DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
This action is responsive to the Remark filed on 7/22/25.
Claims 1 & 14 are amended.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-14, 16-18 is/are presented for examination.
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 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 of this title, 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, 3, 14, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustin, U.S. Pub/Patent No. 2019/0250976 A1 in view of Kakani, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2019/0207805 A1, and Tallet, U.S. Pub. No. US 2007 /0025275 A1, and further in view of Bonnier, US 2012/0134259 A1.
As to claim 1, Gustin teaches an apparatus for identifying the location of faults in a communication network comprising:
a controller connected to a plurality of processing devices and in the communication network, wherein the controller acts as an entry and exit point for the communication network (Gustin, figure 8; page 1, paragraph 2; i.e., [0002] At least some of the process controllers typically receive measurements from the sensors and generate control signals for the actuators. Higher-level components often interact with the process controllers and perform other functions in the control and automation systems, such as optimization or planning), the controller comprising:
a memory containing a fault detection program (Gustin, figure 8; page 1, paragraph 7-8; i.e., [0007] The method further includes determining whether one
or more of the cables has experienced a network fault or a return from a network fault based on the determination of whether valid data traffic is being received over the cables);
a processor operably connected to the memory and the communication network via the first communication port and the second communication port, the processor configured to execute the fault detection program to:
activate the fault detection program, wherein the activation of the fault detection program comprises:
receive the operational status of the at least one communication port from each of the plurality of processing devices through at least one of the first communication port and the second communication port (Gustin, page 3, paragraph 34; i.e., [0034] The fault detection mechanism can detect when traffic is lost over one or more cables of the redundant token bus network, and the associated network bridge 11 0a-11 Or can trigger an alarm or warning, generate or update a graphical user interface, or generate any other suitable notification identifying the problem. The alarm, warning, graphical user interface, or other notification can identify the network bridge ll0a-ll0b and the cable associated with the network fault, allowing the actual location of the network fault to be more easily identified by users in another control network (the network 102 in this example)); and
But Gustin failed to teach the claim limitation wherein a first communication port and a second communication port connected to the communication network; through the first communication port and the second communication port; and send a Bridge Protocol Data Unit (BPDU) message on the communication network along a unidirectional communication path from the first communication port of the controller to receive the BPDU message to the second communication port of the controller via the plurality of processing devices connected therebetween, wherein the first communication port of the controller is set to a forward status and the second communication port of the controller is set to a blocked status for establishing the unidirectional communication path; in response to failing to receive the BPDU message at the second communication port by the controller, the processor further configured to: reset the second communication port from the blocked status to the forward status to establish a bi-directional communication path with the plurality of processing devices through each of the first communication port and the second communication port; detection program comprises: transmit a status request message to each of the plurality of processing devices through the first communication port and the second communication port, wherein the status request message causes the plurality of processing devices to transmit an operational status of at least one communication port of each of the plurality of processing devices; and isolate, based on the received operational status of the at least one communication port, from each of the plurality of processing devices, the fault in the communication network between two processing devices of the plurality of processing devices.
However, Kakani teaches the limitation wherein isolate, based on the received operational status of the at least one communication port, from each of the plurality of processing devices, the fault in the communication network between two processing devices of the plurality of processing devices (Kakani, page 3, paragraph 37 & 40; i.e., [0037] Fault isolation includes monitoring a computer network system, identifying when a fault has occurred, and pinpointing the type of fault and its location. Fault isolation can be pro-active, which means that when the fault isolation mechanism determines that a device is non-responsive or non-functional, the fault isolation mechanism can go evaluate each neighboring node status and expand the fault domain recursively; [0040] The computing network system 100 can include a fault isolation element (or module) 101. The fault isolation element 101 can be part of a fault detection, isolation, and recovery (FDIR) system. The fault isolation element 101 can be implemented in hardware, software, or a combination of hardware and software).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Gustin to substitute polling network element from Kakani for valid data traffic from Gustin to provide increased computing power, sharing of resources, and communication between users (Kakani, page 1, paragraph 3).
However, Tallet teaches the limitation wherein a first communication port and a second communication port connected to the communication network; through the first communication port and the second communication port (Tallet, page 1, paragraph 9; i.e., [0009] a forwarding state so that data frames may be forwarded to and from these ports and thus onto the corresponding paths or links of the network. Ports not included within the active topology are placed in a discarding or blocking state. When a port is in the blocking state, data frames will not be forwarded to or received from the port); and send a Bridge Protocol Data Unit (BPDU) message on the communication network along a unidirectional communication path from the first communication port of the controller to receive the BPDU message to the second communication port of the controller via the plurality of processing devices connected therebetween, wherein the first communication port of the controller is set to a forward status and the second communication port of the controller is set to a blocked status for establishing the unidirectional communication path (Tallet, page 2, paragraph 12 & 19; page 3, paragraph 23; i.e., [0012] When BPDU information is updated and/or aged-out and the active topology is re-calculated, ports may transition from the blocking state to the forwarding state and vice versa. That is, as a result of new BPDU information, a previously blocked port may learn that it should be in the forwarding state ( e.g., it is now the root port or a designated port). Rather than transition directly from the blocking state to the forwarding state, the IEEE 802.lD-1998 standard calls for ports to transition through two intermediate states: a listening state and a learning state. In the listening state, a port waits for information indicating that it should return to the blocking state. If, by the end of a preset time, no such information is received, the port transitions to the learning state. In the learning state, a port still blocks the receiving and forwarding of frames, but received frames are examined and the corresponding location information is stored in the bridge's filtering database. At the end of a second preset time, the port transitions from the learning state to the forwarding state; [0019] two simplex, i.e., unidirectional, transmission lines, such as two fiber optic lines, operating in opposite directions. For example, suppose two bridges, designated A and B, are connected by a single trunk link formed from two unidirectional transmission lines, and that the respective port at Bridge B is assigned the designated port role, while the peer port at Bridge A is assigned the alternate port role. In this case, the port at Bridge B is placed in the forwarding state and the port at bridge A is placed in the discarding state. As long as the port at Bridge A continues to receive "superior" BPDU messages from Bridge B, it will remain in the blocking state. Suppose, however, that the trunk link becomes unidirectional. That is, bridge B continues to send BPDU messages to Bridge A; [0023] Accordingly, if BPDU messages are never received on such a port, or they stop being received, the BA sub-engine detects an error condition, such as a unidirectional link failure. In one embodiment, the BA sub-engine will also prevent a port that stops receiving BPDUs from being transitioned to a forwarding state); in response to failing to receive the BPDU message at the second communication port by the controller, reset the second communication port from the blocked status to the forward status to establish a bi-directional communication path with the plurality of processing devices (Tallet, page 2, paragraph 12 & 19; page 3, paragraph 23; i.e., [0012] When BPDU information is updated and/or aged-out and the active topology is re-calculated, ports may transition from the blocking state to the forwarding state and vice versa. That is, as a result of new BPDU information, a previously blocked port may learn that it should be in the forwarding state ( e.g., it is now the root port or a designated port). Rather than transition directly from the blocking state to the forwarding state, the IEEE 802.lD-1998 standard calls for ports to transition through two intermediate states: a listening state and a learning state. In the listening state, a port waits for information indicating that it should return to the blocking state. If, by the end of a preset time, no such information is received, the port transitions to the learning state. In the learning state, a port still blocks the receiving and forwarding of frames, but received frames are examined and the corresponding location information is stored in the bridge's filtering database. At the end of a second preset time, the port transitions from the learning state to the forwarding state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Gustin-Kakani to substitute network controller from Tallet for process controller from Gustin-Kakani to assuring the proper operation of intermediate network devices (Tallet, page 1, paragraph 2)).
However, Bonnier teaches the limitation wherein detection program comprises: transmit a status request message to each of the plurality of processing devices through the first communication port and the second communication port, wherein the status request message causes the plurality of processing devices to transmit an operational status of at least one communication port of each of the plurality of processing devices (Bonnier, page 8, paragraph 66 & 69; i.e., [0066] In one embodiment, such as where the MME is not informing the PDN-GWs that other PDN-GWs are entering the non-operational state, the first PDN-GW 102A further comprises a heartbeat module 717 that is coupled to the plurality of ports 715A-715Z. The heartbeat module 717 is configured to transmit status inquiry messages to the one or more other PDN-GWs 102B-102D and notify the session resilience module 716 when one of the one or more other PDN-GW s 102B-102D does not respond to the status inquiry message. In response to the failure to respond, the session resilience module 716 can activate any standby UE sessions that are associated with an active UE session on the failed PDN-GW. In an embodiment where the MME is informing the PDN-GWs that other PDN-GWs are entering the nonoperational state, the MME would performing the heartbeat functionality and the PDN-GWs would be coupled to the MME through one of the plurality of ports 715A-715Z; [0069] In one embodiment, where each SGW in the SGW pool 103 services active and standby UE sessions (such as shown in FIG. 1B), the first SGW 103A further comprises a
heartbeat module 819 that is coupled to the plurality of ports 815A-815Z. The heartbeat module 817 is configured to transmit status inquiry messages to the one or more SGW s 103A- 102C in the SGW pool 103 and notify the session resilience module 818 when one of the one or more SGWs 103A-103C does not respond to the status inquiry message. In response to the failure to respond, the session resilience module 818 can activate one or more standby UE sessions for NR is associated with the failed SGW. In an embodiment where the MME is informing the SGWs that other SGWs are entering the nonoperational
state, the MME would perform the heartbeat functionality and the SGWs would be coupled to the MME through one of the plurality of ports 815A-815Z).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Gustin-Kakani to substitute PDN-GW from Bonnier for controller from Gustin-Kakani to provide connectivity for one or more UE sessions previously serviced by the second PDN-GW after the second PDN-GW becomes non-operational (Bonnier, page 1, paragraph 6).
As to claim 9, Gustin-Kakani-Tallet-Bonnier teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 1, wherein the controller is an edge controller used in the communication network for controlling specific portions of an industrial process (Gustin, figure 4).
As to claim 16, Gustin-Kakani-Tallet-Bonnier teaches the method as recited in claim 14, wherein the communication network is an unmanaged Ethernet network communicatively connecting the controller and the plurality of processing devices using Ethernet cables in a ring network topology, the method further comprising:
connecting each processing device to an associated Ethernet switch having at least a first port and a second port, each first and second port connected to the Ethernet cables (Gustin, page 1, paragraph 3; i.e., [0003] an older type of redundant network uses of a pair of token bus networks, while a newer type of redundant network uses of a pair of Ethernet networks),
wherein the step of analyzing isolates the fault in the ring network between two processing devices of the plurality of processing devices corresponds to isolating the fault between the at least first and the second ports of the associated Ethernet switch connected between the two processing devices (Gustin, page 4, paragraph 40; i.e., [0040] When the network bridges 110a-110b operate as a redundant pair, each network bridge 110a-110b can exchange data with the other network bridge ll0a-ll0b using the common Ethernet cable 216. Each network bridge ll0a-ll0b could also potentially detect a failure of the other network bridge ll0a-ll0b using the common Ethernet cable 216).
Claim(s) 14 is/are directed to a method claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 1. Therefore, claim(s) 14 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 1.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are directed to a method claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 5-6. Therefore, claim(s) 17-18 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 5-6.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustin, U.S. Pub/Patent No. 2019/0250976 A1 in view of Kakani, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2019/0207805 A1, and Tallet, U.S. Pub. No. US 2007 /0025275 A1, and Bonnier, US 2012/0134259 A1, and further in view of Ham, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2022/0006668 A1.
As to claim 8, Gustin-Kakani-Tallet-Bonnier teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 1. But Gustin-Kakani-Tallet-Bonnier failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the controller is a remote terminal unit (RTU).
However, Ham teaches the limitation wherein the controller is a remote terminal unit (RTU) (Ham, page 2, paragraph 29; i.e., [0029] The data collection device 13 is a remote terminal unit (RTU), which is connected to a first switchboard 15a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Gustin-Kakani-Tallet-Bonnier to substitute collection unit from Ham for traffic sensor from Gustin-Kakani-Tallet-Bonnier to check the device having a problem even when the door of the switchboard is not opened (Ham, page 1, paragraph 4).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustin, U.S. Pub/Patent No. 2019/0250976 A1 in view of Kakani, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2019/0207805 A1, and in view of Tallet, U.S. Pub. No. US 2007 /0025275 A1, and Bonnier, US 2012/0134259 A1, and further in view of Sekhri, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2020/0274735 A1.
As to claim 4, Gustin-Kakani-Tallet-Bonnier teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 1. But Gustin-Kakani-Tallet-Bonnier failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the communication network is an unmanaged Ethernet network communicatively connecting the controller and the plurality of processing devices using Ethernet cables in a ring network topology.
However, Sekhri teaches the limitation wherein the communication network is an unmanaged Ethernet network communicatively connecting the controller and the plurality of processing devices using Ethernet cables in a ring network topology (Sekhri, figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Gustin-Kakani-Tallet-Bonnier to substitute ring topology from Sekhri for Ethernet network from Gustin-Kakani-Tallet-Bonnier to identify the isolation of nodes/outages due to multiple faults occurring simultaneously (Sekhri, page 1, paragraph 2).
As to claim 5, Gustin-Kakani-Tallet-Bonnier-Sekhri teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 4, wherein the fault detection program isolates the fault in the ring network location between at least first and the second ports of Ethernet switches connected between two processing devices of the plurality of processing devices or between the at least first port and second port of the associated Ethernet switch connected between a processing device of the plurality of processing devices, and the controller (Gustin, page 4, paragraph 40; i.e., [0040] When the network bridges 110a-110b operate as a redundant pair, each network bridge 110a-110b can exchange data with the other network bridge ll0a-ll0b using the common Ethernet cable 216. Each network bridge ll0a-ll0b could also potentially detect a failure of the other network bridge ll0a-ll0b using the common Ethernet cable 216).
As to claim 6, Gustin-Kakani-Tallet-Bonnier-Sekhri teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 5, further comprising: an operator display and the controller includes a platform program stored in the memory for sending notifications and diagnostic data to an operator station comprising at least a location of the fault in the ring network topology, wherein the location of the fault corresponds a location of broken ethernet cable or a location of a processing device of the plurality of processing devices comprising a faulty Ethernet switch (Gustin, page 3, paragraph 34; page 4, paragraph 40; i.e., [0034] The fault detection mechanism can detect when traffic is lost over one or more cables of the redundant token bus network, and the associated network bridge 11 0a-11 Or can trigger an alarm or warning, generate or update a graphical user interface, or generate any other suitable notification identifying the problem. The alarm, warning, graphical user interface, or other notification can identify the network bridge ll0a-ll0b and the cable associated with the network fault, allowing the actual location of the network fault to be more easily identified by users in another control network (the network 102 in this example)); [0040] When the network bridges 110a-110b operate as a redundant pair, each network bridge 110a-110b can exchange data with the other network bridge ll0a-ll0b using the common Ethernet cable 216. Each network bridge ll0a-ll0b could also potentially detect a failure of the other network bridge ll0a-ll0b using the common Ethernet cable 216).
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustin, U.S. Pub/Patent No. 2019/0250976 A1 in view of Kakani, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2019/0207805 A1, and Tallet, U.S. Pub. No. US 2007 /0025275 A1, and Bonnier, US 2012/0134259 A1, and further in view of Ham, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2022/0006668 A1,.
As to claim 10, Gustin-Kakani-Tallet-Bonnier teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 1. But Gustin-Kakani-Tallet-Bonnier failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the BPDU message contains information regarding port priority and addresses for communication ports of Ethernet switches for the communication network.
However, Ham teaches the limitation wherein the BPDU message contains information regarding port priority and addresses for communication ports of Ethernet switches for the communication network (Ham, page 4, paragraph 59; i.e., [0059] the switch 23 transmits BPDU for RSTP to a first node via a first port Pl and transmits BPDU for RSTP to a fourth node via a second port P2. In this case, the BPDU for RSTP includes a root vector value, and the root vector includes a 16-bit integer value called bridge priority and the MAC address of each node. Accordingly, when each node (the first node to the fourth node) including the switch 23 is turned on, a value obtained by combining the bridge priority value set in each node (the first node to the fourth node) and its own MAC address is used as a root vector to transmit BPDU for RSTP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Gustin-Kakani-Tallet-Bonnier to substitute collection unit from Ham for traffic sensor from Gustin-Kakani-Tallet to check the device having a problem even when the door of the switchboard is not opened (Ham, page 1, paragraph 4).
As to claim 11, Gustin-Kakani-Tallet-Bonnier teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 1. But Gustin-Kakani-Tallet-Bonnier failed to teach the claim limitation wherein failing to receive the BPDU message at the second communication port of the controller indicates the fault in the communication network.
However, Ham teaches the limitation wherein failing to receive the BPDU message at the second communication port of the controller indicates the fault in the communication network (Ham, page 5, paragraph 63; i.e., [0063] Each of the designated ports Pl, P2, P4, P6, PS and Pl0 periodically transmits BPDU for RSTP at every specific time, that is, Hello Time. This BPDU for RSTP includes cost information on the root node (RN) of a designated port for transmitting the same).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Gustin-Kakani-Tallet-Bonnier to substitute collection unit from Ham for traffic sensor from Gustin-Kakani-Tallet-Bonnier to check the device having a problem even when the door of the switchboard is not opened (Ham, page 1, paragraph 4).
As to claim 12, Gustin-Kakani-Tallet-Bonnier-Ham teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 11, wherein the indicated fault is a broken ethernet cable (Gustin, page 2, paragraph 21; i.e., [0021] The user then had to navigate through a series of diagnostic displays to try to ascertain which node in the LCN had a faulty cable).
As to claim 13, Gustin-Kakani-Tallet-Bonnier-Ham teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 11, wherein in the indicated fault is a faulty Ethernet switch (Gustin, page 1, paragraph 3; i.e., [0003] As particular examples, an older type of redundant network uses of a pair of token bus networks, while a newer type of redundant network uses of a pair of Ethernet networks).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-14, 16-18 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Listing of Relevant Arts
Srinivasan, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20150263975 A1 discloses single physical link from the first set of port to a second port.
Thomson, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20090207726 A1 discloses single and multiple link, blocked port and primary port.
Contact Information
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
THUONG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/THUONG NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449