Ex Parte Maturana et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201813834850 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/834,850 03/15/2013 70640 7590 06/04/2018 ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC/ SR Attn: Linda Kasulke 1201 S. 2nd Street E-7C19 Milwaukee, WI 53204 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Francisco Maturana 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12AB201-US 4825 EXAMINER GEBRESILASSIE, KIBROM K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2128 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/04/2018 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): sarah@setterroche.com uspto@setterroche.com raintellectualproperty@ra.rockwell.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FRANCISCO MATURANA, LEOPOLDO PAREDES, and AXEL RODRIGUEZ Appeal 2017-011687 Application 13/834, 850 1 Technology Center 2100 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20. 2 We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellants identify Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. (App. Br. 3.) 2 Claims 1, 2, and 4--8 are not appealed. See App. Br. 7. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4--8. Claim 3 is dependent on claims 1 and 2, and will be treated as an independent claim containing all the limitations of claims 1 and 2. Appeal 2017-011687 Application 13/834,850 THE INVENTION Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to creating and running industrial control system simulations. (Abstract.) Independent claims 3 and 9, reproduced below, are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 3. A method for creating a simulation of an industrial automation system comprising: converting an input file to a format capable of being used with an industrial control device program in a simulation of an industrial control system by a computing device; linking portions of the converted file with an industrial control device file at least in part using a linking module; associating the linked file to physical inputs and outputs of an industrial control system at least in part using an associating software module; creating a simulation incorporating at least animation, based at least in part on the associated linked file at least in part using a simulation creation module; wherein the industrial control system comprises a physical industrial control module, the physical industrial control module being operatively linked to the physical inputs and outputs of the industrial control system; and further comprising executing the simulation at least in part using the computing device and the physical industrial control module. 9. One or more non-transitory computer readable storage media having program instructions stored thereon for creating a simulation of an industrial control system that, when executed by a computing system, direct the computing system to at least: create a file comprising three dimensional information from at least a computer aided design file comprising two 2 Appeal 2017-011687 Application 13/834,850 dimensional information of an industrial machine, by a computing device; create an industrial control system simulation using at least an industrial control system program from an industrial control device, and the created file comprising three dimensional information by the computing device; linking portions of the simulation file with corresponding physical industrial inputs and outputs of the industrial control device; wherein the simulation comprises animation information configured to graphically simulate the operation of the industrial machine. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as being anticipated by Walacavage (US 2002/0040291 Al, pub. Apr. 4, 2002). (Final Act. 8.) ISSUES ON APPEAL Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following issues: 3 Issue One: Whether the Examiner erred in finding Walacavage discloses the independent claim 3 limitation, "executing the simulation at least in part using the computing device and the physical industrial control module." (App. Br. 7-8.) 3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Apr. 4, 2017); the Reply Brief (filed Sept. 22, 2017); the Final Office Action (mailed Apr. 29, 2016); the Advisory Action (mailed Sept. 8, 2016); and the Examiner's Answer (mailed Aug. 4, 2017) for the respective details. 3 Appeal 2017-011687 Application 13/834,850 Issue Two: Whether the Examiner erred in finding Walacavage discloses the independent claim 9 limitation, "create a file comprising three dimensional information from at least a computer aided design file comprising two dimensional information of an industrial machine," and the similar limitation recited in independent claim 17. (App. Br. 8-9.) ANALYSIS First Issue In finding Walacavage discloses the claim 3 limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure of Walacavage of a programmable logic controller verification system including a virtual PLC emulator 20 and at least one PLC 22. The PLC 22 is used as a physical tool build to operate a workcell. The user exports the PLC code to virtual PLC emulator 20 to play and visualize the PLC code. (Final Act. 10, Ans. 2-3; Walacavage ,r,r 16, 23.) Appellants argue the Examiner errs because "execution of the simulation to include using a physical industrial control module is not disclosed in Walacavage" and that "Walacavage does not teach that analytically verifying the code in Paragraph [0016] is involved in the construction and viewing of a motion file in Paragraph [0023] relied on by the Examiner to reject claim 3." (Reply Br. 2.) We agree with Appellants. In order to find Walacavage discloses the claimed "physical industrial control module," the Examiner identifies two elements: virtual PLC emulator 20 and PLC 22. The Examiner maps (1) PLC 22 to the physical industrial control module in the "wherein" limitation, and (2) virtual PLC emulator 20 to the physical industrial control module in 4 Appeal 2017-011687 Application 13/834,850 the "further comprising" limitation. However, the claim requires the same physical industrial control module for both claim limitations (i.e., the wherein limitation requires "a physical industrial control module" and the further comprising limitation refers back to "the" same physical industrial control module). As the Examiner has not shown that the two separate elements of Walacavage are disclosed as, or can be treated as, the same element, we are constrained by the record to find the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claim 3. Second Issue In finding Walacavage discloses the claim 9 limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure of Walacavage of generating transformation arrays 28 for a mechanical model 26 containing CAD geometries and mechanical motion. A motion file, which is a series of transformation that represent the motion path of a three-dimensional object through simulation space, is constructed based on the mechanical model and the transformational arrays 28. (Final Act. 12, Ans. 5; Walacavage ,r,r 21- 23.) Appellants argue that the Examiner errs because "the three dimensional data of Walacavage fails to anticipate ... with respect to creation of a file comprising three dimensional information from at least a computer aided design file comprising two dimensional information of an industrial machine." (Reply Br. 3.) Appellants contend "[i]t is arbitrary and unsupported by any documentation provided by the Examiner to assert that a portion of three dimensional data can be considered to not include one of the 5 Appeal 2017-011687 Application 13/834,850 dimensions in order to constitute data with only two dimensions." (Reply Br. 3.) We do not agree with Appellants. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that claim 9 "requires 'at least a computer aided design file comprising two dimensional information of an industrial machine'. As seen above, the mechanical model is defined as three dimensional CAD model. The reference expressly discloses a file with three dimensional information." (Ans. 6.) Here, the term "at least" broadly and reasonably applies to the phrase "a computer aided design file comprising two dimensional information of an industrial machine," and thus encompasses Walacavage's file containing three-dimensional information. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 9 and independent claim 1 7 commensurate in scope, as well as dependent claims 10-16 and 18-20 not argued separately. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, we reverse the anticipation rejection of claim 3, and affirm the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--20. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 3 is reversed. The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4--20 is affirmed. 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-IN-PART 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation