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 communication is in response to amendment filed on 2/18/2026. Claims 1 and 3-12 are pending.
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) 1, 5, 8, 10, and 12 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 claim 1, 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 control unit (figure 1 controller 102; figure 6 processor 610);
a plurality of ports (figure 6 input & output 620; paragraph 17) electrically interconnected via an internal high-speed buss (see figure 6 vertical line/bus 605 is connected to input/outputs 620; paragraph 59 in view of paragraph 55: hardware data plane subsystem 110 provides functionalities similar to those provided by the software data plane subsystem which is high speed functionality); and
a storage device (figure 6 element 625 and 640; paragraphs 81 and 109, 110) adapted to store a first program (figure 1 software data plane, paragraph 81) for executing a network switch functionality (paragraph 57: software data plane subsystem provides functionalities such as L2 switching) and furthermore a second program for executing a control device functionality (see figure 1, control plane subsystem; paragraphs 46 and 47);
a communication interface for connecting the multifunctional network switch to a system to allow the multifunctional network switch to communicate with devices (see figure 6 communication subsystem 630; paragraph 108: wired network card for data to be exchanged with a network, other computer systems, and other devices);
wherein the control unit is adapted to execute a network switch functionality by running the first program and furthermore a control device functionality by running the second program (see figure 1; paragraphs 44, 45, 46, 47, 81);
wherein the control unit and the communication interface are connected to the internal high-speed bus (see figure 6 bus 605 is connected to processors and communication subsystem 630; paragraph 104); and
wherein the control unit is configured to assign at least some of the ports to a respective functionality to be executed depending on the respective program to be run (paragraphs 7 and 10-12: controller assigns output ports for forwarding functionality with software data plane subsystem).
Bays does not teach a communication interface for connecting the multifunctional network switch to a bus system, to allow the multifunctional network switch to communicate with field devices that comprise actuators and/or sensors of the process-controlling automation system, and the control device functionality assumes the tasks of a programmable logic controller of the process-controlling automation system, controlling the field devices.
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 a communication interface for connecting the multifunctional network switch to a bus system (see figure 1 I/O 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), and the control device functionality assumes the tasks of a programmable logic controller of the process- controlling automation system (paragraphs 5, 29, 32 and figure 2 disclose a programable logic controller (PLC) system which control various components including switches or routers in an automation system), controlling the field devices (paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 29, 32: controllers may use measurements from sensors 102 to control the operations of actuators 102b).
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 a communication interface for connecting the multifunctional network switch to a bus system, to allow the multifunctional network switch to communicate with field devices that comprise actuators and/or sensors of the process-controlling automation system, and the control device functionality assumes the tasks of a programmable logic controller of the process- controlling automation system, controlling field devices.
The motivation would have been to execute process control and automation system’s functionalities.
Bays and Yang do not teach the network switch comprising a single physical module.
In the same field of endeavor, Huang disclose network switch(es) comprise a single physical module (see figure 2 network switch 210/220 is on base board 230; paragraphs 21 and 22: network switch fabric 200 is on a base board 230).
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 the network switch comprising a single physical module.
The motivation would have been to facilitate flexibility of network related interconnection and system scalability (abstract and paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 5, all limitations of claim 1 are disclosed above. 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 field devices (paragraph 94; see figure 5; switch connects to hardware data plane subsystem for communication with field device(s)).
Regarding claim 8, all limitations of claim 1 are disclosed above. Bays further teaches a process-controlling automation system comprising: a bus system (see figures 1, 5, an 6; bus system connecting hardware); a multifunctional network switch according to claim 1, which can be electrically connected to the bus system and at least one input and/or output module that can be electrically connected to the bus system (see figures 1, 5, and 6: paragraphs 11, 12, 104, 107).
Regarding claim 10, all limitations of claim 1 are disclosed above. Bays further teaches the multifunctional network switch is configured to control the automation system under execution of the second program by the control unit (see figures 1, 5, and 6: paragraphs 44-47 and 57).
Regarding claim 12, all limitations of claim 1 are disclosed above. Bays further teaches a third program for executing a router functionality is stored in the storage device, and the control unit is adapted to execute a router functionality by running the third program (paragraph 57: L3 forwarding).
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 1 are disclosed above. Bays, Yang and Huang do not teach but Bains teaches 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 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 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 claim 4, all limitations of claim 1 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.
Claim(s) 6 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 claim 6, all limitations of claim 1 are disclosed above. Bays further teaches wherein the storage device is adapted to store a non-safety-related control device functionality as the second program (see at least paragraph 81). Bays, Yang and Huang do not teach but Izumi discloses a safety-related control device functionality as a fourth program; wherein the control unit is configured to execute a safety-related control device functionality by running the fourth program (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 safety-related control device functionality as a fourth program; wherein the control unit is configured to execute a safety-related control device functionality by running the fourth program.
The motivation would have been for equipment protection.
Claim(s) 7 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 claim 7, all limitations of claim 1 are disclosed above. 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 control unit BH is configured to execute a network switch functionality by running the first program and 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 to substitute a Gigabit Ethernet switch for a switch in Bays, Yang and Huang with predictable result of network communication.
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 8 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 8 are disclosed above. Bays, Yang and Huang do not teach but Bains teaches an SPE-based bus system wherein the external power supply device is adapted to supply 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 SPE-based bus system.
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 of the multifunctional network switch (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 of the multifunctional network switch.
The motivation would have been to have flexibility in power supplying to the switch.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In pages 7-8 of Remark, regarding independent claims, the Applicant argues that “the system 200 shown in FIG. 2 of Yang includes various components, in particular CPMs 212 and EPMs 214 configured as PLCs, which correspond to Yang's controller 106 of FIG. 1, as well as switches or routers 210 (Yang, paragraphs [0029], [0032]). The CPMs 212 and the EPMs 214 can interact with sensors and actuators via I/O modules 216 (Yang, paragraph [0032]). For this purpose, the EPMs 214 in the system 200 shown in FIG. 2 of Yang, are connected to the I/O modules 216 via a local bus. The switches or routers 210 shown in FIG. 2 of Yang, however, serve only to control the data traffic between plurality of CPMs 212 and a plurality of EPMs 214 (Yang, FIG. 2, paragraph [0033]).” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The test for obviousness does not require the secondary reference to perform every single features/functionality as the main reference. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, Bays reference teaches a multifunctional network switch with a communication interface for connecting the multifunctional network switch to a wired system to allow the multifunctional network switch to communicate with a network or other devices (figure 6, communication subsystem 630 and paragraph 108). Bays does not teach a communication interface for connecting the multifunctional network switch to a bus system, to allow the multifunctional network switch to communicate and control field devices that comprise actuators and/or sensors. However, Yang discloses a multifunctional system (paragraphs 2 and 3) with communication interface connecting to a bus system, to allow the multifunctional network system to communicate with and control field devices that comprise actuators and/or sensors (see figure 1 I/O 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). Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine Yang’s teaching with Bays to teach the claimed limitations.
The Applicant seems to fixate on the term “switch” when the reason for obviousness is based on Yang’s teaching of a system performing the same functionality as the claimed limitations.
In pages 7-8 of Remark, the Applicant argues that “in order to further distinguish over Bays in view of Yang, claim 1 now recites that "the control device functionality assumes the tasks of a programmable logic controller of the process-controlling automation system, controlling the field devices." This feature clearly further differentiates claim 1 from Bays in view of Yang, since the control functionality described by Bays is directed to a network related control, and is not directed to a control of field devices such as sensors or actuators.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Bays teaches a multi-functional system/switch controls various network related function. Sensors/actuators control is known in the art as part of network control.
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 8 of Remark, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-12 regarding newly added limitation “a single physical module” 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
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 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