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 .
Status of Claims/Response to Amendments
Claims 1-11 and 13-21 are currently pending in this application in response to the claim amendments filed on July 29, 2026. The amendments overcame the claim objections and the 102 rejections as presented in the Office Action mailed on 05/18/2026. However, the claim amendments necessitated new ground(s) of objections and rejections as presented below based on subject matter “a functional scope identifier indicative of the function scope” as originally presented in the dependent claim 9 as one of multiple limitations in alternative.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informality: The subject matter “wherein the information signals comprise the indication of the functional scope” has already been recited in the amended independent claim 1, line 11.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informality: an inadvertent “,” has been replaced with a “.” follows by “The”. Each individual patent claim must be written as a single sentence with one period.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beehler (US-2021/0224207-A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 19, Beehler teaches a signal processing module (DI circuit of fig.1 and DO circuit of fig.4 and [0029]) for processing electrical signals exchanged between at least one field device and a programmable logic controller (PLC) (DI 1 is connected between an input card of a PLC and a field device (and most typically a sensor of a field device). As shown in FIG. 10, the DO 2 is connected between an output card of a PLC and a field device (e.g., an actuator such as a solenoid of a field device). While FIGS. 9 and 10 shown the DI 1 and the DO 2 as separate elements, these can be integrated into either the PLC or the field device, [0030]), comprising: a first connection component configured to electrically connect the signal processing module to the PLC and the at least one field device (DI 1 is connected between an input card of a PLC and a field device…the DO 2 is connected between an output card of a PLC and a field device, [0030]); and a signal processing component (controller 10 of DI 1 and controller 30 of DO 2, [0031-0032]; or a single controller combining functions of controllers 10 and 30, [0033]) configured to process the electrical signals exchanged between the PLC and the at least one field device according to a functional scope of the signal processing module, wherein the information signals comprise a functional scope identifier indicative of the functional scope (“DI”, is a self-learning input adapted to identify the proper connection of a sensor output of a field device to an input card of a PLC...“DO”, is a self-learning output adapted to identify the proper connection of field device's input to an output card of the PLC, [0016]; the circuits of FIGS. 1 and 4 and the program executing the operations reflected in the flow charts of FIGS. 2-3 and 5-8 combine to achieve two important results. First, the types of input and output card of the PLC to which the field device is attached are identified. Second, proper connections are established between those input and output cards and the field device [0050]).
With respect to claim 1, Beehler is not clear to teach a communication component configured to send information signals to the PLC.
However, it is obvious that Beehler teaches of a communication component configured to send information signals to the PLC because Beehler explicitly teaches that the DI 1 and the DO 2 circuits are integrated into the PLC input/output card (figs.11-12 and [0025-0026, 0051-0052]). Beehler further teaches that the controllers of DI 1 and DO 2 circuits identify the types of input and output card of the PLC to which the field device is attached and determine that proper connections are established between those input and output cards and the field device ([0050]). It would have been obvious to POSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the communication between the DI and DO circuits to the PLC when it is determined that the connection of a sensor output of a field device to an input card of the PLC and the connection of the field device’s input to an output card of the PLC is not properly connected for the purpose to adapt the signal paths between a field device and PLC based on the types of input and output card employed by the PLC to ensure the PLC and field device are properly connected ([0003]).
With respect to claim 2, Beehler teaches wherein the communication component is configured to send the information signals indicative of the functional scope in response to: the electric connection by the first connection component, and/or the electric connection of the signal processing module to the PLC, and/or a request for the functional scope received from the PLC via the first connection component (“DI”, is a self-learning input adapted to identify the proper connection of a sensor output of a field device to an input card of a PLC...“DO”, is a self-learning output adapted to identify the proper connection of field device's input to an output card of the PLC, [0016]; the circuits of FIGS. 1 and 4 and the program executing the operations reflected in the flow charts of FIGS. 2-3 and 5-8 combine to achieve two important results. First, the types of input and output card of the PLC to which the field device is attached are identified. Second, proper connections are established between those input and output cards and the field device [0050]).
With respect to claim 3, Beehler teaches wherein the communication component is configured to send the information signals to the PLC via the first connection component and/or a wireless interface (DI 1 is connected between an input card of a PLC and a field device…the DO 2 is connected between an output card of a PLC and a field device, [0030]).
With respect to claim 4, Beehler wherein the first connection component is arranged at an edge of the signal processing module and for electrical connection is mated or configured to mate with a second connection component of a system comprising the PLC (DI circuit identify the proper connection of a sensor output of a field device to an input card of a PLC…DO identify the proper connection of field device's input to an output card of the PLC, [0016], thus interprets of a first connection at an edge of the DI to the input card of the PLC and a second connection at an edge of the DO to the output card of the PLC).
With respect to claim 5, Beehler teaches wherein the signal processing module is configured to process analogue and/or digital electrical signals of the functional scope (he controller 10 performs step 51. More specifically, the buffer 12 reads the voltage and converts it to a logical 1 or 0 which is delivered to the controller 10, [0036]).
With respect to claim 6, Beehler teaches wherein the functional scope of the signal processing module comprises at least one of the following signal processing operations: converting an electrical signal detected by the at least one field device to a digital input (DI) of the PLC electrically connected by the first connection component (sensor field device signal input into DI 1 circuit of the PLC input card via connection as taught in fig.9); converting an electrical signal detected by the first connection component from a digital output (DO) of the PLC to the at least one field device (output signal of DO circuit 2 of the PLC to the sensor field device as taught in fig.10); converting an electrical signal detected by the at least one field device to an analogue input (AI) of the PLC electrically connected by the first connection component; converting an electrical signal detected by the first connection component from an analogue output (AO) of the PLC to the at least one field device; providing a digital input (DI) towards the at least one field device, the DI being configured to acquire the electrical signals of the at least one field device; providing a digital output (DO) towards the at least one field device, the DO being configured to output the electrical signals to the at least one field device; providing an analogue input (AI) towards the at least one field device, the AI being configured to acquire the electrical signals of the at least one field device; and providing an analogue output (AO) to the at least one field device, the AO being configured to output the electrical signals to the at least one field device ().
With respect to claim 7, Beehler teaches wherein the functional scope comprises at least two alternative states of signal processing by the signal processing module (the controller 10 performs step 51. More specifically, the buffer 12 reads the voltage and converts it to a logical 1 or 0 which is delivered to the controller 10, [0036]).
With respect to claim 8, Beehler teaches wherein the functional scope of the signal processing module is unchangeable1 (controller 10 also performs a test at step 57 to ascertain whether the output of the sensor is shorted. While a user is wiring a device, the user may at first have the device's signal wire connected temporarily (by user error) to the V+ or V− of the power supply, which would make the self-learning algorithm make an incorrect determination. By re-starting the test, it ensures that it will determine the correct card type, even if the user accidently short-circuits the signal wire. So long as no short is detected, the controller 10 continuously performs normal sensor activities. If any short is detected by the controller 10, the controller 10 returns to step 50 and repeats the process including steps 50-56, [0039]).
With respect to claim 9, Beehler teaches wherein the information signals comprise at least one of the following identifiers: a signal processing module identifier indicative of the signal processing module; a connection component identifier indicative of the first connection component of the signal processing module; a connection state identifier indicative of a state of the electrical connection between the signal processing module and the PLC; an operational state identifier indicative of an operational state of processing the electrical signals and/or an operational state of the signal processing module; an application identifier indicative of an application of the electrical signals and/or indicative of a device type of the at least one field device; and a waveform identifier indicative of a waveform of the electrical signals (“DI”, is a self-learning input adapted to identify the proper connection of a sensor output of a field device to an input card of a PLC...“DO”, is a self-learning output adapted to identify the proper connection of field device's input to an output card of the PLC, [0016]; the circuits of FIGS. 1 and 4 and the program executing the operations reflected in the flow charts of FIGS. 2-3 and 5-8 combine to achieve two important results. First, the types of input and output card of the PLC to which the field device is attached are identified. Second, proper connections are established between those input and output cards and the field device [0050]).
With respect to claim 10, Beehler teaches wherein, of the functional scope, the first connection component and/or the communication component and/or the signal processing component is configured for unidirectional or bidirectional communication of the electrical signals (Figs. 9-13 teaches the communication of the DI 1 and DO2 to the PLC and the field devices are unidirectional).
With respect to claim 11, Beehler teaches wherein the first connection component and/or the communication component and/or the signal processing component is configured for serial communication of the electrical signals and/or the information signals with the PLC (Figs. 9-13 teaches the communication of the DI 1 and DO2 to the PLC and the field devices are in serial).
With respect to claim 17, Beehler teaches wherein the analogue and/or digital electrical signals of the functional scope comprise logic level electrical signals and/or modulated electrical signals (the controller 10 performs step 51. More specifically, the buffer 12 reads the voltage and converts it to a logical 1 or 0 which is delivered to the controller 10, [0036]).
With respect to claim 18, Beehler teaches wherein the communication component is configured to receive control signals from the PLC via the first connection component, with the control signals specifying a state of the alternative states, and the signal processing component is configured to assume the specified signal processing state (Push-Pull/configurable (PPC) sensors have both an NPN and a PNP style transistor that can be used with both sourcing and sinking style PLC input cards. However, there is inconsistency regarding whether the active state should be “active high” or “active low”. The logic of the processor may be adjusted to select either “active high” or an “active low” as the active state, [0010]; the controller 10 turns both switch 22 and switch 24 off. Switches 22 and 24 are held in their off (non-conducting) state until the type of PLC card wired to signal port 27 is determined, [0035]).
With respect to claim 20, Beehler teaches wherein, of the functional scope, the first connection component and/or the communication component and/or the signal processing component is configured for unidirectional or bidirectional communication of the electrical signals with the PLC and/or the at least one field device (Figs. 9-13 teaches the communication of the DI 1 and DO2 to the PLC and the field devices are unidirectional).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15, and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious, which makes the following claims allowable over the prior art:
With respect to claim 21, a system for exchanging electrical signals between at least one field device and a programmable logic controller (PLC) comprising: at least one signal processing module for processing the electrical signals exchanged between the at least one field device and the PLC, each of the at least one signal processing module comprising: a first connection component configured to electrically connect the respective signal processing module to the at least one field device and the PLC, a communication component configured to send information signals to the PLC, and a signal processing component configured to process electrical signals exchanged between the at least one field device and the PLC of a functional scope of the respective signal processing module, the information signals being indicative of the functional scope; the PLC providing at least one port for exchanging the electrical signals; and at least two second connection components which are electrically connected to the at least one port of the PLC and which are each configured to electrically connect the PLC to the signal processing module of claim 1 via its first connection component, wherein the PLC is configured to receive information signals from the signal processing modules and to exchange the electrical signals with the respective signal processing module via the at least two second connection components of a functional scope of the respective signal processing module, and wherein the information signals from the respective signal processing module are indicative of the functional scope of the respective signal processing module.
Claims 13-16 are allowed due to their dependency on claim 21.
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 HIEN (CINDY) D KHUU whose telephone number is (571)272-8585. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8a-8p.
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, Ken Lo can be reached on 571-272-9774. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HIEN D KHUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116 October 1, 2026
1 The claim interpretation for the limitation “the functional scope of the signal processing module is unchangeable” is based on the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification: “The PLC can be designed to detect the functional scope by means of the information signals and output an error message (for example to the control center) if the functional scope is not suitable for a sequence control stored in the PLC.” See Specification at [0053].
