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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/23/2026 has been entered.
Claims 3-7, 9, and 11-19 are pending.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: single physical module in claims 13 and 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 12-14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bays (US Pub. No. 2016/0173371) in view of Yang et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0150061) in view of Huang et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0245135).
Regarding claims 13, Bays discloses a multifunctional network switch (see figures 1, 5 and 6; paragraphs 97 and 102) for use in a process-controlling automation system comprising:
a single physical module (“module” or physical “module” is not a known-term in the art such as processor, transceiver, antenna, memory, router, etc.; thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation, a module is a general-purpose computer performing functions. See figure 6 and paragraph 102, 103: computer 600 may be used to execute one or more subsystems such as controller 102, one or more control plane subsystems 104, and one or more software data plan subsystems 108) comprising:
an internal bus (see figure 6 bus 605 is connected to processors and communication subsystem 630; paragraph 59 in view of paragraph 55; paragraph 104);
a plurality of ports (figure 6 input & output 620; paragraph 17) electrically interconnected to one another by the internal bus (see figure 6 vertical line/bus 605 is connected to input/outputs 620; paragraph 59 in view of paragraph 55);
a communication interface connected to the internal bus, the communication interface for connecting the multifunctional network switch to a data transfer system (paragraph 108: communication subsystem 630 allow data transferred/exchanged between computer system 600 and other devices/network; thus, it is connecting to a data transfer system connected to other devices), to allow the multifunctional network switch to communicate with other computer systems and other devices (figure 6 communication subsystem 630; paragraph 108);
a control unit connected to the internal bus (figure 1 controller 102; figure 6 processor 610 connected to bus 605);
a storage device accessible by the control unit (figure 6 elements 642 and 640; paragraphs 81 and 109, 110) storing:
a first program (figure 6 applications 648) for enabling the multifunctional network switch to perform a network switch functionality when the first program is executed by the control unit (paragraphs 108, 109 and 110: programs provided by various embodiments and designed to implement methods and configure systems including data plane functionality);
a second program (figure 6 applications 648) for enabling the multifunctional network switch to perform a control device functionality (paragraphs 108, 109 and 110: programs provided by various embodiments and designed to implement methods and configure systems including control plane functionality);
wherein the control unit is configured to assign one or more ports to a respective functionality to be executed depending on the respective one of the first and the second program to be executed (paragraphs 102 and 108: computer system 600 is used to execute one or more control plane subsystem and software data plane subsystem. Thus, one or more ports are used/assigned to execute control and/or data plane subsystem based on the executed program).
Bays does not teach connecting to a bus system, to allow the multifunctional network switch to communicate with actuators and/or sensors of the process-controlling automation system.
Bays further teaches control plane is programmable in paragraph 41. Network processors are software programmable devices (paragraph 54). Programmable electronic circuits to perform operations in paragraph 116.
In the same field of control/controller, Yang discloses connecting the multifunctional network switch to a bus system (see figure 11/0 modules 104 (communication interface) connecting Controllers 106 to bus system to sensors 102a and actuators 102b; figure 2 and paragraph 24: network/Ethernet interface connecting to controller), to allow the multifunctional network switch to communicate with field devices that comprise actuators and/or sensors of the process- controlling automation system (paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 29, 32: controllers may use measurements from sensors 102 to control the operations of actuators 102b. Paragraph 29 and figure 2 disclose a programable logic controller (PLC) system which control various components including switches or routers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Bays connecting to a bus system, to allow the multifunctional network switch to communicate with actuators and/or sensors of the process-controlling automation system.
The motivation would have been to execute process control and automation system's functionalities.
Bays and Yang do not teach the internal bus is high speed.
In the same field of endeavor, Huang discloses an internal high-speed bus of a computer (paragraphs 21 and 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Bays and Yang a high-speed bus.
The motivation would have been for fast communication between circuit components.
Regarding claims 12 and 18, all limitations of claims 13 and 14 are disclosed above. Bays further teaches the storage device further stores a fourth program for enabling the multi-functional network switch to perform a router functionality (paragraphs 57, 102-110: L3 forwarding of data plane subsystem).
Regarding claims 14, Bays discloses a process-controlling automation system comprising:
a multifunctional network switch electrically connected to a connecting system (See figure 6 and paragraph 102, 103, 108: computer 600 may be used to execute one or more subsystems such as controller 102, one or more control plane subsystems 104, and one or more software data plan subsystems 108; computer 600 is connected to a connecting system to communicate with other devices via subsystem 630) and
at least one input and/or output module electrically connected to the connecting system (paragraph 108: computer subsystem 630 is connected to the connecting system to allow communication with other devices/network);
wherein the multifunctional network switch comprises a single physical module (“module” or physical “module” is not a known-term in the art such as processor, transceiver, antenna, memory, router, etc.; thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation, a module is a general-purpose computer performing functions. See figure 6 and paragraph 102, 103: computer 600 may be used to execute one or more subsystems such as controller 102, one or more control plane subsystems 104, and one or more software data plan subsystems 108) comprising:
an internal bus (figure 1 controller 102; figure 6 processor 610 connected to bus 605);
a plurality of ports electrically interconnected to one another by the internal high- speed bus (figure 6 input & output 620; paragraph 17; see figure 6 vertical line/bus 605 is connected to input/outputs 620; paragraph 59 in view of paragraph 55);
a communication interface connected to the internal bus (paragraph 108: communication subsystem 630 allow data transferred/exchanged between computer system 600 and other devices; thus, it is connecting to a bus system connected to other devices), the communication interface for connecting the multifunctional network switch to the connecting system, to allow the multifunctional network switch to communicate with the field devices (figure 6 communication subsystem 630; paragraph 108);
a control unit connected to the internal bus (figure 1 controller 102; figure 6 processor 610 connected to bus 605);
a storage device accessible by the control unit (figure 6 elements 642 and 640; paragraphs 81 and 109, 110), the storage device storing:
a first program for enabling the multifunctional network switch to perform a network switch functionality when the first program is executed by the control unit (paragraphs 108, 109 and 110: programs provided by various embodiments and designed to implement methods and configure systems including data plane functionality); and
a second program for enabling the multifunctional network switch to perform a control device functionality of controlling field devices (paragraphs 108, 109 and 110: programs provided by various embodiments and designed to implement methods and configure systems including control plane functionality); and
wherein the control unit is configured to assign one or more of the ports to a respective functionality to be executed depending on the respective one of the first and second programs to be executed (paragraphs 102 and 108: computer system 600 is used to execute one or more control plane subsystem and software data plane subsystem. Thus, one or more ports are used/assigned to execute control and/or data plane subsystem based on the executed program).
Bays does not teach connecting to a bus system, to allow the multifunctional network switch to communicate with actuators and/or sensors of the process-controlling automation system.
Bays further teaches control plane is programmable in paragraph 41. Network processors are software programmable devices (paragraph 54). Programmable electronic circuits to perform operations in paragraph 116.
In the same field of control/controller, Yang discloses connecting the multifunctional network switch to a bus system (see figure 11/0 modules 104 (communication interface) connecting Controllers 106 to bus system to sensors 102a and actuators 102b; figure 2 and paragraph 24: network/Ethernet interface connecting to controller), to allow the multifunctional network switch to communicate with field devices that comprise actuators and/or sensors of the process- controlling automation system (paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 29, 32: controllers may use measurements from sensors 102 to control the operations of actuators 102b. Paragraph 29 and figure 2 disclose a programable logic controller (PLC) system which control various components including switches or routers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Bays connecting to a bus system, to allow the multifunctional network switch to communicate with actuators and/or sensors of the process-controlling automation system.
The motivation would have been to execute process control and automation system's functionalities.
Bays and Yang do not teach the internal bus is high speed.
In the same field of endeavor, Huang discloses an internal high-speed bus of a computer (paragraphs 21 and 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Bays and Yang a high-speed bus.
The motivation would have been for fast communication between circuit components.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bays (US Pub. No. 2016/0173371) in view of Yang et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0150061) in view of Huang et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0245135) in view of Bains et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0235780).
Regarding claim 3, all limitations of claim 13 are disclosed above. Bays, Yang and Huang do not teach but Bains teaches the communication interface comprises an SPE-based interface to which an external power supply device can be connected for power supply of the multifunctional network switch based on PoDL technology (paragraphs 17 and 21: Single pair Ethernet (SPE) to supply power over Power over Data Line (PoDL).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Bays, Yang and Huang the communication interface comprises an SPE-based interface to which an external power supply device can be connected for power supply of the multifunctional network switch based on PoDL technology.
The motivation would have been for cost effective power and data connectivity (paragraph 17).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bays (US Pub. No. 2016/0173371) in view of Yang et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0150061) in view of Huang et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0245135) in view of Schneider et al. (US Pub. No. 2012/0026648).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, all limitations of claims 13 and 14 are disclosed above. Huang further teaches base board 230 is interconnected by a PCB which is a backplane (paragraph 21). Bays, Yang and Huang do not teach but Schneider discloses a switch, which is in the form of the module is adapted for being mounted on a mounting rail (see figure 1, claim 10: switch cabinet is installed on a mounting rail).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Bays, Yang and Huang a switch, which is in the form of a module adapted for being mounted on a mounting rail.
The motivation would have been for small form factor mounting on an equipment rack.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, all limitations of claims 4 and 15 are disclosed above. Yang already teaches actuators and/or sensors of the process-controlling automation system (see claim 13). Bays further teaches the multifunctional network switch can be electrically connected to at least one input and/or output module via a bus system for communication with actuators and/or sensors of the process-controlling automation system (figure 6 subsystem 630; paragraph 94, 102, 108; see figure 5; switch connects to hardware data plane subsystem for communication with field device(s)).
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bays (US Pub. No. 2016/0173371) in view of Yang et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0150061) in view of Huang et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0245135) in view of Izumi (Us Pub. No. 2015/0333637).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, all limitations of claims 13 and 14 are disclosed above. Bays further teaches wherein the storage device is adapted to store a non-safety-related control device functionality (see at least paragraph 81: regular functionality and not associated with safety). Bays further teaches multiple applications/software/programs stored in storage device (paragraph 110). Bays, Yang and Huang do not teach but Izumi discloses a third program for enabling a safety-related control device functionality (paragraph 91: AC voltage shutoff due to excess power).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Bays, Yang and Huang a third program for enabling a safety-related control device functionality.
The motivation would have been for equipment protection.
Claim(s) 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bays (US Pub. No. 2016/0173371) in view of Yang et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0150061) in view of Huang et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0245135) in view of Szczepanek et al. (Us Pat. No. 6,690,668).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, all limitations of claims 13 and 14 are disclosed above. Bays discloses controlling data plane subsystem (paragraphs 102-110). Bays, Yang and Huang do not teach but Szczepanek teaches the multifunctional network switch is in the form of a high-speed network switch, in particular comprising a Gigabit Ethernet switch; wherein at least some of the plurality of ports are high-speed ports, each one adapted to transmit and transfer receive data at a transfer rate of at least 100 Mbit/s; and wherein the first program enables the multifunctional network switch to switch data between the high-speed ports at a data transfer rate of at least 100 Mbit/s (see figures 9; col. 19 lines 18-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention implement in Bays, Yang and Huang the multifunctional network switch is in the form of a high-speed network switch, in particular comprising a Gigabit Ethernet switch; wherein at least some of the plurality of ports are high-speed ports, each one adapted to transmit and transfer receive data at a transfer rate of at least 100 Mbit/s; and wherein the first program enables the multifunctional network switch to switch data between the high-speed ports at a data transfer rate of at least 100 Mbit/s.
The motivation would have been for high-speed switching of data plane subsystem.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bays (US Pub. No. 2016/0173371) in view of Yang et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0150061) in view of Huang et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0245135) in view of Bains et al. (Us Pub. No. 2020/0235780) in view of Schneider et al. (US Pub. No. 2012/0026648).
Regarding claim 9, all limitations of claim 14 are disclosed above. Bays, Yang and Huang do not teach but Bains teaches an SPE-based bus system (paragraphs 17 and 21: Single pair Ethernet (SPE) to supply power over Power over Data Line (PoDL).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Bays and Yang an SPE-based bus system.
The motivation would have been for cost effective power and data connectivity.
Bays, Yang and Huang and Bains do not teach but Schneider discloses a switch is in the form of a module adapted for being mounted on a mounting rail (see figure 1, claim 10: switch cabinet is installed on a mounting rail).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Bays, Yang and Huang, and Bains a switch is in the form of a module adapted for being mounted on a mounting rail.
The motivation would have been for small form factor mounting on an equipment rack.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bays (US Pub. No. 2016/0173371) in view of Yang et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0150061) in view of Huang et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0245135) in view of Bains et al. (Us Pub. No. 2020/0235780) in view of Moffitt et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0238349).
Regarding claim 11, all limitations of claim 14 are disclosed above. Bays, Yang and Huang do not teach but Bains teaches an external power supply device having a Single Pair Ethernet-based interface connected to the communication interface comprising SPE-based interface wherein the external power supply device supplies power to in particular the multifunctional network switch using a PoDL (paragraphs 17 and 21: Single pair Ethernet (SPE) to supply power over Power over Data Line (PoDL).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Bays, Yang and Huang an external power supply device having a Single Pair Ethernet-based interface connected to the communication interface comprising SPE-based interface wherein the external power supply device supplies power to in particular the multifunctional network switch using a PoDL.
The motivation would have been for cost effective power and data connectivity.
Bays, Yang, and Bains do not teach but Moffitt discloses an external power supply device which has an SPE-based interface, and which can be connected to an SPE-based interface (see figure 5; paragraph 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Bays, Yang, and Bains an external power supply device which has an SPE-based interface, and which can be connected to an SPE-based interface.
The motivation would have been to have flexibility in power supplying to the switch.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In page 9 of Remark, regarding independent claims, the Applicant argues that Bays does not describe, teach, or suggest a multifunctional network switch for a process-controlling automation system that comprises a single physical module comprising an internal high-speed bus, a plurality of ports, a communication interface, a control unit, and a storage device, as previously recited in cancelled claims 1 and 10 and recited again in claims 13 and 14. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Based on the claim language, under broadest reasonable interpretation (in light of the specification but not import limitations from the spec), independent claims 13 and 14 basically/mostly claim a basic structure of a general-purpose computer/controller (internal high-speed bus, a plurality of ports, a communication interface, a control unit, and a storage device) with two software programs/applications. One application to run the computer’s (generic) functionality, and one application to control field devices (actuators and/or sensors). Bays discloses a single physical module (considered as a general-purpose computer for switching, under broadest reasonable interpretation) in figure 6 and paragraphs 102-110 with associated internal components (internal bus, a plurality of ports, a communication interface, a control unit, and a storage device).
In page 9 of Remark, regarding independent claims, the Applicant argues that “Bays' controller 102 is a component of Bays' distributed multi-device router 100, Bay's processors 610 are components of a computer system 600 that is separate and distinct from Bays' distributed multi-device router 100. Therefore, Bays' controller 102 and controllers 610 fail to read on the control unit recited in claims 13 and 14, which is a component of a single physical module, and Bays' controller 610 is not a component of Bays' router 100.”
Examiner notes that the Applicant seems to import limitations from the specification, i.e., arguing that the “multifunctional switch” in claims 13 and 14 is different than Bays’ distributed router. The Examiner further notes that the rejection is based on the claim language and not based on unclaimed features of the spec. As long as the reference’s (Bays) teaching read on the claim limitation, the rejection is proper.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In page 10 of Remark, the Applicant argues that Bays’ bus 605 is separate and distinct from Bay’s distributed multi-device router 100. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Again, the Examiner do not compare/examine the Applicant’s router and Bays’ router but rather whether Bays’ teaching would read on the claim language. Bays’ bus 605 is part of the router system (paragraphs 102-110), thus bus 605 is not separate or distinct from router 100.
The same answer above applies mutatis mutandis to the storage device argument on page 10 and communication subsystem 630 in page 11.
In page 10 of Remark, the Applicant argues that Bays' storage device 625 does not store a program for executing control device functionality, as previously recited in cancelled claims 1 and 10. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Bays’ paragraph 102 recites “one or more computer systems like computer system 600 may be used to execute one or more subsystems of a distributed router such as controller 102, one or more control plane subsystems 104”, and paragraph 109 recites “storage subsystem 640 may be configured to store the basic programming and data constructs that provide the functionality of embodiments of the present invention. According to an embodiment of the present invention, software code instructions or modules implementing the functionality of the present invention may be stored in storage subsystem 640.” Thus, Bays is determined to teach the claim limitation.
In page 10 of Remark, the Applicant argues that “Bays' storage device 625 does not store a program for enabling the multifunctional network switch to perform a control device functionality of controlling actuators and/or sensors of the process-controlling automation system, as now recited in claim 13 and similarly recited in claim 14.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In page 11 of Remark, the Applicant argues that Yang and Bays are not in the same field of endeavor. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Both Yang and Bays are in the same field of a device controlling another device. Thus, Yang and Bays are in the same field of endeavor.
In page 11 of Remark, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Bays teaches a controller to be used to execute one or more control plane subsystem (paragraph 102). Bays further teaches control plane is programmable in paragraph 41. Network processors are software programmable devices (paragraph 54). Programmable electronic circuits to perform operations in paragraph 116. Bays does not teach connecting to a bus system, to allow the multifunctional network switch to communicate with actuators and/or sensors of the process-controlling automation system.
In the same field of control/controller, Yang discloses connecting the multifunctional network switch to a bus system (see figure 11/0 modules 104 (communication interface) connecting Controllers 106 to bus system to sensors 102a and actuators 102b; figure 2 and paragraph 24: network/Ethernet interface connecting to controller), to allow the multifunctional network switch to communicate with field devices that comprise actuators and/or sensors of the process- controlling automation system (paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 29, 32: controllers may use measurements from sensors 102 to control the operations of actuators 102b. Paragraph 29 and figure 2 disclose a programable logic controller (PLC) system which control various components including switches or routers). Thus, it would have been obvious to combine Yang and Bays’ teaching to execute process control and automation system's functionalities.
In page 11 of Remark, the Applicant argues that Yang does not describe, teach, or suggest a bus for connecting Yang's I/O module 104 to sensors 102a and actuators 102b, as alleged by the Office. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Yang’s figure 1 show a line (bus system: shared wired allows communication between devices) between I/O module 104 and sensor 102a. Thus, Yang is determined to teach the claim limitation.
In page 12 of Remark, the Applicant argues that Huang fails to teach a single physical module. Since Bays teaches a single physical module limitation, the argument is moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TITO Q PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-6PM EST.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/TITO Q PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights