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 . Claims 1-25 filed on 9/6/2023 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP22305874.4, filed on 6/15/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclose statement filed on 9/19/2023 has been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 9/6/2023 have been reviewed and are considered acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 9/6/2023 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 12, 15, and 23 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 5, 12, 15, and 23 each include limitations of “and/or” and “is/are” which leads to confusion as to which limitations are required or not. In order to further prosecution, any instance of and/or will be treated as “or” until corrections are made.
Claim 15 further recites, “…that can be a device control or a plant control and/or a programmable logic controller…”, the office believes this is meant to be, “a device controller” and “a plant controller”, as the current recitation does not make sense in the context of the claim.
Claim 21 is missing a period “.” at the end of the claim. Please amend the claims to appropriately include a period “.” punctuation mark.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “operating control” in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-18 and 20-25 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.
Claim 1 includes the following issues:
The third limitation recites, “…wherein the second priority has a predetermined and in particular a user-defined relationship with the first priority…”, wherein, the phrase “in particular” makes the claim unclear if the “user-defined relationship” is actually required or not as “in particular” insinuates that it is more of a preferred method rather than required. In order to further prosecution, any method that can be utilized to establish priority will be interpreted to read upon this claim until corrections are made.
The final limitation recites, “…wherein the first and/or the second program part is/are a function block in the sense of IEC 61499 or a part thereof or a data transmission initiated thereby”, wherein the phrase, “in the sense of”, provides lack of clarity as to if the program conforms to the IEC 61499 protocol and further which version is applicable. Further, what is meant by “a part thereof”? Does this mean the programs can encompass part of the IEC 61499 protocol and another protocol? Finally, what is meant by “a data transmission initiated thereby”? Does this mean the programs are sent as data transmissions under the IEC 61499 protocol or they are just data transmissions in general? In order to further prosecution, any program that embodies the IEC 61499 protocol or can be utilized by the protocol will be interpreted to read upon this limitation until corrections are made.
Dependent claims 2-18 and 20-25 all depend upon claim 1 and are thus rejected by virtue of dependency.
The term “possibly” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “possibly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, claim 3 includes the limitation of, “…then, if there is not entry in any event list for a higher priority, is possibly used for the interruption of the execution of the first program part…”, which leads to confusion as to whether or not the program part to be processed is actually ever processed given the current situation.
Claim 11 recites, “…in which program parts include distinguishable parts and the interruption of the execution of the first program part takes place after processing a part included in the first program part and before starting the processing of a part following in the first program part, or during the processing of such a part.”. It is confusing to fully understand how these “parts” differ from one another as they all are simply designated as “a part”. These limitations need to be better described to make it more clear how these “parts” differ from one another. In order to further prosecution, any art that contains multiple process parts will be interpreted to read upon this claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation " the backup storage " in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitation “operating control” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Review of the specification failed to provide sufficient written description that clearly disclosed the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The term, “operating control” in claim 19 is not sufficiently described in the specification in a way that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would understand that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-7, 11-12, 14-18, 20-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoenninger et al. (US Patent 6,260,058) in view of Chauvet et al. (US PGPUB 20180299873).
Regarding Claim 1; Hoenninger teaches; A method of controlling the sequence of program parts, comprising: (Hoenninger; at least Fig. 5; column 5, lines 50-67; disclose a method for controlling a fuel injection program comprising a plurality of tasks to be performed in sequence)
initiated by the occurrence of a first event, executing a first program part on a first arithmetic logic unit, wherein the first event and/or the first program part is/are assigned a first priority, and (Hoenninger; at least Fig. 5; column 7, lines 22-42; column 9, lines 49-67; disclose a first task A (i.e. program part) executed on a processor (i.e. first arithmetic logic unit) upon start of a processing routine, wherein task A is assigned a priority of 1 (i.e. lowest level priority))
initiated by the occurrence of a second event, interrupting the execution of the first program part on the first arithmetic logic unit and then executing a second program part on the first arithmetic logic unit, wherein the second event and/or the second program part is/are assigned a second priority, (Hoenninger; at least Fig. 5; column 7, lines 43-59; column 9, lines 49-67; disclose a second task B which is assigned a priority level of 3 (i.e. higher level priority than A), wherein when the program encounters an interrupt during the processing of task A, causes task A to stop and higher priority task B is subsequently initiated)
wherein the second priority has a predetermined and in particular a user-defined relationship with the first priority, wherein the second priority is higher than the first priority, (Hoenninger; at least column 2, lines 5-14; column 3, lines 55-65; column 7, lines 20-67; disclose wherein a user defines plurality of interrupt (i.e. relationship) points between a plurality of tasks and wherein each task has a predefined priority and wherein, in the present example, task B has a higher priority than task A).
Hoenninger appears to be silent on; wherein the first and/or the second program part is/are a function block in the sense of IEC 61499 or a part thereof or a data transmission initiated thereby.
However, Chauvet teaches; wherein the first and/or the second program part is/are a function block in the sense of IEC 61499 or a part thereof or a data transmission initiated thereby. (Chauvet; at least paragraphs [0002], [0043], and [0165]; disclose a software-define automation system implementable in various systems such as vehicle control systems (i.e. vehicle control system of Hoenninger) which includes utilizing the IEC 61499 standard for arranging functional blocks (i.e. tasks of Hoenninger) in the various controllers within a system).
Hoenninger and Chauvet are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area of, system process development and control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of using the IEC 61499 standard/protocol for assigning program tasks as taught by Chauvet with the known system of an engine process and control system as taught by Hoenninger in order to provide a more scalable and flexible automation system as taught by Chauvet (see paragraph [0041]).
Regarding Claim 2; the combination of Hoenninger and Chauvet teach; The method in accordance with claim 1, in which one or more program parts of device control programs or plant control programs that run on a programmable logic controller. (Chauvet; at least paragraph [0165]).
Regarding Claim 3; the combination of Hoenninger and Chauvet teach; The method in accordance with claim 1, in which at least one event list is kept that stores events that have occurred in accordance with the associated priority and that designates program parts still to be processed, (Hoenninger; at least Figs. 3-7; column 8, lines 40-63).
wherein, for a plurality of priorities, respective separate event lists can be kept that in each case store events of the associated priority that have occurred and that designate program parts still to be processed, wherein the second event is entered in the event list corresponding to its priority and then, if there is not entry in any event list for a higher priority, is possibly used for the interruption of the execution of the first program part on the first arithmetic logic unit in accordance with the processing rules for the entries in the event list of its own priority. (Hoenninger; at least column 9, lines 49-67; column 10, lines 1-67).
Regarding Claim 4; the combination of Hoenninger and Chauvet teach; The method in accordance with claim 1, in which a plurality of tsks are used that were created in advance as respective execution environments. (Hoenninger; at least column 2, lines 5-14; column 7, lines 20-67; column 8, lines 1-20).
Regarding Claim 5; the combination of Hoenninger and Chauvet teach; The method in accordance with claim 1, in which tasks are used that are created in real time as respective execution environments and that are removed in real time. (Chauvet; at least paragraphs [0055]-[0056]).
Regarding Claim 6; the combination of Hoenninger and Chauvet teach; The method in accordance with claim 1, in which the second event is generate by another program part running on another arithmetic logic unit. (Hoenninger; at least column 10, lines 10-30).
Regarding Claim 7; the combination of Hoenninger and Chauvet teach; The method in accordance with claim 1, comprising: obtaining monitoring results of the occupancy and/or utilization of the first arithmetic logic unit, and in accordance with the monitoring results, when the second event occurs, initiating the interruption and the execution of the second program part on the first arithmetic logic unit. (Hoenninger; at least column 10, lines 5-67).
Regarding Claim 11; the combination of Hoenninger and Chauvet teach; The method in accordance with claim 1, in which program parts include distinguishable parts and the interruption of the execution of the first program part takes place after processing a part included in the first program part and before starting the processing of a part following in the first program part, or during the processing of such a part. (Hoenninger; at least column 7, lines 20-42; column 9, lines 49-67).
Regarding Claim 12; the combination of Hoenninger and Chauvet teach; The method in accordance with claim 1, in which program parts are called up and processed in accordance with an execution control planning in accordance with IEC 61499, wherein the calling up of a program part from the execution control planning can be the first event effecting the execution of the first program part and/or the second event effecting the execution of the second program part, to which event a priority can be assigned or is already assigned, and these events can overwrite or modify the determinations of the execution control planning. (Hoenninger; at least column 11, lines 49-67; Chauvet; at least paragraph [0165]).
Regarding Claim 14; the combination of Hoenninger and Chauvet teach; The method in accordance with claim 1, in which a program part is designated as uninterruptible or as not simultaneously executable multiple times and is then also not interrupted or simultaneously executed multiple times when the other conditions occur. (Hoenninger; at least claim 14).
Regarding Claim 15; the combination of Hoenninger and Chauvet teach; An apparatus in accordance with IEC 61499 for performing the method in accordance with claim 1 that can be a device control or a plant control and/or a programmable logic controller and that can have at least one sensor or data input and at least one actuator or data output. (Chauvet; at least paragraphs [0046] and [0165]).
Regarding Claim 16; the combination of Hoenninger and Chauvet teach; A programming method in which an IEC 61499 compliant programming interface is provided that is adapted for programming the method in accordance with claim 1. (Chauvet; at least paragraphs [0069], [0104], and [0165]).
Regarding Claim 17; the combination of Hoenninger and Chauvet teach; The programming method in accordance with claim 16, in which the programming interface is or comprises a graphical user interface that is adapted to input the programming of the priority-initiated interruption of the execution of the first program part on the first arithmetic logic unit. (Chauvet; at least paragraph [0165]).
Regarding Claim 18; the combination of Hoenninger and Chauvet teach; A programming apparatus for performing the programming method in accordance with claim 16. (Chauvet; at least paragraph [0165]).
Regarding Claim 20; the combination of Hoenninger and Chauvet teach; The method in accordance with claim 4, in which a plurality of tasks are used that were created in advance as respective execution environments such that one or more tasks are created for each priority value. (Hoenninger; at least column 7, lines 20-67; column 8, lines 1-21).
Regarding Claim 21; the combination of Hoenninger and Chauvet teach; The method in accordance with The method in accordance with in which tasks are used that are created in real time as respective execution environments in response to an occurring event. (Chauvet; at least paragraphs [0055]-[0056]).
Regarding Claim 22; the combination of Hoenninger and Chauvet teach; The method in accordance with claim 5, in which tasks are removed in real time at the end of the processing of a program part. (Chauvet; at least paragraphs [0055]-[0056]).
Regarding Claim 23; the combination of Hoenninger and Chauvet teach; The method in accordance with claim 7, comprising: - obtaining monitoring results of the occupancy and/or utilization of the first arithmetic logic unit from an operating system function. (Hoenninger; at least column 10, lines 5-67).
Regarding Claim 25; the combination of Hoenninger and Chauvet teach; The method in accordance with claim 14, in which a program part is independently of priority assignments designated as uninterruptible or as not simultaneously executable multiple times and is then also not interrupted or simultaneously executed multiple times when the other conditions occur. (Hoenninger; at least claim 14).
Claims 8-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoenninger et al. (US Patent 6,260,058) in view of Chauvet et al. (US PGPUB 20180299873) in further view of Ferch et al. (US PGPUB 20100281485).
Regarding Claim 8; the combination of Hoenninger and Chauvet appear to be silent on; The method in accordance with claim 7, in which monitoring results relating to the occupancy and/or utilization of the first arithmetic logic unit and one or more further arithmetic logic units are obtained and, in accordance with the monitoring result, when the second event occurs, the initiation of the interruption and execution of the second program part on the first arithmetic logic unit is caused.
However, Ferch teaches; The method in accordance with claim 7, in which monitoring results relating to the occupancy and/or utilization of the first arithmetic logic unit and one or more further arithmetic logic units are obtained and, in accordance with the monitoring result, when the second event occurs, the initiation of the interruption and execution of the second program part on the first arithmetic logic unit is caused. (Ferch; at least paragraphs [0036]-[0046]; disclose a multi-execution unit system and method in which a plurality of tasks are run, each having varying level of priorities, wherein the system further includes issuing a new task, determining whether the execution units are performing a task, providing the task to an idle execution unit, or interrupting an execution unit running a task with a lower priority to run the new task).
Hoenninger, Chauvet, and Ferch are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area of, system process development and control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of monitoring operating states of multiple execution units running tasks as taught by Ferch with the known system of an engine process and control system as taught by Hoenninger and Chauvet in order to provide a method that avoids potential data collisions when running multiple tasks in parallel as taught by Ferch (see paragraph [0009]).
Regarding Claim 9; the combination of Hoenninger, Chauvet, and Ferch teach; The method in accordance with claim 8, in which a decision on the assignment of the execution of the second program part to one of the monitored arithmetic logic units is made in accordance with the monitoring result. (Ferch; at least paragraphs [0036]-[0046]).
Regarding Claim 10; the combination of Hoenninger, Chauvet, and Ferch teach; The method in accordance with claim 8, in which a decision on the assignment of the execution of the second program part to one of the monitored arithmetic logic units is also made in accordance with properties of the monitored arithmetic logic units. (Ferch; at least paragraphs [0036]-[0046]).
Regarding Claim 19; Hoenninger teaches; An execution apparatus for IEC 61499-compliant programs, comprising (Hoenninger; at least Abstract)
an operating control that controls the execution of program parts on the arithmetic logic units based on the priorities that are associated with the events triggering the program parts, (Hoenninger; at least column 9, lines 49-67; disclose a microprocessor that control execution of the various tasks (i.e. program parts) on the arithmetic unit based upon assigned priorities to each of the tasks)
wherein the operating control is adapted to interrupt the execution of a first program part on an arithmetic logic unit and to initiate the execution of a second program part on this arithmetic logic unit if the event triggering the execution of the second program part has a higher priority than the event triggering the execution of the first program part. (Hoenninger; at least Fig. 5; column 7, lines 43-59; column 9, lines 49-67; disclose a second task B which is assigned a priority level of 3 (i.e. higher level priority than A), wherein when the program encounters an interrupt during the processing of task A, causes task A to stop and higher priority task B is subsequently initiated).
Hoenninger appears to be silent on; An execution apparatus for IEC 61499-compliant programs, comprising
at least two arithmetic logic units for the parallel execution of program parts that are triggered by events marked with priorities,
However, Chauvet teaches; An execution apparatus for IEC 61499-compliant programs, comprising (Chauvet; at least paragraphs [0002], [0043], and [0165]; disclose a software-define automation system implementable in various systems such as vehicle control systems (i.e. vehicle control system of Hoenninger) which includes utilizing the IEC 61499 standard for arranging functional blocks (i.e. tasks of Hoenninger) in the various controllers within a system using various hardware such a graphical user interface).
Hoenninger and Chauvet are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area of, system process development and control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of using the IEC 61499 standard/protocol for assigning program tasks as taught by Chauvet with the known system of an engine process and control system as taught by Hoenninger in order to provide a more scalable and flexible automation system as taught by Chauvet (see paragraph [0041]).
The combination of Hoenninger and Chauvet appear to be silent on; at least two arithmetic logic units for the parallel execution of program parts that are triggered by events marked with priorities,
However Ferch teaches; at least two arithmetic logic units for the parallel execution of program parts that are triggered by events marked with priorities, (Ferch; at least Fig. 1; paragraphs [0036]-[0046]; disclose a plurality of execution units for running tasks in parallel wherein the tasks each have a different priority assigned to them).
Hoenninger, Chauvet, and Ferch are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area of, system process development and control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of monitoring operating states of multiple execution units running tasks as taught by Ferch with the known system of an engine process and control system as taught by Hoenninger and Chauvet in order to provide a method that avoids potential data collisions when running multiple tasks in parallel as taught by Ferch (see paragraph [0009]).
Claims 13 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoenninger et al. (US Patent 6,260,058) in view of Chauvet et al. (US PGPUB 20180299873) in further view of Grosch et al. (US PGPUB 20150095690).
Regarding Claim 13; the combination of Hoenninger and Chauvet appear to be silent on; The method in accordance with claim 1, in which the interruption of the execution of the first program part comprises the backup storage of the currently relevant device state, and in which the continuation of the previously interrupted program part comprises the loading of the device state that was backup-stored during the interruption for the arithmetic logic unit taking over the continuation.
However, Grosch teaches; The method in accordance with claim 1, in which the interruption of the execution of the first program part comprises the backup storage of the currently relevant device state, and in which the continuation of the previously interrupted program part comprises the loading of the device state that was backup-stored during the interruption for the arithmetic logic unit taking over the continuation. (Grosch; at least paragraphs [0009]-[0016]; disclose a multi-PLC system which includes a failover method wherein backup data is stored on a PLC such that when an error occurs in the master PLC, a redundant backup PLC can acquire the backup data and take over active operations using the acquired backup data).
Hoenninger, Chauvet, and Grosch are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area of, system process development and control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of utilizing backup data to continue operations in a multi-PLC environment as taught by Grosch with the known system of an engine process and control system as taught by Hoenninger and Chauvet in order to provide a method for safeguarding a system in the event that a failure occurs in one of the main PLC units as taught by Grosch (see paragraph [0010]).
Regarding Claim 24; the combination of Hoenninger, Chauvet, and Grosch teach; The method in accordance with claim 13, in which the interruption of the execution of the first program part comprises the storage of values of an arithmetic logic unit, registers, data memories, a program memory, a program point, files. (Hoenninger; at least column 9, lines 1-20).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakano et al. (US PGPUB 20230359487): discloses a system and method for determining task priority in a sequence program and providing interrupts to allow for higher priority tasks to be completed before lower level tasks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117