-7C19
Milwaukee, WI 53204
EXAMINER
VON BUHR, MARIA N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2125
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2018 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):
s arah @ setterroche. com
u spto @ setterroche .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 ABDOLMEHDI KAVEH AHANGAR,
DAVID YELLAMATI, and GARRON K. MORRIS
Appeal 2017-009773
Application 13/489,8521
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.2
1 Appellants identify Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. as the real
party in interest. (App. Br. 2.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed June 6, 2012, the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed February 10, 2015, the Appeal
Brief (“App. Br.”) filed October 16, 2015, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed April 29, 2016, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed October 12,
2016.
Appeal 2017-009773
Application 13/489,852
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to “software, systems, and methods for
identifying and presenting reliability information for industrial automation
devices and equipment.” (Spec.]} 1.) Appellants’ invention “generate[s]
reliability information for [an] industrial automation device based on [a]
modified load profile, and presents] an indication of the reliability
information via [a] graphical user interface,” where the modified load profile
is identified “based on at least a base load profile and ... at least one
operating parameter for the industrial automation device,” the at least one
operating parameter being selected by a user from the graphical user
interface. (Abstract.)
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored
thereon program instructions executable by a computing device
that, when executed by the computing device, direct the
computing device to:
identify a base load profile for an industrial automation
device selected for reliability analysis;
present a graphical user interface through which to select
operating parameters for performing the reliability analysis with
respect to the industrial automation device, wherein the
operating parameters comprise an application category;
identify a modified load profile based on at least the base
load profile and the operating parameters for the industrial
automation device;
generate reliability information for the industrial
automation device based on the modified load profile; and
present an indication of the reliability information via the
graphical user interface.
(App. Br. 11 (Claims App’x).)
2
Appeal 2017-009773
Application 13/489,852
REJECTIONS & REFERENCES
(1) Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Pitkanen et al. (US 2008/0140322 Al,
published June 12, 2008, “Pitkanen”) and Mann, III et al. (US 2009/0112368
Al, published Apr. 30, 2009, “Mann”). (Final Act. 3—4.)
(2) Claims 2 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
on Pitkanen, Mann, and Schuster et al. (US 7,313,502 B2, issued Dec. 25,
2007, “Schuster”). (Final Act. 4-5.)
(3) Claims 5, 6, 8, 10, 15, 16, 18, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Pitkanen, Mann, and Thiele (US 2010/0204808
Al, published Aug. 12, 2010). (Final Act. 5-6.)
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Pitkanen and Mann do not teach or suggest
“present[ing] a graphical user interface through which to select operating
parameters for performing the reliability analysis with respect to the
industrial automation device, wherein the operating parameters comprise an
application category,” as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 5-7.) Particularly,
Appellants argue Mann’s selection of aircraft types “fails to teach or suggest
an ability to select operating parameters for performing reliability analysis
with respect to an industrial automation device, wherein the operating
parameters comprise an application category.” (App. Br. 6.) Appellants
also assert Pitkanen’s “load characteristics are not modified based on
operating parameters comprising an application category selected via a
graphical user interface.” (App. Br. 7.)
3
Appeal 2017-009773
Application 13/489,852
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because Appellants
are addressing Pitkanen and Mann separately rather than the combination of
teachings proposed by the Examiner. In particular, the Examiner finds
Pitkanen’s system presents a graphical user interface through which to select
operating parameters for performing a reliability analysis with respect to an
industrial automation device, as claimed. (Final Act. 2 (citing Pitkanen
16, 39^10, 63, 67-68, 71-72, Fig. 2); Ans. 2, 6 (citing Pitkanen 50,
58-61, Figs. 3A-3C).) The Examiner further finds Mann discloses
operating parameters comprising an application category. (Final Act. 3-4
(citing Mann]fl[ 33, 66, Figs. 13, 15, 21); Ans. 6 (citing Mann^f 113).)
Thus, the Examiner finds the combination of Pitkanen and Mann teaches
presenting a graphical user interface through which to select operating
parameters for performing the reliability analysis with respect to an
industrial automation device, wherein the operating parameters comprise an
application category, as recited in claim 1. (Ans. 6.)
As to Appellants’ contention that Pitkanen does not teach “operating
parameters that may be selected through a graphical user interface for
performing reliability analysis with respect to an industrial automation
device” (see App. Br. 5), we also agree with the Examiner that Pitkanen
teaches a graphical user interface showing operating parameters (e.g.,
“reeling parameters”) that affect performance (such as “fatigue, wear or
yield durability” and “load rate or wear rate”) of a device in a papermaking
machine (an industrial automation device). (See Pitkanen ^ 39 (an
“[optimum] set of [reeling] parameters is shown, for example, from the user
interface, from which the parameters can be downloaded into the system”),
40 (describing “model-based diagnostics observing the quality figures and
4
Appeal 2017-009773
Application 13/489,852
parameters of reeling” using “user interfaces to present the relative share of
the divergence for each signal in the observed set of signals”), 50, 59, 62;
Ans. 2, 6.)
As further recognized by the Examiner, Pitkanen’s user interface
presents operating parameters for determining load characteristics of the
papermaking device using “several load matrixes [sic] ... [of which] Fig. 2
shows only one being processed, which necessitates a selection from the
several [load matrices]” using vectors “chosen depending on whether the
object’s fatigue, wear or yield durability is to be measured,” thereby
teaching and suggesting operating parameters are selected through the user
interface to perform cumulative load analysis for Pitkanen’s papermaking
device. (Ans. 2 (citing Pitkanen ]fl[ 39, 58-61, Figs. 2, 3A-3C).)
Additionally, Pitkanen’s load analysis teaches a “reliability analysis with
respect to the industrial automation device” as claimed because the analysis
of cumulative load levels applied to the papermaking device provides a
“probability of failure,” “exchange frequency,” and “life span forecast for
the examined machine part,” and “predicts] the failure interval” of the
machine part. (See Pitkanen ]fl[ 16, 71-72; see also Spec. 4, 20
(describing reliability analyses).)
Thus, Pitkanen teaches “presenting] a graphical user interface
through which to select operating parameters for performing the reliability
analysis with respect to the industrial automation device,” as claimed. (Ans.
2, 6.)
Appellants also argue Mann’s “‘types and classes’ of airplanes
provided for selection in Figure 21 ... are not operating parameters that
comprise an application category,” as recited in claim 1; instead, Mann
5
Appeal 2017-009773
Application 13/489,852
merely discloses “a menu for selecting between different types of aircraft,
namely a T-50 Golden Eagle, F-22 Raptor, F-16 Falcon, and F-15 Eagle,”
which are “not operating parameters for performing reliability analysis with
respect to an industrial automation device, nor are they suggestive of an
application category being one of those operating parameters.” (App. Br.
6.)
Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive because Mann’s selectable
types and classes of airplanes are commensurate with the broad description
of “operating parameters” comprising “an application category” in
Appellants’ Specification. In particular, Appellants’ Specification describes:
Operating parameters included in parameters 120 can include
any environmental or operational parameter for an industrial
automation device or associated controller devices. Examples
include industry, application within an industry, duty factors,
. . . power cycles, . . . temperature, . . . and power quality,
among other parameters, including combinations or variations
thereof. Typically, different applications and industries operate
these industrial automation devices under different operating
conditions and stresses, such as ambient temperature,
overloads, shock loads, and flying starts, among other stresses.
Different applications and industries employ industrial device
331 under different operating and environmental conditions .
. . . The application typically indicates the specific type of
function or process used by the industrial automation
equipment. Example applications include belt conveyors, chain
conveyors, diverters, palletizers, centrifugal fans/pumps,
cooling/baking conveyors, positive displacement compressors,
hoists, cranes, auger conveyors, ball mills, rotary kilns, induced
draft fans, beater type mixers, crushers/pulverizers, extruders,
blown film, injection molding, blow molding, screw
compressors, center driven winders, sugar centrifuges, punch
presses, textile machines, engine/transmission test stands,
recirculation fans, compressors, chippers, mixers, flow/pumps,
6
Appeal 2017-009773
Application 13/489,852
converting, and web handling, including combinations thereof.
Application and industry selections are presented in pull-down
selection elements ....
(Spec. 31, 38, 41 (emphases added).) Thus, Appellants’ Specification
broadly describes “application categories” as (1) indicators of “different
operating conditions” required by or recommended for different industrial
automation devices, and (2) indicators of a “specific type of function or
process used by the industrial automation equipment.” (See Spec. 31,
38.)
We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that Mann’s types and classes
of airplanes teach the claimed “operating parameters” comprising an
“application category” (type/class of airplane). (Ans. 3, 6.) Airplanes’ type
and class indicate different operating conditions required or recommended
for an industrial automation equipment (avionics system requiring air
conditioning and cooling) of different airplane types. (Ans. 3, 6; see also
Mann 6-8, 45.) For example, Mann’s airplane type/class indicates
“operating parameters . . . appropriate to the output temperatures and
pressures (and electrical power) required by any given airplane” and “the
pressure setpoint Psp value as well as other temperature setpoint Tsp values
... to customize the air conditioner ... to the specific needs and
requirements of differing types and classes of airplanes.” (See Mann 66,
113; Ans. 3, 6.)
Appellants next argue Pitkanen does not teach or suggest “identifying
a modified load profile based on at least the base load profile and the
operating parameters for the industrial automation device,” as recited in
claim 1. (App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 2-3.) We do not find Appellants’
7
Appeal 2017-009773
Application 13/489,852
arguments persuasive. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that Pitkanen
discloses “updating (i.e.; modifying) of an existing/previous (i.e.; base) load
profile to form (i.e.; identify/create) a modified load profile, such updating
being based upon continuously measured load information.” (Ans. 6 (citing
Pitkanen 39, 71-72).) That is, Pitkanen determines load characteristics
(load levels applied to the papermaking device, see ^[ 69) based on operating
parameters “chosen depending on whether the object’s fatigue, wear or yield
durability is to be measured” (see 59, 61) and “updat[es], preferably
constantly, ... the operational reliability model... by [the] load
characteristics” (see TJ 72), thereby teaching a modified load profile (updated
operational reliability model) is based on a base load profile (initial
operational reliability model created from first-time/oldest testing data of the
papermaking device, see 29, 37, 71) and the chosen operating parameters,
as required by claim 1. (Ans. 2-3, 6.)
Appellants argue Pitkanen’s “updating a reliability model by load
characteristics determined in real time is not equivalent” to the claimed
identifying. (App. Br. 7.) This argument is, however, not commensurate
with the scope of claim 1, which does not preclude real time measurements
from identifying the claimed modified load profile.
Appellants also argue Pitkanen does not teach a base load profile or a
modified load profile, and “none of [the criticalness analysis program, the
operational reliability model, or the operational reliability system]
components is a load profile.” (Reply Br. 2.) Appellants’ argument is not
persuasive because Appellants’ Specification does not provide an explicit
and exclusive definition of the claimed term “load profile”; rather, the
Specification merely provides discussion of non-limiting examples of “base”
8
Appeal 2017-009773
Application 13/489,852
and “modified load profiles.” (See Spec. 18-19.) We agree with the
Examiner that Pitkanen’s updated operational reliability model and initial
operational reliability model are commensurate with the broad description of
“modified” and “base load profiles” in Appellants’ Specification. (Ans. 2,
6.)
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 and the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 11 on the same
basis as claim 1 (see App. Br. 7).
No separate arguments are presented for dependent claims 2-6, 8-10,
12-16, and 18-20. (See App. Br. 7, 9.) Accordingly, for the reasons stated
with respect to independent claims 1 and 11, we sustain the rejection of
these dependent claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 7 and 17
With respect to dependent claims 7 and 17, Appellants contend
Pitkanen’s “display of the monitored load characteristics in a graphical user
interface” does not disclose “a reliability curve to indicate the reliability
information’’’ or a reliability curve “determined based on a base reliability
curve modified by the modified load profile,” as claimed. (App. Br. 8;
Reply Br. 3.)
Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive because Pitkanen’s
cumulative load accrual curve illustrated in Figure 3 A is commensurate with
the broad description of a “reliability curve” indicating “reliability
information” in Appellants’ Specification. In particular, Appellants’
Specification provides that a “reliability curve” is “a graphical representation
of reliability” such as “a two-dimensional graph which plots a relationship
between time and reliability” and “multi-dimensional graphs which plot
9
Appeal 2017-009773
Application 13/489,852
other reliability information against time or operating conditions.” (See
Spec. 20-21.) Pitkanen’s curve illustrated in Figure 3A plots “a
cumulative load accrual characteristic ... as a function of time,” the
cumulative load accrual characteristic indicating “how great a
totaled load has been directed at the measured object during the time
when load measurement data has been collected on the measured object,”
thereby indicating reliability information. (See Pitkanen 66.) As discussed
supra with respect to claim 1, cumulative load levels applied to Pitkanen’s
papermaking device indicate a “probability of failure,” “exchange
frequency,” and “life span forecast for the examined machine part,” and
“predict the failure interval” of the machine part. (See Pitkanen 16, 71—
72; Ans. 4, 6.)
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Pitkanen’s
curve does not teach or suggest “a reliability curve determined based on a
base reliability curve modified by the modified load profile,” as required by
claim 7. (App. Br. 8.) The oldest-measured load accrual characteristic vs
time in Pitkanen’s Figure 3A—for example, the load characteristic for the
oldest date on Figure 3A’s horizontal axis—is commensurate with the
broadly claimed “base reliability curve,” which term lacks an explicit
definition in Appellants’ Specification. (See Spec. 24, 58.) Thus, we
agree with the Examiner that Pitkanen’s Figure 3A discloses a reliability
curve determined based on a base reliability curve modified by the modified
load profile—that is, modified by the most recently-measured load
characteristics of the updated operational reliability model. (See Pitkanen
If 72, Fig. 3A; Ans. 4, 6.)
10
Appeal 2017-009773
Application 13/489,852
In light of the above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7
and 17.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
11