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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-12 are pending in the application.
Controller virtualization device and virtualization devices of the controller virtualization device are treated as hardware/physical controller(s) implementing virtualization technology in light of applicant’s specification [paragraphs 2-3 and 18].
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/11/26 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-10 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 9, line 2, the limitation “the plurality of virtualization devices each include the one virtual machine” appears to be redundant to the limitation “a plurality of virtualization devices each configured to generate a control signal for a control object and including at least one virtual machine” recited in claim 1.
As to claim 10, “the virtual machine” should read --the respective virtual machine--.
As to claim 12, this claim is objected to for similar reason as claim 9 above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The following are unclear:
As to claim 1, it is unclear whether “the virtual machine” in line 9, refers to a particular instance of “at least one virtual machine” recited in line 3 or any arbitrary/respective virtual machine of the plurality of virtualization devices, wherein each of the plurality of virtualization devices having/including at least one virtual machine recited in lines 2-3. For examination purpose, the limitation is treated as “a respective one of the at least one virtual machine included in the plurality of virtualization devices” for the remainder of this office action.
As to claim 9, this claim is rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above.
As to claims 3-4 and 6-11, these claims depend on claim 1 and are rejected for failing to obviate the deficiency of claim 1.
As to claim 12, this claim is rejected for similar reason as claim 1 above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. More specifically, as to claim 7, “wherein the plurality of virtualization devices include the plurality of virtual machines, respectively” failed to further limit the similarly recited limitation of “a plurality of virtualization devices each configured to generate a control signal for a control object and including at least one virtual machine” in claim 1 which clearly indicate that each of the plurality of virtualization devices includes at least one corresponding virtual machine hence as a whole including the plurality of virtual machines. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-12 are allowable by overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph rejections above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Industrial personal computer(s) comprising a plurality of virtual control devices each configured to generate a control signal for a field device [abstract; paragraphs 4 and 110] and including at least one virtual machine [paragraphs 15 and 42-44]; and communication link such as field bus for transmitting the control signal from each of the plurality of controller virtualization devices to the control object [paragraphs 35, 77-78; paragraph 79, lines 1-14; module 104, Fig. 1], wherein the plurality of virtual controller devices are configured to mutually transmit and receive an existence confirmation signal or a reliability confirmation signal of the virtual machine via a control bus [paragraphs 22-23, 56-57, 74 and 82] was disclosed by US PG Pub. 2021/0311453 and similarly in WO2021046565. In a duplexed operation system, when detecting a failure of an active system, the virtual machine controller stops the virtual machine of the active system, activates the virtual machine of the standby system corresponding to the stopped active system, and reconfigures the standby system of the activated virtual machine on the hardware of the stopped virtual machine [abstract] was disclosed in US Patent 11,803,452. Controller cluster having a plurality of controllers that communicates with network elements via control channel; using the same control channel/link use in sending instructions to control network elements in establishing an information channel with network elements for exchanging information about the controllers among the controllers through the network elements in the scenario of a failed connection between primary and secondary controller [paragraph 96, lines 1-7]. Primary and secondary/third/n-th/backup controller of the controller cluster exchange heartbeat such that failed connection between primary and backup controllers due to missed heartbeat messages contributing to conflicting instructions from controllers or controller groups [paragraphs 100 and 107; Figs. 1-5, 13, 16, 19, 22 and 26 and corresponding text] was disclosed in US PG Pub. 2022/0417136. The prior arts of record when taken individually or in combination do not expressly teach or render obvious invention as a whole the invention as recited in independent claims 1 and 12.
Neither a reference uncovered that would have provided a basis of evidence for asserting a motivation, nor one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, knowing the teaching of the prior arts of record would have combined them to arrive at the present invention as recited in independent claims 1 and 12 as a whole.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 3/11/26 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QING YUAN WU whose telephone number is (571)272-3776. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 571-272-3759. 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.
/QING YUAN WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights