DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18, 21-29, 31, and 32 are cancelled. Claim 30 is amended. Claims 19, 20, and 30 are pending in the application.
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 .
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.
Examiner’s Notes
The Examiner cites particular sections in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant(s) fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 19, 20, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sotriffer et al. (DE 10-102016125171-A1; published on June 21, 2018; hereinafter Sotriffer; references are made to the corresponding translation which is provided as a non-patent literature document) in view of Ng (US 2013/0086429 A1) and Tabuchi (US 2011/0145634 A1).
With respect to claim 30, Sotriffer teaches: A system of automation technology (see e.g. Sotriffer, Fig. 1), comprising:
a fieldbus network (see e.g. Sotriffer, page 2, paragraph 3: “the fieldbus network”);
at least one fieldbus component connected with the fieldbus network (see e.g. Sotriffer, page 2, paragraph 3: “the components of the fieldbus network”);
a field entry device (see e.g. Sotriffer, Fig. 1: “101”) connected with the fieldbus network (see e.g. Sotriffer, page 3, paragraph 5: “fieldbus network 100 there is a field access device 101”); and
a host computer (see e.g. Sotriffer, Fig. 1: “108”) connected with the fieldbus network via the field entry device (see e.g. Sotriffer, page 3, paragraph 6: “host 108 is via an ethernet connection 110 with the fieldbus network 100 connected”, paragraph 5: “field access device 101 is via a Profibus segment 102 with a field device 103 and a gateway device 104 connected”; and Fig. 1);
wherein the host computer includes a frame application (see e.g. Sotriffer, Fig. 1: “109”; and page 4, paragraph 5: “on the host 108 a frame application 109 installed”) and, bound into the frame application, a plurality of drivers (see e.g. Sotriffer, page 2, paragraph 3: “a frame application, in which a plurality of drivers is integrated”) configured to access the at least one fieldbus component (see e.g. Sotriffer, page 2, paragraph 3: “By means of the drivers, the components of the fieldbus network can be accessed”),
wherein the host computer further includes an operating system (see e.g. Sotriffer, page 4, paragraph 5: “on the host 108 a frame application 109 installed”; and page 5, paragraph 3: “On the server 200 is an FDT frame application 203 installed”),
Since Sotriffer discloses a server computer as a host (see e.g. Sotriffer, page 2, paragraph 8; page 4, paragraph 8; page 5, paragraphs 2-3), Sotriffer inherently discloses an operating system for the server computer (i.e. an operating system of the host).
wherein the frame application (see e.g. Sotriffer, Fig. 2: “203”) includes a monitoring unit (see e.g. Sotriffer, Fig. 2: “207”; and page 5, paragraph 3: “on the server side 200 a communication proxy 207 provided”) that is configured to access a debugging interface of the operating system (see e.g. Sotriffer, from page 3, paragraph 8 to page 4, paragraph 1: “with the standards EDD and DTM, in addition to device parameters, device functionality and address space allocation, graphic features and graphical user interfaces are also specified, which parameterize and configure the respective field device should facilitate”; page 4, paragraph 7: “Based on this information about the individual devices, the FDT frame application can provide the user with the hierarchical structure of the fieldbus network 100 graphically”; and page 8, paragraph 2: “communication proxy would compare the request received from the client with this list, then could recognize that the request is for an already depleted connection and could send the client a corresponding error message. This would have the advantage that the user is informed about the time-out of the connection and gets the opportunity to set up a new connection to the server via the client”) to retrieve parameters (see e.g. Sotriffer, page 10, paragraph 1: “system load”, “memory consumption”, “network load”) of the operating system and via the parameters, for each driver of the plurality of drivers (see e.g. Sotriffer, page 2, paragraph 8: “communication proxy can additionally be used to monitor”; and from page 3, paragraph 8 to page 4, paragraph 1: “with the standards EDD and DTM, in addition to device parameters, device functionality and address space allocation, graphic features and graphical user interfaces are also specified, which parameterize and configure the respective field device should facilitate”), to:
register information concerning resources reserved by the respective driver (see e.g. Sotriffer, page 2, paragraph 7: “a communication proxy installable on the server and configured to: establish at least one data connection between the server and the client, wherein via the at least one data connection data between the device driver and a component of the fieldbus network associated with the device driver are transferable. The communication proxy is designed to monitor data traffic on the at least one data connection between client and server and to detect errors in the data transmission”) and provided by the operating system (see e.g. Sotriffer, page 2, paragraph 8: “a communication proxy is provided on the server side, which is responsible for setting up at least one data connection between server and client”);
monitor the resources reserved by the respective driver as a function of time (see e.g. Sotriffer, page 2, paragraph 7: “monitor data traffic on the at least one data connection between client and server and to detect errors in the data transmission”; page 9, paragraph 1: “If the communication proxy does not receive any feedback from a field device or from the communication drivers over an extended period of time, the cause may be, for example, a network failure”, paragraph 10: “System load on the computer is very high”; and page 10, paragraph 1: “A high system load, for example, may be due to a high memory consumption or due to a high network load and manifests itself in long response times, which can be detected by the communication proxy”), wherein the monitoring includes:
following memory space reserved by the respective driver (see e.g. Sotriffer, page 9, paragraph 10: “System load on the computer is very high”; and page 10, paragraph 1: “A high system load, for example, may be due to a high memory consumption or due to a high network load and manifests itself in long response times, which can be detected by the communication proxy”);
following an extent of network traffic caused by the respective driver (see e.g. Sotriffer, page 8, paragraph 9: “Communication proxy receives no feedback from the field device over a longer period of time”; page 9, paragraph 1: “If the communication proxy does not receive any feedback from a field device or from the communication drivers over an extended period of time, the cause may be, for example, a network failure”);
detect an abnormal temporal increase of the resources reserved by the respective driver (see e.g. Sotriffer, page 2, paragraph 7: “monitor data traffic on the at least one data connection between client and server and to detect errors in the data transmission”; page 8, paragraph 9: “Communication proxy receives no feedback from the field device over a longer period of time”; page 9, paragraph 1: “If the communication proxy does not receive any feedback from a field device or from the communication drivers over an extended period of time, the cause may be, for example, a network failure”; page 9, paragraph 10: “System load on the computer is very high”; and page 10, paragraph 1: “A high system load, for example, may be due to a high memory consumption or due to a high network load and manifests itself in long response times, which can be detected by the communication proxy”), wherein the detecting includes:
determining whether an abnormal temporal increase of the memory space reserved by the respective driver is present (see e.g. Sotriffer, page 9, paragraph 10: “System load on the computer is very high”; and page 10, paragraph 1: “A high system load, for example, may be due to a high memory consumption or due to a high network load and manifests itself in long response times, which can be detected by the communication proxy”);
determining whether an abnormal temporal increase of the extent of network traffic caused by the respective driver is present (see e.g. Sotriffer, page 2, paragraph 7: “monitor data traffic on the at least one data connection between client and server and to detect errors in the data transmission”; page 8, paragraph 9: “Communication proxy receives no feedback from the field device over a longer period of time”; and page 9, paragraph 1: “If the communication proxy does not receive any feedback from a field device or from the communication drivers over an extended period of time, the cause may be, for example, a network failure”); and
initiate at least one predetermined countermeasure upon detecting the abnormal temporal increase of the resources reserved by the respective driver (see e.g. Sotriffer, page 2, paragraph 9: “communication proxy is designed to automatically initiate measures for error correction in the case of detected errors”),
Even though Sotriffer discloses monitoring memory and networking resources reserved by at least one driver and determining abnormal increases associated with these resource reservations, Sotriffer does not explicitly disclose monitoring number of handles and/or number of threads for abnormal usage.
However, Ng teaches:
following a number of handles reserved by the respective driver (see e.g. Ng, paragraph 25: “diagnosis module 210 periodically captures and monitors the usage statistics of critical computer system resources 212, such as… object handles count”);
following a number of threads started by the respective driver (see e.g. Ng, paragraph 25: “diagnosis module 210 periodically captures and monitors the usage statistics of critical computer system resources 212, such as… thread count”); and
determining whether an abnormal temporal increase of the number of handles reserved by the respective driver is present (see e.g. Ng, paragraph 25: “diagnosis module 210 periodically captures and monitors the usage statistics of critical computer system resources 212, such as… object handles count… diagnosis module 210 also performs trend analysis on the usage statistics to predict the possibilities of resource exhaustion”; and paragraph 26: “resource exhaustion is due to genuine data growth… resource exhaustion is due to software defects such as resource leaks”);
determining whether an abnormal temporal increase of the number of threads started by the respective driver is present (see e.g. Ng, paragraph 25: “diagnosis module 210 periodically captures and monitors the usage statistics of critical computer system resources 212, such as… object threads count… diagnosis module 210 also performs trend analysis on the usage statistics to predict the possibilities of resource exhaustion”; and paragraph 26: “resource exhaustion is due to genuine data growth… resource exhaustion is due to software defects such as resource leaks”); and
Sotriffer and Ng are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: monitoring resource utilization to determine abnormal increases in the resource utilization and apply countermeasures accordingly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sotriffer with the teachings of Ng. The motivation/suggestion would be to increase the resource monitoring capabilities by analyzing additional resources associated with the drivers; thus improving the overall robustness and efficiency of the system (see e.g. Ng, paragraphs 3-4).
Furthermore, even though Sotriffer discloses various countermeasures for error correction (e.g. providing error messages, restarting software components, etc.) (see e.g. Sotriffer, page 7, paragraph 6; page 9, paragraph 1), Sotriffer does not explicitly disclose at least one of the countermeasures listed in the claim.
However, Tabuchi teaches:
wherein the at least one predetermined countermeasure includes (see e.g. Tabuchi, paragraph 4: “failure recovery method in the related technology is described below”) at least one of the following:
reinstalling the respective driver responsible for the abnormal temporal increase of reserved resources (see e.g. Tabuchi, paragraph 10: “as a driver re-installation process in the OS, upon receipt of the report that the PCI bus has restored successfully, the OS re-installs the control driver of the PCI bus and the device is started to use again”; and paragraph 34: “re-installation of the control driver of the PCI bus”);
remotely accessing a support instance in the host computer for removing problems caused by reservation of resources by the respective driver;
writing information concerning the abnormal temporal increase of resources reserved by the respective driver into a cloud, wherein in the cloud information concerning problems with drivers from a plurality of fieldbus systems are collected and evaluated;
determining whether an installed version of the respective driver responsible for the abnormal temporal increase of reserved resources is outdated, and, when the installed version of the respective driver is outdated, leading the user through an installation of a current version of the driver;
determining whether the installed version of the respective driver responsible for the abnormal temporal increase of reserved resources is outdated, and, when the installed version of the at least one driver is outdated, automatically initiating an installation of the current version of the respective driver;
rebooting the host computer; and
initiating a memory dump of at least a part of memory of the host computer.
Sotriffer and Tabuchi are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: error/failure recovery associated with drivers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sotriffer with the teachings of Tabuchi. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve the error recovery process (see e.g. Tabuchi, paragraphs 3-4).
With respect to claim 19, Sotriffer as modified teaches: The system as claimed in claim 30, wherein the monitoring unit is designed to retrieve the parameters according to a predetermined time schema (see e.g. Sotriffer, page 9, paragraph 1: “If the communication proxy does not receive any feedback from a field device or from the communication drivers over an extended period of time”; and page 10, paragraph 1: “A high system load, for example, may be due to a high memory consumption or due to a high network load and manifests itself in long response times, which can be detected by the communication proxy”).
With respect to claim 20, Sotriffer as modified teaches: The system as claimed in claim 30, wherein the detecting of the abnormal temporal increase of the resources reserved by the respective driver includes comparing the temporal increase of resources reserved by the respective driver with a predetermined threshold value (see e.g. Sotriffer, page 8, paragraph 9: “Communication proxy receives no feedback from the field device over a longer period of time”; page 9, paragraph 1: “If the communication proxy does not receive any feedback from a field device or from the communication drivers over an extended period of time”; page 9, paragraph 10: “System load on the computer is very high”; and page 10, paragraph 1: “A high system load, for example, may be due to a high memory consumption or due to a high network load and manifests itself in long response times, which can be detected by the communication proxy”).
Note that, detecting “longer period of time” and “high memory consumption” as disclosed by Sotriffer inherently teach a time threshold to ascertain a “long” period of time and a memory consumption threshold to ascertain “high” memory consumption.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hia et al. (US 2017/0083470 A1) discloses rebooting a host system as part of an error recovery process associated with a driver (see paragraphs 17-18).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Umut Onat whose telephone number is (571)270-1735. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00-7:30.
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, Kevin L Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180. 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.
/UMUT ONAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194