The subject invention relates generally to industrial control systems, and more particularly to interfacing and controlling lower-level manufacturing operations from a higher-level transaction language or process.
Industrial controllers are special-purpose computers utilized for controlling industrial processes, manufacturing equipment, and other factory automation, such as data collection or networked systems. At the core of the industrial control system, is a logic processor such as a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) or PC-based controller. Programmable Logic Controllers for instance, are programmed by systems designers to operate manufacturing processes via user-designed logic programs or user programs. The user programs are stored in memory and generally executed by the PLC in a sequential manner although instruction jumping, looping and interrupt routines, for example, are also common. Associated with the user program are a plurality of memory elements or variables that provide dynamics to PLC operations and programs. Differences in PLCs are typically dependent on the number of Input/Output (I/O) they can process, amount of memory, number and type of instructions, and speed of the PLC central processing unit (CPU).
One aspect that has not changed too much over the years is the need to program each phase of a PLC operation. Thus, if a change is required in a process, or the dynamics of an operation change over time, the PLC may need to be reprogrammed to account for such changes. As can be appreciated, having to re-program or change an existing automated operation can be time-consuming and expensive. Also, these changes can influence actual operator procedures resulting from such changes. For instance, one area that is generally in flux is the interaction between operators interacting with the PLC and possibly higher-level work flows that may be occurring in other areas of the plant. For example, an operator may be running an interface that controls some aspect of an industrial manufacturing operation. A business application may have detected in some other system that some element of the PLC process should be changed or varied in order to properly manufacture the respective product. This could include altering how the PLC and respective operator interfaces function in order to manage potential changes. Although, controllers can be programmed to perform substantially any type of manufacturing operation, current PLC architectures are somewhat inflexible in this regard. Unless the PLC had been previously programmed to account for the change, the current process may have to be stopped in order to respond in a desired manner.
In addition to system or process dynamics, many PLC systems can operate over a plurality of different type of networks and often to higher level processing systems such as batch servers, process servers, and other business applications. Networks can include lower level networks that are local in nature for controlling local cell operations to higher level networks such as Ethernet that can communicate to substantially any remote location within a plant or across the Internet, for example. Although, there may be pre-programmed interactions between these higher-level processes and lower-level PLCs and interfaces across the networks, standard ladder-logic programs are not generally suitable to account for changing factory dynamics that may have to alter operations in ways that cannot be predicted when designing the lower-level control programs. Generally, PLC programs have not been standardized in any generic manner to account for interactions that may influence lower-level operations. For instance, this could include a detected parameter change in a raw materials inventory that would require process changes in order to properly utilize the inventory. In current architectures, lower-level PLC operations, interfaces, and procedures would have to be re-programmed in order to account for such changes.
The following presents a simplified summary in order to provide a basic understanding of some aspects described herein. This summary is not an extensive overview nor is intended to identify key/critical elements or to delineate the scope of the various aspects described herein. Its sole purpose is to present some concepts in a simplified form as a prelude to the more detailed description that is presented later.
Dynamic operator interfaces are provided that can be automatically generated and controlled in a bidirectional manner from high-level work-flow or business processes that are integrated with lower-level control operations. In one aspect, an industrial control system can include control elements and/or higher level servers that cooperate to execute a higher level or abstract transaction language. Such language can include a business execution language that operates at the front end of an enterprise to control resources and output from the enterprise without being involved in the lower level control decisions of the enterprise. In one example, if a change were detected at an upper level, this change or condition could be communicated downward via the transaction language to an operator interface that may specify some action for an operator such as acknowledging a change in a process or procedure. Similarly, if conditions change at a lower level, operators can communicate via the interfaces to higher order process or components in the enterprise to automatically adapt to dynamic manufacturing conditions while mitigating the need to reprogram lower level control elements and/or retrain existing personnel.
In one example aspect, business process behavior can be based on a transaction language such as a Business Process Execution Language where business processes can be described in at least two ways. Executable business processes can model actual behavior of a participant in a business interaction, whereas business protocols, in contrast, can employ process descriptions that specify mutually visible message exchange behavior of each of the parties involved in the protocol, without revealing their internal behavior. Thus, process descriptions for business protocols can be referred to as abstract processes. From these abstract processes, control decisions can be passed to or from operator interfaces that interact with operators at the production end of an enterprise.
To the accomplishment of the foregoing and related ends, certain illustrative aspects are described herein in connection with the following description and the annexed drawings. These aspects are indicative of various ways which can be practiced, all of which are intended to be covered herein. Other advantages and novel features may become apparent from the following detailed description when considered in conjunction with the drawings.
Systems and methods are provided that enable high-level and abstract business engines to affect and influence plant-floor or industrial operations via dynamic and flexible operator interfaces. In a similar manner, actions directed from the operator interfaces can be communicated to higher level decision components of an enterprise to facilitate automated control of the enterprise. In one aspect, an industrial automation system is provided. The system includes one or more controllers to process transaction events in an industrial automation environment. Such events can be executed from a business transaction language, for example. One or more operator interface components are provided that automatically adapt interface control functionality based on the transaction events.
It is noted that as used in this application, terms such as “component,” “transaction,” “interface,” and the like are intended to refer to a computer-related entity, either hardware, a combination of hardware and software, software, or software in execution as applied to an automation system for industrial control. For example, a component may be, but is not limited to being, a process running on a processor, a processor, an object, an executable, a thread of execution, a program and a computer. By way of illustration, both an application running on a server and the server can be components. One or more components may reside within a process and/or thread of execution and a component may be localized on one computer and/or distributed between two or more computers, industrial controllers, and/or modules communicating therewith.
Referring initially to
In one example application, the transaction engine 110 can operate a Business Process Execution Language (BPEL). The operator interfaces 120 communicate with transaction languages operating on the engines 110 and can be altered or controlled based on dynamics or condition changes detected in a business or manufacturing environment, for example. For instance, the transaction engine 110 generally would operate on a more abstract level of order entry, inventory, raw material planning, asset management and so forth. If a manufacturing condition change were detected at this level, controls could be sent to the operator interfaces 120 to affect how operators interact with the new changes. In one specific example, assume a different type of material was purchased that was to be employed in final production of a product. This detected change could cause interface changes at the operator interface 120 including getting confirmation from an operator, sending new manufacturing instructions, eliciting feedback from the operators, and so forth. In essence, a bidirectional level of communications and control can be established between the transaction engines 110 and the operator interfaces 120.
In a pharmaceutical application for example, a pharmacist operating on the plant floor may detect some system or material change affecting quality of manufactured goods. Controls or data can be sent from the interfaces 120 to the transaction engine 110 that allows recognition of such changes to be applied to higher levels of the business or enterprise. For example, it may be determined that the pH-level in a storage or holding bin needs to be adjusted and this information can be communicated to the transaction engine 110 from the operator interface 120. After communicating such information, the transaction engine 110 can send automated signals to other components in the plant to alter or adjust the pH level in the storage bin. In this manner, control can be communicated in a bidirectional manner without having to reprogram the system 100 to account for different conditions, products, materials, variables, parameters, or other dynamics/changes. In other words, context from other levels of a business process can be communicated down to lower levels to facilitate decision-making processes in the plant. Likewise, information can be communicated upwards from the operator interfaces 120 which may impact other areas of the business or enterprise.
In general, the transaction engine 110 operates at an abstract level such as deciding what quantity of a product to produce, whereas lower level controllers are programmed with the ability to actually produce the product such as with a batch processor. The operator interfaces 120 can be dynamically adjusted or responded to in a manner that reflects detected higher level dynamics or communicates information from the lower levels of a process from an operator while mitigating the need to reprogram lower-level control elements. Thus, business protocols in the transaction engine 110 should be described and provided in a platform-independent manner and should capture behavioral aspects that have cross-enterprise business significance. Respective system participants or components can then determine and plan for conformance to the business protocol without generally engaging in the process of manual human agreement that adds to the difficulty of establishing cross-enterprise automated business processes.
In general, business protocols at the transaction level can include data-dependent behavior. For example, a supply-chain protocol can depend on data such as the number of line items in an order, the total value of an order, or a deliver-by deadline. Defining business intent in these cases can include the employment of conditional and time-out constructs which are described in more detail below. This can also include the ability to specify exceptional conditions and their consequences, including recovery sequences, which can be as important for business protocols as the ability to define the behavior when operations are running normally. Long-running interactions can include multiple, often nested units of work, each with its own data requirements. In another aspect, the transaction engine 110 can employ message properties to identify protocol-relevant data embedded in messages that communicate with the operator interfaces 120 as will be describe in more detail below.
It is noted that the operator interface 120 can be extended to include one type of resource interface, where other types would include equipment interfaces where physical equipment is being interacted with. The interface to a human (operator interface) could also be considered as equipment. An example of equipment could be an automated barcode scanner, RFID reader or pH meter and so forth. This could also consider the PLC to be capable of representing workflow, equipment flow and material flow as native representations, for example. These flows can be referred to as sequences where equipment sequencing is typically represented with Sequential Function Charts (SFCs).
Another form of sequence is that of a state machine, such as process control that can be considered as ‘state orientate control’ where the process is managed by manipulating the status of equipment, which infers a state machine for the equipment exists, for what states the equipment can exist in and what commands are supported. Thus, an integration of the state of the process control system can be achieved with higher level work flow and operator inputs which may also be represented as a work flow, for example.
Turning to
As illustrated, the operator interface 230 can include a Graphical User Interface (GUI) to interact with the transaction engine 200. This can include substantially any type of application that sends, retrieves, processes, and/or manipulates factory input data, receives, displays, formats, and/or communicates output data, and/or facilitates operation of the enterprise. For example, such interfaces 230 can also be associated with an engine, editor tool or web browser although other type applications can be utilized. The GUI 230 includes a display 234 having one or more display objects (not shown) including such aspects as configurable icons, buttons, sliders, input boxes, selection options, menus, tabs and so forth having multiple configurable dimensions, shapes, colors, text, data and sounds to facilitate operations with the engine 200. In addition, the GUI 230 can also include a plurality of other inputs 240 or controls for adjusting and configuring one or more aspects. This can include receiving user commands from a mouse, keyboard, speech input, web site, remote web service and/or other device such as a camera or video input to affect or modify operations of the GUI 230.
It is also noted that the term PLC as used herein can include functionality that can be shared across multiple components, systems, and or networks. One or more PLCs 220 can communicate and cooperate with various network devices across a network. This can include substantially any type of control, communications module, computer, I/O device, Human Machine Interface (HMI)) that communicate via the network which includes control, automation, and/or public networks. The PLC 220 can also communicate to and control various other devices such as Input/Output modules including Analog, Digital, Programmed/Intelligent I/O modules, other programmable controllers, communications modules, and the like.
The network (not shown) can include public networks such as the Internet, Intranets, and automation networks such as Control and Information Protocol (CIP) networks including DeviceNet and ControlNet. Other networks include Ethernet, DH/DH+, Remote I/O, Fieldbus, Modbus, Profibus, wireless networks, serial protocols, and so forth. In addition, the network devices can include various possibilities (hardware and/or software components). These include components such as switches with virtual local area network (VLAN) capability, LANs, WANs, proxies, gateways, routers, firewalls, virtual private network (VPN) devices, servers, clients, computers, configuration tools, monitoring tools, and/or other devices.
Before proceeding, it is noted that
Referring now to
On receiving the purchase order from a customer, the example process 300 initiates three tasks concurrently: calculating the final price for the order, selecting a shipper, and scheduling production and shipment for the order. While some of the processing can proceed concurrently, there are control and data dependencies between the tasks. In particular, the shipping price is required to finalize the price calculation, and the shipping date is required for the complete fulfillment schedule. When these tasks are completed, invoice processing can proceed and an invoice is sent to the customer. If some change or other dynamic were detected in the process 300, controls and interface options could be directed to the operator interface 310 (e.g., send operator interface panel window asking for explicit operator feedback). Generally, a business process can be defined “in the abstract” by referencing port types of services involved in the process, and not their possible deployments. Defining business processes in this manner allows reuse of business process definitions over multiple deployments of compatible services. It is to be appreciated that a plurality of differing type business processes and/or components can be supported other than the example depicted in
Boolean Expressions are expressions where an evaluation results in Boolean values. Deadline-Valued Expressions are expressions that result in values that are of types date Time or date. Duration-Valued Expressions are expressions that results in values that are of the type duration. General Expressions can be of type (e.g., string, number, or Boolean) and possibly restricted as follows: Numeric values including arbitrary constants are permitted with the equality or relational operators (<, <=, =, !=, >=, >); Values of integral (e.g., short, int, long, unsigned Short, and so forth) type including constants are permitted in numeric expressions, provided that integer arithmetic is performed; Equality operators (=, !=) are permitted when used with values of string type including constants.
At 430 variable considerations include business processes that specify state-full interactions involving the exchange of messages between partners. The state of a business process includes messages that are exchanged as well as intermediate data used in business logic and in composing messages sent to partners of the business, for example. Variables provide one possible means for holding messages that constitute the state of a business process. The messages held are often those that have been received from partners or are to be sent to partners. Variables can also hold data that are needed for holding state related to the process and not exchanged with partners.
At 540, fault and delay processing is considered. In one example, a throw activity can be used when a business process needs to signal an internal fault explicitly. Faults are generally required to have a globally unique Name. The throw activity provides such a name for the fault and can optionally provide a variable of data that provides further information about the fault. A fault handler can use such data to analyze and handle the fault and also to populate fault messages that need to be sent to other services. A wait activity allows a business process to specify a delay for a certain period of time or until a certain deadline is reached. A typical use of this activity is to invoke an operation at a certain time. In other case, there may be an activity that performs no function, for example when a fault needs to be caught and suppressed. The empty activity can be used for this purpose.
Referring now to
In general, the sequence activity 610 includes one or more activities that are performed sequentially, in the order in which they are listed within a <sequence> element, that is, in lexical order. The sequence activity completes when the final activity in the sequence has completed. The switch structured activity 620 supports conditional behavior in a pattern that occurs often. The activity generally consists of an ordered list of one or more conditional branches defined by case elements, followed optionally by an otherwise branch. The while activity 630 supports repeated performance of a specified, iterative activity. The iterative activity can be performed until a given Boolean while condition no longer holds true. The pick activity 640 awaits the occurrence of one of a set of events and then performs the activity associated with the event that occurred, whereas the flow construct 650 provides concurrency and synchronization for a business or interface operation.
At 730, fault handling in a business process is a mode switch from normal processing in a scope. Fault handling can be processed as “reverse work” in that its goal is to undo partial and unsuccessful work of a scope in which a fault has occurred. Optional fault handlers attached to a scope component provide a way to define a set of custom fault-handling activities, syntactically defined as catch activities. Each catch activity can be defined to intercept a specific kind of fault, defined by a globally unique fault name and a variable for the data associated with the fault.
At 820, alarm events can be processed. An on-Alarm tag marks a timeout event. A for attribute specifies the duration after which the event will be signaled. A clock for the duration starts at the point in time when the associated scope starts. An alternative until attribute specifies the specific point in time when the alarm will be fired. One of these two attributes may occur in any on-Alarm event. At 830, event handlers associated with a scope are enabled when the associated scope starts. If the event handler is associated with a global process scope, the event handler is enabled when the process instance is created. The process instance is created when the first receive activity that provides for the creation of a process instance (indicated via a create Instance attribute set to yes) has received and processed the corresponding message. This allows the alarm time for a global alarm event to be specified using the data provided within the message that creates a process instance.
At 840, event processing aspects are considered. For alarm events, counting of time for an alarm event with a duration starts when an enclosing event handler is activated. An alarm event goes off when the specified time or duration has been reached. An alarm event is carried out at most once while the corresponding scope is active. The event is disabled for the rest of the activity of the corresponding scope after it has occurred and the specified processing has been carried out. A message event occurs when the appropriate message is received on the specified partner link using the specified port type and operation. At 850, disablement of events generally occurs when all event handlers associated with a scope are disabled when the normal processing of the scope is complete. The already dispatched event handlers are allowed to complete, and the completion of the scope as a whole is delayed until all active event handlers have completed. At 860, event handlers are considered a part of the normal processing of the scope, i.e., active event handlers are concurrent activities within the scope. Faults within event handlers are therefore faults within the associated scope. Moreover, if a fault occurs within a scope, the behavior of the fault handler begins by implicitly terminating all activities directly enclosed within the scope that are currently active. This includes the activities within currently active event handlers.
At 940, business level (abstract level) or plant-level (control level) conditions are determined. This can include automated monitoring of plant or business variables and automatically initiating operator interface functionality upon detection of variable changes. For instance, if a business or control variable were detected outside a predetermined threshold, automated procedures could be initiated by a transaction engine to invoke procedures with the operator interface to bring the detected variable back within the threshold range. At 950, interface controls are exchanged between the transaction language and the lower level elements of the business via the operator interface. Such controls can include altering routines, procedures, instructions, variables, parameters, authorizations, and so forth that can be automatically administered via the operator interface.
What has been described above includes various exemplary aspects. It is, of course, not possible to describe every conceivable combination of components or methodologies for purposes of describing these aspects, but one of ordinary skill in the art may recognize that many further combinations and permutations are possible. Accordingly, the aspects described herein are intended to embrace all such alterations, modifications and variations that fall within the spirit and scope of the appended claims. Furthermore, to the extent that the term “includes” is used in either the detailed description or the claims, such term is intended to be inclusive in a manner similar to the term “comprising” as “comprising” is interpreted when employed as a transitional word in a claim.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/163,730, filed Jun. 27, 2008, entitled “INDUSTRIAL OPERATOR INTERFACES INTERACTING WITH HIGHER-LEVEL BUSINESS WORKFLOW,” which is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/239,935, filed Sep. 30, 2005, entitled “INDUSTRIAL OPERATOR INTERFACES INTERACTING WITH HIGHER-LEVEL BUSINESS WORKFLOW”, the entireties of which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4268901 | Subrizi et al. | May 1981 | A |
4347564 | Sugano et al. | Aug 1982 | A |
4623964 | Getz et al. | Nov 1986 | A |
4990838 | Kawato et al. | Feb 1991 | A |
5072374 | Sexton et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
5185708 | Hall et al. | Feb 1993 | A |
5253184 | Kleinschnitz | Oct 1993 | A |
5301320 | McAtee et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
5446868 | Gardea et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5455775 | Huber et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5485620 | Sadre et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5504891 | Motoyama et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5537585 | Bickenstaff et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5572731 | Morel et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5611059 | Benton et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5619724 | Moore | Apr 1997 | A |
5634048 | Ryu et al. | May 1997 | A |
5644740 | Kiuchi | Jul 1997 | A |
5675748 | Ross | Oct 1997 | A |
5715413 | Ishai et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5721905 | Elixmann et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5761499 | Sondregger | Jun 1998 | A |
5797137 | Golshani et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5812773 | Norin | Sep 1998 | A |
5828851 | Nixon et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5832486 | Itoh et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5838563 | Dove et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5848273 | Fontana et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5862052 | Nixon et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5884025 | Baehr et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5884033 | Duvall et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5913029 | Shostak | Jun 1999 | A |
5924094 | Sutter | Jul 1999 | A |
5936539 | Fuchs | Aug 1999 | A |
5940294 | Dove et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5940854 | Green, Jr. et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5951440 | Reichlinger | Sep 1999 | A |
5960420 | Leymann et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5966705 | Koneru | Oct 1999 | A |
5978577 | Rierden et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5980078 | Krivoshein et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5983016 | Brodsky et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6011899 | Ohishi et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6032208 | Nixon et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6044217 | Brealey et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6063129 | Dadd et al. | May 2000 | A |
6081899 | Byrd | Jun 2000 | A |
6098116 | Nixon et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6101531 | Eggleston et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6195591 | Nixon et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6208987 | Nihei | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6234899 | Nulph | May 2001 | B1 |
6266726 | Nixon et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6275977 | Nagai et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6308168 | Dovich et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6308224 | Leymann et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6311187 | Jeyaraman | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6327511 | Naismith et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6334158 | Jennyc et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6336152 | Richman et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6356920 | Vandersluis | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6377957 | Jeyaraman | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6393566 | Levine | May 2002 | B1 |
6398106 | Ulvr et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6409082 | Davis et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6411987 | Steger et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6415983 | Ulvr et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6425051 | Burton et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6438744 | Toutonighi et al. | Aug 2002 | B2 |
6445963 | Blevins et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6446202 | Krivoshein et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6457053 | Satagopan et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6469986 | Lecheler et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6473656 | Langels et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6484061 | Papadopoulos et al. | Nov 2002 | B2 |
6501996 | Bieber | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6505247 | Steger et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6510352 | Badavas et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6539271 | Lech et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6539430 | Humes | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6539458 | Holmberg | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6631519 | Nicholson et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6643555 | Eller et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6661426 | Jetha et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6664981 | Ashe et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6681227 | Kojima et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6687817 | Paul | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6697797 | Hoggatt et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6704746 | Sokolov et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6714949 | Frey, Jr. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6714981 | Skaggs | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6738821 | Wilson et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6745089 | Rasmussen et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6748486 | Burton et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6751634 | Judd | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6758403 | Keys et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6760721 | Chasen et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6760732 | Busshart et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6763395 | Austin | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6766312 | Landt | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6769095 | Brassard et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6778537 | Ishibashi | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6801822 | Fujiwara et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6807632 | Carpentier et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6809732 | Zatz et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6836892 | Ikoma et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6839790 | Barros De Almeida et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6842769 | Kim et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6853920 | Hsiung et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6865509 | Hsiung et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6868413 | Grindrod et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6874145 | Ye et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6874146 | Iyengar | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6880060 | Talagala et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6889282 | Schollenberger | May 2005 | B2 |
6901575 | Wu et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6904473 | Bloxham et al. | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6920474 | Walsh et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6928521 | Burton et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6930985 | Rathi et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6934749 | Black et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6938079 | Anderson et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6944626 | Cameron et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6947947 | Block et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6950900 | McKean et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6954770 | Carlson et al. | Oct 2005 | B1 |
6961728 | Wynblatt et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6973556 | Milligan et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
6975913 | Kreidler et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
7356482 | Frankland et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7801628 | Chand et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
8204609 | Chand et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8392236 | Fung et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
20020012401 | Karolys et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020013748 | Edmison et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020069167 | Conlow | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020073236 | Helgeson et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020087786 | Burton et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020091838 | Rupp et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020103785 | Harvey | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020194577 | Connor et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030014387 | Kreidler et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030033040 | Billings | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030065673 | Grobler et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030090514 | Cole et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030120710 | Pulsipher et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030123467 | Du et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030126308 | Kim | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030177114 | Lin et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030212828 | Miyazaki et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030218641 | Longobardi | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040006401 | Yamada et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040024995 | Swaine | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040044421 | Brune et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040073565 | Kaufman et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040093588 | Gschwind et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040098153 | Neudeck | May 2004 | A1 |
20040145601 | Brielmann et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040167790 | Grasse | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040196855 | Davies et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040199655 | Davies et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040203620 | Thome et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040210629 | Klindt et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040249771 | Berg et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040260591 | King | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050005289 | Adolph et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050044112 | Yamamoto et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050065829 | Birkhoelzer | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050065971 | Honda | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050069853 | Tyson et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050091349 | Scheibli | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050102672 | Brothers | May 2005 | A1 |
20050107897 | Callaghan | May 2005 | A1 |
20050108247 | Heinla et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050120021 | Tang et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050129247 | Gammel et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050135782 | Ando et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050154741 | Hebert et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050166215 | Holloway et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050177687 | Rao | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050182768 | Waldorf et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050187925 | Schechinger et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050198248 | Morimoto et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050216460 | Yoon et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050223010 | Murray | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050251527 | Phillips et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050256788 | Mukai | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050267882 | Aupperlee et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050268253 | Johnson et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050278373 | Corbett et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060004475 | Brackett et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060004847 | Claudatos et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20070016429 | Boumas et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
European Search Report dated Jun. 12, 2005 for European Patent Application Serial No. EP05016793, 3 pages. |
John Kubiatowicz, et al. “OceanStore: An Architecture for Global-Scale Persistent Storage” ASPLOS 2000, Cambridge, Massachusetts (2000). |
Pitzek, et al., Configuration and Management of a Real-Time Transducer Network, 2003 IEEE, 2003, 4 pages. |
Roy Goldman, et al. “From Semistructured Data to XML: Migrating the Lore Data Model and Query Language” (1999). |
OA dated Dec. 1, 2011 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/163,730, 10 pages. |
OA dated Jun. 3, 2011 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/163,730, 44 pages. |
OA dated Mar. 19, 2009 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/239,935, 10 pages. |
OA dated Dec. 29, 2009 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/239,935, 8 pages. |
OA dated Jul. 6, 2009 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/239,935, 14 pages. |
OA dated Sep. 9, 2008 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/239,935, 13 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20120239171 A1 | Sep 2012 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11239935 | Sep 2005 | US |
Child | 12163730 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12163730 | Jun 2008 | US |
Child | 13486457 | US |