DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 14-15 and 25-26 have been amended. Claims 2 and 20-21 have been previously cancelled. Claims 1, 3-19 and 22-26 are pending in the application.
Claims 1, 14, 15, 25 and 26 are independent.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This action is final.
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 and Arguments
The 112(f) interpretations evoked for claims 14-16 and 25-26 have been maintained.
Applicant's arguments regarding rejections directed to amended claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but in moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant amended independent claims to further specify:
wherein said determining, said analyzing, said selecting and said performing can be executed by said control device and said cloud system such that execution of said determining, said analyzing, said selecting and said performing can be divided between said control device and said cloud system as a function of a utilization of the cloud system and control device and switching between the control device and the cloud system is done automatically.
New reference HE CN 110413365 A is introduced in view of new ground of rejection. The teachings of Verma, Gupta, Riedl, MITA, Do, CAI and Brandt as disclosed in the previous office action are hereby incorporated by references to the extent applicable to the amended claims.
Another iteration of claim analysis has been made. Referring to the corresponding sections of the claim analysis below for details.
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma US 20170031327 A1 in view of Gupta US 20200311118 A11 and HE CN 110413365 A.
Regarding claim 14, Verma teaches a control device, set up for optimizing data transmission in an automation system between the control device and at least one cloud system (Figs. 1&2 [0036] [0038] [0039] data collector unit 10 of a system i.e. “control device” for control of industrial process 1, remote processing unit 9 i.e. “cloud system”), the control device comprising:
a data transmission device (Figs. 1&2 [0038] [0039] [0042] cloud communication module 27); and
a component device that includes at least one of:
a determination component set up for determining a data transmission characteristic of at least one transmission path that is available for data transmission (Fig. 2 [0042] communication bandwidth analyzer 28 monitors the available bandwidth);
an analysis component set up for analyzing whether the data to be transmitted can be transmitted, based on the data transmission characteristic determined (Fig. 2 [0040] [0042] the priority dispatcher 25 dynamically monitoring available bandwidth and the priority memory, transferring data out of the memory P3 is suspended i.e. “analyzing whether the data to be transmitted can be transmitted, based on the data transmission characteristic determined”, in order to transfer data out of the memory P1);
a selection component set up for selecting at least one action from a set of actions in order to adapt the data to be transmitted and/or the transmission path if the data to be transmitted cannot be transmitted, so as to allow the data transmission, the set of actions comprising a plurality of selectable actions (Fig. 2 [0042] there are several available actions to adapt the data to be transmitted: selecting data as high priority data i.e. “action of prioritization procedure”, deletes priority memories or not to store selected data and sort said data out i.e. “action of data reduction procedure”; the priority dispatcher 25 selects an item of data as high priority data, suspends data transmission from memory P3, and transmits the high priority data from memory P1, i.e. the priority dispatcher selected “action of prioritization procedure from a plurality of selectable actions”); and
an action component set up for performing the at least one selected action (Fig. 2 [0042] the priority dispatcher 25 selects an item of data as high priority data, suspends data transmission from memory P3, and transmits the high priority data from memory P1, i.e. “performing the at least one selected action” which is action of prioritization procedure),
wherein the data transmission device is configured to transmit data between the control device and the cloud system after the performing of the at least one selected action (Fig. 2 [0042] transmitting the high priority data).
Verma does not explicitly further teaches said determining, said analyzing, said selecting and said performing can be executed by said control device and said cloud system such that execution of said determining, said analyzing, said selecting and said performing can be divided between said control device and said cloud system as a function of a utilization of the cloud system and control device and switching between the control device and the cloud system is done automatically.
Gupta explicitly teaches in an analogous art that said determining, said analyzing, said selecting and said performing can be executed by said control device and said cloud system such that execution of said determining, said analyzing, said selecting and said performing can be divided between said control device and said cloud system (Fig. 5 [0049] each step of determining, selecting, analyzing etc. can be executed by control circuitry 304 i.e. local “said control device” or remote serve i.e. “said cloud system”);
HE explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the dividing is as a function of a utilization of the cloud system and control device and switching between the control device and the cloud system is done automatically (Fig. 3, page 10 paragraph 4 from the bottom to page 11 paragraph 7, the target system to execute the software application is selected between local system and cloud system based on the remaining available resources of both systems by scheduling process done by microprocessor i.e. “switching between the control device and the cloud system is done automatically”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Verma to incorporate the teachings of Gupta and HE, because they all directed to cloud processing, to make the device wherein said determining, said analyzing, said selecting and said performing can be executed by said control device and said cloud system such that execution of said determining, said analyzing, said selecting and said performing can be divided between said control device and said cloud system as a function of a utilization of the cloud system and control device and switching between the control device and the cloud system is done automatically. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to select the best system to perform the software application, as HE teaches in page 11 paragraph 3.
Regarding claim 15, it is directed to a system of carrying out the device with similar limitations as set forth in claim 14. Since Verma, Gupta and HE teach the claimed device, they teach the system for implementing the device.
Additionally, Verma teaches a cloud system set up for optimizing data transmission in an automation system between a control device and the cloud system (Figs. 1&2 [0036] [0038] [0039] the system 100).
Regarding claim 16, it is directed to a system of carrying out the device with similar limitations as set forth in claim 14. Since Verma, Gupta and HE teach the claimed device, they teach the system for implementing the device.
Verma further teaches:
determining a data transmission characteristic of at least one transmission path that is available for data transmission by a first and/or a second determination component, the first determination component being part of the control device and the second determination component being part of the cloud system (Figs. 1&2 [0036] [0038] [0039] data collector unit 10 of a system i.e. “first determination component” for control of industrial process 1, remote processing unit 9 i.e. “second determination component”);
analyzing whether the data to be transmitted is adapted to be transmitted, based on the data transmission characteristic determined, the analyzing being accomplished via a first and/or a second analysis component, the first analysis component being part of the control device and the second analysis component being part of the cloud system (Figs. 1&2 [0036] [0038] [0039] data collector unit 10 of a system i.e. “first analysis component” for control of industrial process 1, remote processing unit 9 i.e. “second analysis component”; Figs. 1&2 [0036] [0038] [0039] data collector unit 10 of a system i.e. “first analysis component” for control of industrial process 1, remote processing unit 9 i.e. “second analysis component”;
selecting at least one action from a set of actions in order to adapt the data to be transmitted and/or the transmission path if the data to be transmitted cannot be transmitted, so as to allow the data transmission, the selecting being accomplished via a first and/or a second selection component, the first selection component being part of the control device and the second selection component being part of the cloud system (Figs. 1&2 [0036] [0038] [0039] data collector unit 10 of a system i.e. “first selection component” for control of industrial process 1, remote processing unit 9 i.e. “second selection component”; Figs. 1&2 [0038] [0042] there are several actions available to adapt the data to be transmitted: selecting data as high priority data i.e. prioritization procedure, deletes priority memories or not to store selected data and sort said data out i.e. data reduction procedure; the priority dispatcher 25 i.e. “a first selection component” selects an item of data as high priority data, suspends data transmission from memory P3, and transmits the high priority data from memory P1, i.e. the priority dispatcher selected action of prioritization procedure from “a plurality of selectable actions”); and
performing the at least one selected action via a first and/or a second action component, the first action component being part of the control device and the second action component being part of the cloud system (Fig. 2 [0042] the priority dispatcher 25 selects an item of data as high priority data, suspends data transmission from memory P3, and transmits the high priority data from memory P1, i.e. “performing the at least one selected action” which is action of prioritization procedure).
Claim 1 recites similar limitations to that of claim 16 therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 3, Verma further teaches the determining of the data transmission characteristic of at least one transmission path includes at least one of:
determining a bandwidth of the at least one transmission path (Fig. 2 [0040] [0042] the priority dispatcher 25 dynamically monitoring available bandwidth),
determining the number of available transmission paths,
determining a status of a data buffer,
determining a length of transmission, and/or
determining a latency.
Regarding claim 4, Verma further teaches the determining of the data transmission characteristic of at least one transmission path includes the determining of the data transmission characteristic in the uplink and/or downlink (Fig. 2 [0040] [0042] the priority dispatcher 25 dynamically monitoring available bandwidth).
Regarding claim 5, Verma further teaches the determining of the data transmission characteristic includes a completed speed test and/or a continuous monitoring of the data transmission characteristic (Fig. 2 [0019] – [0020] [0030] [0040] [0042] the priority dispatcher 25 dynamically monitoring and updating available bandwidth/transmission speed, the priority assignment of local data can be undertaken based on the updated available transmission speed dynamically).
Regarding claim 6, Verma further teaches the continuous monitoring includes the continuous monitoring of a data buffer on the sending side and/or on the receiving side and/or the continuous monitoring of a length of transmission (Fig. 2 [0040] – [0042] the priority memories are monitored, the data in higher priority memories are transmitted first).
Regarding claim 7, Verma further teaches the analyzing of whether the data to be transmitted is to be transmitted is based on the data transmission characteristic determined and a data configuration of data to be transmitted (Fig.2 [0019] – [0021] [0030] [0040] [0042] the transmission priority determined based on available transmission speed and the priority based on the data content such as power consumption or vibration of the machine i.e. “a data configuration”).
Regarding claim 8, Verma further teaches ascertaining of the data configuration of the data to be transmitted, and wherein the data configuration includes at least one of the following configuration parameters: a quantity of data, a data type, a priority (Fig.2 [0019] – [0021] [0030] [0040] [0042] the transmission priority determined based on available transmission speed and the priority based on the data content such as power consumption or vibration of the machine), a required security level, and/or a required redundancy.
Regarding claim 9, Verma further teaches the set of actions comprises at least one of the following actions:
a prioritization procedure, a data reduction procedure (Fig. 2 [0042] there are several available actions to adapt the data to be transmitted: selecting data as high priority data i.e. “action of prioritization procedure”, deletes priority memories or not to store selected data and sort said data out i.e. “action of data reduction procedure”; the priority dispatcher 25 selects an item of data as high priority data, suspends data transmission from memory P3, and transmits the high priority data from memory P1, i.e. the priority dispatcher selected “action of prioritization procedure from a plurality of selectable actions”),
a function reduction procedure,
adaptation of a transmission interval,
use of an alternative and/or additional transmission path, and/or
use of an alternative and/or additional transmission method.
Regarding claim 11, Verma further teaches the at least one transmission path is arranged to be wired and/or wireless (Fig. 1 [0038] data link 15 via cabled or wireless connection).
Regarding claim 12, Verma further teaches the data are transmitted in parallel and/or serially from at least one control device to multiple cloud systems (Fig. 1 [0038] data link 15 via cabled or wireless connection i.e. “parallel and or serially”).
Claim 13 recites similar limitations to that of claim 1 therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 17, it is directed to computer instructions of carrying out the method with similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. Since Verma, Gupta and HE teach the claimed method, they teach the computer instructions for implementing the device.
In addition, Verma teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing thereon a computer program (Figs. 1&2 [0036] [0038] [0039] the data collector unit 10).
Regarding claim 22, Gupta further teaches said determining the data transmission characteristic comprises a speed test ([0025] speed test to estimate bandwidth).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Verma to incorporate the teachings of Gupta, because they all directed to data transmission, to make the method wherein said determining the data transmission characteristic comprises a speed test. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to estimate the bandwidth, as Gupta teaches in [0025].
Regarding claim 23, Verma further teaches said determining the data transmission characteristic comprises a continuously monitoring the data transmission characteristic Fig. 2 [0019] – [0020] [0030] [0040] [0042] the priority dispatcher 25 dynamically monitoring and updating available bandwidth/transmission speed, the priority assignment of local data can be undertaken based on the updated available transmission speed dynamically).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma in view of Gupta and HE as applied to claims 1, 3-9, 11-17 and 22-23 above, further in view of Riedl US 20130315062 A12.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Verma, Gupta and HE does not explicitly further teach the set of actions comprises at least one of use of an alternative and/or additional transmission path and the alternative and/or additional transmission path is a transmission path of a further control device.
Riedl explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the set of actions comprises at least one of use of an alternative and/or additional transmission path and the alternative and/or additional transmission path is a transmission path of a further control device (Figs. 2-4 [0034] [0035] an alternative communication path PF2’ is created for the communication path PF2 of a further device 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Verma, Gupta and HE to incorporate the teachings of Riedl, because they all directed to cloud processing and/or data transmission, to make the method wherein the set of actions comprises at least one of use of an alternative and/or additional transmission path and the alternative and/or additional transmission path is a transmission path of a further control device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to transmit the data to its planned destination, as Riedl teaches in [0035].
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma in view of Gupta and HE as applied to claims 1, 3-9, 11-17 and 22-23 above, further in view of MITA JP 2004133581 A3.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the combination of Verma, Gupta and HE does not explicitly further teach the control device is a PLC control device.
MITA explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the control device is a PLC control device (Figs. 1&2 [0026] - [0030] the data transmission is managed by a PLC control device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Verma, Gupta and HE to incorporate the teachings of MITA, because they all directed to cloud processing and/or data transmission, to make the method/system wherein the control device is a PLC control device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to provide a monitoring and control system to optimize the communication, as MITA teaches in Abstract.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma in view of Gupta and HE as applied to claims 1, 3-9, 11-17 and 22-23 above, further in view of Do US 10547883 B2, CAI CN 103200619 A and Brandt US 20130031037 A14.
Regarding claims 24, Verma further teaches the set of actions comprises a prioritization procedure, a data reduction procedure (Fig. 2 [0042] there are several actions available to adapt the data to be transmitted: selecting data as high priority data i.e. prioritization procedure, deletes priority memories or not to store selected data and sort said data out i.e. data reduction procedure).
The combination of Verma, Gupta and HE does not explicitly further teach the set of actions comprises a function reduction procedure, adaptation of a transmission interval, use of an alternative and/or additional transmission path, and use of an alternative and/or additional transmission method.
CAI explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the set of actions comprises a function reduction procedure ([0016] closing the AOAC function or stopping function of particular software update);
Do explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the set of actions comprises adaptation of a transmission interval (column 2 lines 4-14, data is encoded into different bit rates) and use of an alternative and/or additional transmission path (column 10 line 64 – column 11 line 3 and column 11 lines 19-21, creating new paths or searching for alternative physical network paths);
Brandt explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the set of actions comprises use of an alternative and/or additional transmission method (Brandt: claim 7, using an alternate communication channel for data communication, switching between a wireless communication channel and a wired communication).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Verma, Gupta and HE to incorporate the teachings of Do, CAI and Brandt because they all directed to cloud processing and/or data transmission, to make the method wherein the set of actions comprises a function reduction procedure, adaptation of a transmission interval, use of an alternative and/or additional transmission path, and use of an alternative and/or additional transmission method. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to adjusting data flow through communication network based on the identified condition of the communication network and the identified condition of the receiving node, as Do teaches in column 2 lines 49-56.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma in view of Gupta, HE, Do, CAI and Brandt.
Claim 25 recites similar limitations to that of claims 14 and 24 therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 26 recites similar limitations to that of claims 15 and 24 therefore is rejected on the same basis.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tang whose telephone number is (571)272-7437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4 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, Kamini Shah can be reached on (571)272-2279. 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.
/M.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 Verma and Gupta are the prior arts of record
2 Riedl is the prior art of record
3 MITA is the prior art of record
4 Do, CAI and Brandt are the prior arts of record
Prosecution Insights