DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action has been issued in response to amendment filed 11/03/2025. Applicant's arguments have been carefully and fully considered; and they are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL.
Claim Status
Claims 7-11 have been amended. Claims 12-13 have been added. Claims 7-13 remain pending and are ready for examination.
Rejections not based on Prior Art
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: electromagnetic power means driven to vibrate in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Rejections based on Prior Art
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7-9, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binder et al. (US20190098090A1 -hereinafter Binder) in view of Rossano et al. (US20190049930A1 -hereinafter Rossano) in view of in view of Rosca et al. (US20200089182A1 -hereinafter Rosca).
Regarding Claim 7, Binder teaches a remote control system for vibrating supplying devices, comprising:
electromagnetic power means driven to vibrate in frequency at least one element of a vibrating supplying device through a control device (see [0103]; Binder: “An actuator may be used to generate an electric or magnetic field, and may be an electromagnetic coil or an electromagnet.” See [0087]: “An actuator may affect time-dependencies or a phenomenon such as the rate of change, time-integrated or time-average, duty-cycle, frequency or time period between events.” [0086]; Binder: “An appropriate actuator may be adapted for a specific physical phenomenon, such as an actuator responsive to temperature, humidity, pressure, audio, vibration, light, motion, sound, proximity, flow rate, electrical voltage, and electrical current.”) [The electromagnetic actuator reads on ‘electromagnetic power means driven to vibrate in frequency of a vibrating supply device‘], … and the control device being with fixed or multiple channels, with fixed or variable frequency, for carrying out application level operations, (see [0582]; Binder: “A wireless communication may use white spaces, which relates to the frequencies and frequency bands allocated between used or licensed radio frequency bands (or channels) to avoid interference or to serve as guard band.”)
wherein the control device comprises digital communication protocols configured to send and receive data with the server …at least in part via the fixed or multiple channels. (see [0119]; Binder: “The communication between two devices in the building (or vehicle), external to the building (or vehicle), or between a device in the building (or vehicle) to a device external to the building (or vehicle), such as the communication between field units, between routers, between home devices, between field unit and a router, between field unit and a server, or between a router and a server, may use multiple communication routes over the same or different networks, which may be used separately as redundant data paths or cooperatively such as aggregated communication links.” See [0185]: “The wireless network may use a white space spectrum that may be an analog television channel consisting of a 6 MHz, 7 MHz or 8 MHz frequency band, and allocated in the 54-806 MHz band. The wireless network may be operative for channel bonding, and may use two or more analog television channels, and may be based on Wireless Regional Area Network (WRAN) standard, and the wireless communication may couple a Base Station (BS) and one or more CPEs, and the wireless communication may be based on OFDMA modulation. The router, the first device, the second device, or the external server may serve as BS. Alternatively or in addition, the router, the first device, the second device, or the external server may serve as a CPE.”)
However, Binder does not explicitly teach:
the control device in a same level as at least a server and a network supervisor in a network…
the control device being directly interfaced with the server, and further the control device being directly connected in parallel to the network supervisor, comprising at least one of a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) or Industrial PC, for its operating aspects, and/or to a secondary server to acquire a history of parameters, on an industrial Ethernet network, wherein the control device comprises digital communication protocols configured to send and receive data with the server and in parallel with operating data of the PLC at least in part via the fixed or multiple channels.
Rossano from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
the control device being directly interfaced with a server, and further the control device being directly connected in parallel to the network supervisor, comprising at least one of a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) or Industrial PC, for its operating aspects (see [0056]; Rossano: “In the variant embodiment shown in FIG. 5, the raw data coming from the single smart solenoid valve 1 are sent to the cloud server 3 and also parallel to the PLC/NC computer device 8 in the local field, which can then implement the user interface, the technical characteristics of which have already been described (see FIG. 5).” See [0057]: “It is pointed out that the cloud server 3, the client device 13, each smart solenoid valve 1, and, if necessary, the PLC/NC computer device 8, are capable of interfacing with a communication flow of bidirectional data, by means of the Wi-fi router and the Internet network.”), and/or to a secondary server to acquire a history of parameters, on an industrial Ethernet network, (see [0086]; Rossano: “The user interface, subject of the invention, which is started up and displayed on the client device 13 connected to the cloud server 3 and/or on the PLC/NC computer device 8, is capable of showing the user the data and/or historical report of data representative of the operating status of one or more smart solenoid valves 1 and/or one or more components C functionally connected to said solenoid valve consisting of a local portion of the system 7, in addition to showing graphs, if any, with one or more variables regarding the operating status of the one or more smart solenoid valves 1 and/or one or more components C functionally connected to said smart solenoid valve 1, consisting of a local portion of the system 7.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Binder to include Rossano’s features of the control device being directly interfaced with a server, the control device being directly connected to a network supervisor, such as a PLC or Industrial PC, for its operating aspects, and/or to a secondary server to acquire a history of parameters, on an industrial Ethernet network. Doing so would obtain complex and detailed diagnostics of the operation of the solenoid valve itself, or in addition to the subsystem operated by the solenoid valve, as well as display the data regarding the preventive maintenance of the smart solenoid valve, which is easily accessible to the operator. (Rossano, [0025])
However, it does not explicitly teach:
the control device in a same level as at least a server and a network supervisor in a network…
wherein the control device comprises digital communication protocols configured to send and receive data …in parallel with operating data of the PLC at least in part via the fixed or multiple channels.
Rosca from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
the control device in a same level as at least a server and a network supervisor in a network… (see [0028]; Rosca: “Distribution exists over a cluster of nodes. Each instance of DDMS hosts client and server roles, one of which can be activated according to the role of the DDMS instance at a certain time. Usually, the node that starts the process is acting as a client and the remaining nodes that process or store data are acting as servers.” See [0029]: “In the example of FIG. 1, each DDMS node is an Intelligent PLC.”) [That is, each DDMS node reads on ‘control device’, ‘a server’ and ‘a network supervisor’.]
wherein the control device comprises digital communication protocols configured to send and receive data …in parallel with operating data of the PLC at least in part via the fixed or multiple channels. (see [0036]; Rosca: “a distributed data management system (such as the one implemented using Intelligent PLC 105A, 105B, 105C, 110A, 110B and 110C) can provide parallelization and low data traffic across the network.” See [0037]: “The Intelligent PLCs 105A, 105B, 105C, 110A, 110B, and 110C may communicate with one another via network connection using standard networking protocols (e.g., TCP, RPC, etc.).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Binder and Rossano to include Rosca’s features of the control device in a same level as at least a server and a network supervisor in a network, wherein the control device comprises digital communication protocols configured to send and receive data in parallel with operating data of the PLC at least in part via the fixed or multiple channels. Doing so would provide a coherent image of time, data (e.g., time series data), data organization, and data names across an industrial automation system and make data available immediately as it is created. (Rosca, [0027])
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Binder, Rossano, and Rosca teaches all the limitations of claim 7 above, Rosca further teaches designed to set the control device in order to send its own operating parameters continuously updated to the network supervisor, and/or to the secondary server (see [0002]; Rosca: “A programmable logic controller (PLC) is a specialized computer control system configured to execute software which continuously gathers data on the state of input devices to control the state of output devices.” See [0042]: “As discussed above, each Intelligent PLC (or more generally, node) hosts an instance of the DDMS. This instance brings distributed storage and processing capabilities to the controllers, which can communicate to each other and to client or engineering stations in order to, for example: organize and index local data and knowledge to keep overall coherency of data and knowledge and know what is where; historize analytic task results based on the local historian in each PLC; update the distributed long term storage or local storage for caching; update Intelligent PLC knowledge and configurations (rules, parameters, cluster setups, thresholds, etc.); execute data analytics tasks, that is local calculations or distributed calculations; and fetch distributed or local data and retrieve results needed to answer queries.”), wherein the control device sends its own operating parameters in parallel with the sending or the receiving of the data with the server. (see [0074]; Rosca: “These jobs distribute tasks among the nodes, therefore supporting parallel processing in this way.” See [0075]: “At the second step (shown as “2” in FIG. 8), the Controller 810A performs a look-up for the data location (either using local data or through communication with a server storing sharding information). Based on the results of this lookup, at the third step (shown as “3” in FIG. 8), the Controller 810A communicates with Controllers 815A and 820A to collect their data subsets 815B and 820B, respectively …Once the Controller 810A fetches the data from its own data store and the other controllers 815A and 820A, the Controller 810A processes the collected data to execute the command originally received at the first step of the process 800.”) [That is, each DDMS node/controller reads on ‘control device’, ‘a server’ and ‘a network supervisor’]
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Binder, Rossano, and Rosca teaches all the limitations of claim 7 above, Rosca further teaches wherein the control device belongs to a family of control devices wherein each device is designed to receive the parameters after a query to the network supervisor and/or to the secondary server (see [0075]; Rosca: “In the example of FIG. 8, this first step is shown as “1” and the arbitrary controller is Controller 810A. The Queries or Map/Reduce Jobs 805 executing the command may be started, for example, by a client machine or any other controller in the system. At the second step (shown as “2” in FIG. 8), the Controller 810A performs a look-up for the data location (either using local data or through communication with a server storing sharding information). Based on the results of this lookup, at the third step (shown as “3” in FIG. 8), the Controller 810A communicates with Controllers 815A and 820A to collect their data subsets 815B and 820B, respectively.”), wherein the parameters are received through the PLC of the network supervisor. (see [0033]; Rosca: “the distributed data management component included at each Intelligent PLC is capable of storing data originated from the controller through the same interface into shared memory or on the file system.”)
The same motivation to Binder, Rossano, and Rosca a set forth for Claim 7 equally applies to Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Binder, Rossano, and Rosca teaches all the limitations of claim 7 above, Binder further teaches wherein the control device is configured to operate in parallel simultaneously as slave in an upper level network (see [0040]; Binder: “Any communication or connection herein, such as the connection of peripherals in general, and memories in particular to a processor, may use a bus. A communication link (such as Ethernet, or any other LAN, PAN or WAN communication links may also be regarded as buses herein. A bus may be an internal bus, an external bus or both. A bus may be a parallel or a bit-serial bus. A bus may be based on a single or on multiple serial links or lanes… A bus may support master/slave configuration.”), and as master in a sub-network communicating through a dedicate protocol, to drive devices such as solenoid valves. (see [0077]; Binder: “A bus may support master/slave configuration, where one connected node is typically a bus master (e.g., the processor or the processor-side), and other nodes (or node) are bussed slaves.” See [0373]: “the actuator 61 may include a solenoid valve, used to actuate a pneumatic valve, where the air is routed to a pneumatic device, or a hydraulic valve, used to control the flow of a hydraulic fluid.”)
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Binder, Rossano, and Rosca teaches all the limitations of claim 7 above, Binder further teaches: wherein the control device is configured to send and receive the data with the server (see [0119]; Binder: “The communication between two devices in the building (or vehicle), external to the building (or vehicle), or between a device in the building (or vehicle) to a device external to the building (or vehicle), such as the communication between field units, between routers, between home devices, between field unit and a router, between field unit and a server, or between a router and a server, may use multiple communication routes over the same or different networks, which may be used separately as redundant data paths or cooperatively such as aggregated communication links.” See [0185]: “The wireless network may use a white space spectrum that may be an analog television channel consisting of a 6 MHz, 7 MHz or 8 MHz frequency band, and allocated in the 54-806 MHz band. The wireless network may be operative for channel bonding, and may use two or more analog television channels, and may be based on Wireless Regional Area Network (WRAN) standard, and the wireless communication may couple a Base Station (BS) and one or more CPEs, and the wireless communication may be based on OFDMA modulation. The router, the first device, the second device, or the external server may serve as BS. Alternatively or in addition, the router, the first device, the second device, or the external server may serve as a CPE.”)
Rossano further teaches: wherein the IoT device is directly interfaced with the server and directly interfaced with the network supervisor. (see [0056]; Rossano: “In the variant embodiment shown in FIG. 5, the raw data coming from the single smart solenoid valve 1 are sent to the cloud server 3 and also parallel to the PLC/NC computer device 8 in the local field, which can then implement the user interface, the technical characteristics of which have already been described (see FIG. 5).”
The same motivation to Binder and Rossano a set forth for Claim 7 equally applies to Claim 13.
Rosca further teaches wherein the control device comprises digital communication protocols configured to send and receive data …in parallel with operating data of the PLC using an Internet of Things (IoT) device of the control device; (see [0036]; Rosca: “a distributed data management system (such as the one implemented using Intelligent PLC 105A, 105B, 105C, 110A, 110B and 110C) can provide parallelization and low data traffic across the network.” See [0037]: “The Intelligent PLCs 105A, 105B, 105C, 110A, 110B, and 110C may communicate with one another via network connection using standard networking protocols (e.g., TCP, RPC, etc.).”)
The same motivation to Binder, Rossano, and Rosca a set forth for Claim 7 equally applies to Claim 13.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binder et al. (US20190098090A1 -hereinafter Binder) in view of Rossano et al. (US20190049930A1 -hereinafter Rossano) in view of in view of Rosca et al. (US20200089182A1 -hereinafter Rosca) in view of Cella et al. (US20190339688A1 -hereinafter Cella).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Binder, Rossano, and Rosca teaches all the limitations of claim 7 above, Rosca further teaches wherein the control device is designed to communicate its own presence to the network supervisor, and/or to the secondary server (see [0032]; Rosca: “as explained in greater detail below, in some embodiments, a Distributed Database 115 server is added as a node of the distributed data management system to provide long-term storage of data stored on the Intelligent PLCs 105A, 105B, 105C, 110A, 110B, and 110C. Nodes can be added to the distributed data management system using any technique generally known in the art. For example, in some embodiments, new devices can be deployed with functionality for communicating with the distributed data management system. In other embodiments, such functionality may be remotely uploaded to a new or existing device, for example, using a push technique through script execution.”), requiring its own operating parameters to be able to operate similarly to a previous control device, newly replaced (see [0046]; Rosca: “In some embodiments, the Distributed Data Management Component 212 may also be used to obtain from name nodes the addresses of other data nodes where the newly created data chunk is to be replicated without transformation for storage or computation.” See [0063]: “The newly added data becomes available to other controllers on the network as soon as it is loaded into its own (controller) database.”), …wherein the control device communicates its presence to the network supervisor in parallel with the sending or the receiving of the data with the server. (see [0074]; Rosca: “These jobs distribute tasks among the nodes, therefore supporting parallel processing in this way.” See [0075]: “At the second step (shown as “2” in FIG. 8), the Controller 810A performs a look-up for the data location (either using local data or through communication with a server storing sharding information). Based on the results of this lookup, at the third step (shown as “3” in FIG. 8), the Controller 810A communicates with Controllers 815A and 820A to collect their data subsets 815B and 820B, respectively …Once the Controller 810A fetches the data from its own data store and the other controllers 815A and 820A, the Controller 810A processes the collected data to execute the command originally received at the first step of the process 800.”) [That is, each DDMS node/controller reads on ‘control device’, ‘a server’ and ‘a network supervisor’]
However, it does not explicitly teach: …requiring its own operating parameters to be able to operate similarly to a previous control device, newly replaced, using a same IP address on the Ethernet line,
Cella from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:…requiring its own operating parameters to be able to operate similarly to a previous control device, newly replaced, using a same IP address on the Ethernet line, (see [1429]; Cella: “a system for data collection in an industrial environment having a self-sufficient data acquisition box for capturing and analyzing data in an industrial process comprises a data circuit for analyzing a plurality of sensor inputs, a network control circuit for sending and receiving information related to the sensor inputs to an external system, where the system provides sensor data to one or more similarly configured systems and where the data circuit dynamically nominates a similarly configured system capable of providing sensor data to replace the system.” See [0312]: “These include USB, Ethernet and wireless with the ability to provide an IP address or addresses in order to host a webpage.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Binder, Rossano, and Rosca to include Cella’s features of requiring its own operating parameters to be able to operate similarly to a previous control device, newly replaced, using a same IP address on the Ethernet line. Doing so would provide improved monitoring, control, intelligent diagnosis of problems and intelligent optimization of operations in various heavy industrial environments. (Cella, [0005])
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binder et al. (US20190098090A1 -hereinafter Binder) in view of Rossano et al. (US20190049930A1 -hereinafter Rossano) in view of in view of Rosca et al. (US20200089182A1 -hereinafter Rosca) in view of Aki et al. (US 20210059007 A1 -hereinafter Aki).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Binder, Rossano, and Rosca teaches all the limitations of claim 7; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the PLC of the network supervisor is configured to monitor a plurality of devices of an automatic manufacturing line to execute a program assigned to the automatic manufacturing line, wherein the operating data is of the program assigned to the automatic manufacturing line.
Aki from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: wherein the PLC of the network supervisor is configured to monitor a plurality of devices of an automatic manufacturing line to execute a program assigned to the automatic manufacturing line, wherein the operating data is of the program assigned to the automatic manufacturing line. (see [0039]; Aki: “The computer 18 and the master wireless device 12 are connected via a communication line 34 such as a field bus, and are capable of transmission/reception of signals. The computer 18, which is a PLC (Programmable Logic Controller) or a PC (Personal Computer), for example, performs at least monitoring of the industrial facility (the conveyor line 20 of the automobile production plant).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Binder, Rossano, and Rosca to include Aki’s features of the PLC of the network supervisor is configured to monitor a plurality of devices of an automatic manufacturing line to execute a program assigned to the automatic manufacturing line, wherein the operating data is of the program assigned to the automatic manufacturing line. Doing so would enable wireless communication to be performed between the slave wireless device and the master wireless device even when an appliance moves. (Aki, [0004])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejection(s) of the independent claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive because of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Craig (US20150154136A1) discloses the parallel communications interface may be used for data collection from the I/O modules 100/slave devices.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VI N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1108. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ROBERT FENNEMA can be reached at (571) 272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/V.N.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117