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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/23/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant in page 8-9 argues, “The Office Action concedes that Alagic does not disclose these features (Office Action, pp. 13-14), and instead relies on Papenbreer as allegedly disclosing these features. The rejection alleges that Papenbreer's "backplane 300" corresponds to the recited boundary processor. Id. However, a backplane is not a processor, nor does it isolate system components from one another. One of skill in the art would understand that a backplane is typically a circuit board that "provides for distribution of power and data signals." Papenbreer, ¶[0054]. "Such backplanes are currently in use throughout industrial applications to provide data and control signals to and from automation controllers, computer components and peripherals and so forth." Id. Moreover, Papenbreer explicitly states that communications between its safety controller module 100 and non-safety controller 130 are bidirectional, and therefore, the backplane does not "isolate[] operations of the control processor from the safety controller." See Papenbreer, ¶¶[0037], [0040], FIG. 1 (depicting bidirectional communications). For at least this reason, the rejection of claim 1 is improper and should be withdrawn.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The term “boundary processor” is not a term of the art and is not defined in the specification as computer processor. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “boundary processor” does not require it to be interpreted as computer processor. If applicant would like the boundary processor to be interpreted to have a structure such as a computer processor, applicant is advised to amend the claim to recite it as such.
With regards to applicant’s argument, “Papenbreer explicitly states that communications between its safety controller module 100 and non-safety controller 130 are bidirectional”, the claimed limitation doesn’t exclude the communication between safety controller module 100 and non-safety controller 130 from being bidirectional or require it to be unidirectional. The claimed limitation recites, “wherein the safety controller is in communication with a control processor through the boundary processor which isolates operations of the control processor from the safety controller”, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not place any restriction on communication direction between the control processor and the safety controller. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim can be interpreted as, the communication between the safety controller and the control processor is performed via an additional structure (boundary processor), as oppose to a direct communication. If applicant would like the communication between the safety controller and the control processor to be unidirectional, applicant is advised to amend the claims to require such interpretation.
Applicant in page 7 argues, “each of claims 1-20 recites features that address a problem fundamentally rooted in machine control technology (e.g., control of turbine generators) to achieve an improvement in machine control systems. See e.g., Spec. ¶¶[0020]-[0022], [0028]-[0030]. More particularly, the subject matter of the instant application is directed to a "machinery control system" that "a safety boundary which uses a separate processor and one-way communications from the safety system to a control system [to] enable[] a [machine] control system to use signal from the safety system's signal conditioner." Spec. ¶[0022]. This concrete concept is captured in each of independent claims 1, 12, 18. For example, claim 1 recites "a safety controller in communication with the sensor, the safety controller comprising a dedicated boundary processor, wherein the safety controller is in communication with a control processor through the boundary processor which isolates operations of the control processor from the safety controller." This particular hardware configuration is not merely invoking a generic computer to perform an abstract process. Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Rather, it is specific configuration of multiple machine controllers that "enables a [machine] control system to use signal from [a certified] safety system's signal conditioner" while maintaining isolation between the safety controller and the operational control system. Spec., ¶[0022]; see also ¶¶[0020]-[0022], [0028]-[0030]. Claim 1 further recites a series of operations of and communications between these three components that facilitate the physical control of "one or more operations of the machine based on [a] conditioned [sensor measurement] sample" from a safety controller by the control processor while maintaining isolation of the safety controller from the control processor. In view of at least the foregoing, the pending claims, taken as a whole, do not merely recite a process that can be performed in the mind, as asserted in the Office Action. For at least the foregoing reasons, each of claims 1-20 provides”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. With regards to applicant’s argument, “each of claims 1-20 recites features that address a problem fundamentally rooted in machine control technology (e.g., control of turbine generators) to achieve an improvement in machine control systems.”, for a claim to provide improvement, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement and the claim itself must reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The specification does not appear to describe isolating operations of the control processor from the safety controller as an improvement neither does it sufficiently describe the lack of isolation as a problem to be solved. Specification in ¶0022 recites, “Additionally, safety systems are often externally certified by a third-party agency. Thus, changing components, or modifying the design of the safety system can be prohibitively expensive or time consuming. This disclosure describes a system and process that uses sensors and signal conditioning circuits already certified within a safety system, by adding a safety boundary which uses a separate processor and one-way communications from the safety system to a control system. The disclosed system and process enables a control system to use signal from the safety system's signal conditioner.”. Aspects related to one-way communication and separate processor is not recited in the claim and specification does not sufficiently describe how a separate processor and one-way communications solves the problem related to expensive and time-consuming nature of changing components, or modifying the design of the safety system. Therefore, examine respectfully disagrees that the claimed invention addresses a problem fundamentally rooted in machine control technology (e.g., control of turbine generators) to achieve an improvement in machine control systems.
With regards to, “particular hardware configuration”, for a claim to integrate the judicial exception into practical application or provide significantly more by or with a particular machine, depends on the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified. Claim 1 recites, “the safety controller comprising a dedicated boundary processor, wherein the safety controller is in communication with a control processor through the boundary processor which isolates operations of the control processor from the safety controller.” The safety controller and control processor are no more than generic computer component and is not described in the specification to have a particular structure and the boundary processor is not a term of art and is not defined in the specification. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed to generic computer components communicating over an additional structure, which doesn’t provide a particular hardware configuration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards the four statutory categories in that it recites a system/machine The claim(s) recite(s) analyzing the conditioned sample and determining whether to take a safety action; and. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a safety controller. That is, other than a safety controller being claimed as performing this function, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim recites analyzing the conditioned sample and determining whether to take a safety action. Without any specific limitation narrowing the analysis and determination process, a human mind is capable of analyzing data sample and determine whether to take safety action. The mere nominal recitation of a safety controller to perform this determination does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim recites additional elements directed to, a sensor configured to measure an operating characteristic of a machine; a safety controller in communication with the sensor, the safety controller comprising a dedicated boundary processor, wherein the safety controller is in communication with a control processor through the boundary processor which isolates operations of the control processor from the safety controller, and wherein the safety controller is configured to perform operations comprising: receiving, from the sensor, measurement data; performing signal conditioning on the measurement data to generate a conditioned sample; sending the conditioned sample to the boundary processor for transmission to the control processor; the control processor configured to perform operations comprising: receiving the conditioned sample; and controlling one or more operations of the machine based on the conditioned sample. With regards to a sensor configured to measure an operating characteristic of a machine; a safety controller in communication with the sensor, the safety controller comprising a dedicated boundary processor, wherein the safety controller is in communication with a control processor through the boundary processor which isolates operations of the control processor from the safety controller, these limitations are directed to invoking computer components as a tool to perform an existing process (e.g. using a sensor to measure data, a safety controller in data communication with a sensor and boundary processor in data communication with a safety controller and control processor). Therefore, these limitations do not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) Limitations directed to receiving, from the sensor, measurement data; sending the conditioned sample to the boundary processor for transmission to the control processor and the control processor configured to perform operations comprising: receiving the conditioned sample, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to mere data gathering and outputting, which are insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Limitation directed to performing signal conditioning on the measurement data to generate a conditioned sample and controlling one or more operations of the machine based on the conditioned sample, recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".(see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites additional elements directed to, a sensor configured to measure an operating characteristic of a machine; a safety controller in communication with the sensor, the safety controller comprising a dedicated boundary processor, wherein the safety controller is in communication with a control processor through the boundary processor which isolates operations of the control processor from the safety controller, and wherein the safety controller is configured to perform operations comprising: receiving, from the sensor, measurement data; performing signal conditioning on the measurement data to generate a conditioned sample; sending the conditioned sample to the boundary processor for transmission to the control processor; the control processor configured to perform operations comprising: receiving the conditioned sample; and controlling one or more operations of the machine based on the conditioned sample. With regards to a sensor configured to measure an operating characteristic of a machine; a safety controller in communication with the sensor, the safety controller comprising a dedicated boundary processor, wherein the safety controller is in communication with a control processor through the boundary processor which isolates operations of the control processor from the safety controller, these limitations are directed to invoking computer components as a tool to perform an existing process (e.g. using a sensor to measure data, a safety controller in data communication with a sensor and boundary processor in data communication with a safety controller and control processor). Therefore, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) Limitations directed to receiving, from the sensor, measurement data; sending the conditioned sample to the boundary processor for transmission to the control processor and the control processor configured to perform operations comprising: receiving the conditioned sample, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to mere data gathering and outputting, which are insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) Limitation directed to performing signal conditioning on the measurement data to generate a conditioned sample and controlling one or more operations of the machine based on the conditioned sample, recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".(see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 2 further recites, wherein the sensor is triggered by a timer to perform a measurement periodically. This limitation amounts to using a sensor as a tool to gather data periodically. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 3 further recites, wherein the control processor is configured to wait to control one or more operations of the machine until a next trigger of the timer. This limitation amounts to using a computer component after the fact to an abstract idea as it merely recites using the processor as a tool to control operation of the machine. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Claim 4 depends on claim 1 and therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 4 further recites, wherein the timer triggers the measurement every 5ms. This limitation amounts to using a sensor as a tool to gather data periodically. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 5 depends on claim 1 and therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 5 further recites, wherein analyzing the conditioned sample comprises confirming that the measurement was performed within 10% of a total period of the periodic measurements. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, human mind is capable of confirming whether a measurement is performed within 10% of a total period of the periodic measurements. Therefore, this claim is also directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1 and therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 6 further recites, wherein the operations of the safety controller are configured to occur during a scheduled period, and wherein the conditioned sample is sent to the boundary processor and transmitted to the control processor within the first 10% of the scheduled period. With regards to operations of the safety controller are configured to occur during a scheduled period, the limitation recites only the idea of an outcome and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Limitation, wherein the conditioned sample is sent to the boundary processor and transmitted to the control processor within the first 10% of the scheduled period, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to mere data gathering and outputting, which are insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(d))
Claim 7 depends on claim 1 and therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 7 further recites, wherein the machine is a turbine generator. This limitation amounts to merely linking the judicial exception to the technological environment of turbine generator and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(h))
Claim 8 depends on claim 1 and therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 8 further recites, wherein the control processor controls a speed of the machine. This limitation recites only the idea of an outcome and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 9 depends on claim 1 and therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 9 further recites, wherein the measurement data comprises information associated with machine temperature, pressure, acceleration rate, and speed. This limitation amounts to using a sensor as a tool to gather temperature, pressure, acceleration rate, and speed data. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 10 depends on claim 1 and therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 10 further recites, wherein the safety action is an emergency machine stop. This limitation merely limits the safety action determined in claim 1 to an emergency machine stop. As explained with regards to claim 1, determining whether to take a safety action, is a function that can be performed by the human mind. Similarly, human mind is capable of determining the safety action to be an emergency stop based on analyzing data regarding machine characteristic.
Claim 11 depends on claim 1 and therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 11 further recites, wherein the boundary processor isolates the control processor from the safety controller, and wherein the boundary processor sends the conditioned sample to the control processor using a proprietary protocol. With regards to wherein the boundary processor isolates the control processor from the safety controller. This is limitation merely recites only the idea of an outcome and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Limitation, wherein the boundary processor sends the conditioned sample to the control processor using a proprietary protocol, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to mere data gathering and outputting, which are insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(d))
Claim 12 is directed towards the four statutory categories in that it recites a method/process. Claim 12 recites similar limitation as claim 1 and is therefore is also directed to an abstract idea for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim 13 is directed towards the four statutory categories in that it recites a method/process. Claim 13 recites similar limitation as claim 2 and is therefore is also directed to an abstract idea for the same reason as claim 2.
Claim 14 is directed towards the four statutory categories in that it recites a method/process. Claim 14 recites similar limitation as claim 3 and is therefore is also directed to an abstract idea for the same reason as claim 3.
Claim 15 is directed towards the four statutory categories in that it recites a method/process. Claim 15 recites similar limitation as claim 4 and is therefore is also directed to an abstract idea for the same reason as claim 4.
Claim 16 is directed towards the four statutory categories in that it recites a method/process. Claim 16 recites similar limitation as claim 5 and is therefore is also directed to an abstract idea for the same reason as claim 5.
Claim 17 is directed towards the four statutory categories in that it recites a method/process. Claim 17 recites similar limitation as claim 6 and is therefore is also directed to an abstract idea for the same reason as claim 6.
Claim 18 is directed towards the four statutory categories in that it recites a system. Claim 18 recites similar limitation as claim 1 and is therefore is also directed to an abstract idea for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim 19 is directed towards the four statutory categories in that it recites a system. Claim 19 recites similar limitation as claim 2 and is therefore is also directed to an abstract idea for the same reason as claim 2.
Claim 20 is directed towards the four statutory categories in that it recites a system. Claim 20 recites similar limitation as claim 3 and is therefore is also directed to an abstract idea for the same reason as claim 3.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10-11, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alagic (US11762390B1) in view of Papenbreer (US20170123396A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Alagic teaches, A machinery control system comprising:
a safety controller in communication with the sensor, (Fig. 1 teaches, sensor module 102 and safety management controller in communication with sensor 150)
and wherein the safety controller is configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from the sensor, measurement data; (Column 4 Line 57-58 teaches sensor module 102 receives sensor data from sensors 150)
performing signal conditioning on the measurement data to generate a conditioned sample; (Column 4 Line 58-59 teaches, The sensor module 102 processes the raw sensor data)
analyzing the conditioned sample and determining whether to take a safety action; and (Column 5 Line 38-45 teaches, In an embodiment, the vehicle management system 100 includes a safety management controller 108 configured to receive the sensor data from the sensor module 102 and apply one or more safety protocols to ensure the AGV 101 does not collide with any detected objects. In one embodiment, the safety management controller 108 can generate, based on the sensor data, instructions to stop the AGV 101 and provide the instructions to the motion controller 106.)
the control processor configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving the conditioned sample; and (Column 4 Line 57-61 teaches, the environment interpretation module 110 receives processed sensor data from the sensor module 102.)
controlling one or more operations of the machine based on the conditioned sample. (Column 4 Line 62- Column 5 Line 37 teaches environment interpretation module 110, environment interpretation module 110 and motion controller 106 controlling drive system based on the sensor data)
Alagic doesn’t explicitly teach,
a sensor configured to measure an operating characteristic of a machine; (Alagic doesn’t explicitly teach sensor configured to measure operating characteristics of a machine. Papenbreer in ¶0036 teaches sensors 185 may comprise any number of devices adapted to detect process conditions)
the safety controller comprising a dedicated boundary processor, wherein the safety controller is in communication with a control processor through the boundary processor which isolates operations of the control processor from the safety controller, (Alagic teaches, sensor module and safety management controller is communication with environment interpretation module, path and trajectory planning module and motion controller, it doesn’t teach the communication through a boundary processor. Papenbreer in ¶0055 teaches, communication The safety controller 100 and non-safety controller 130 over the backplane 300.)
sending the conditioned sample to the boundary processor for transmission to the control processor; (Alagic teaches, sensor module sends the processed sensor data to the environment interpretation module it doesn’t teach the communication through a boundary processor. Papenbreer in ¶0055 teaches, communication The safety controller 100 and non-safety controller 130 over the backplane 300)
Papenbreer is an art in the area of interest as it teaches, a control system configured to control safety-critical and non-safety-critical processes. A combination of Papenbreer with Alagic would allow using sensor data regarding an operating characteristic of a machine and communication between safety controller and control processor to take place through a boundary processor (backplane). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Papenbreer with Alagic. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow for detecting sensor data in order to control the industrial process 170 and for distribution of power and data signals between safety controller module 100 and the non-safety controller 130. Such backplanes are currently in use throughout industrial applications to provide data and control signals to and from automation controllers, computer components and peripherals and so forth, as taught by Papenbreer in ¶0054.
Regarding claim 8,
Alagic and Papenbreer teaches, The system of claim 1, wherein the control processor controls a speed of the machine. (Alagic in Column 5 Line 34-37 teaches, The motion controller 106 converts the trajectory information into one or more drive commands or instructions (e.g., velocity commands) to be provided to the drive system 115.)
Regarding claim 10,
Alagic and Papenbreer teaches, The system of claim 1, wherein the safety action is an emergency machine stop. (Alagic in Column 5 Line 42-45 teaches, In one embodiment, the safety management controller 108 can generate, based on the sensor data, instructions to stop the AGV 101 and provide the instructions to the motion controller 106.)
Regarding claim 11,
Alagic and Papenbreer teaches. The system of claim 1, wherein the boundary processor isolates the control processor from the safety controller, and wherein the boundary processor sends the conditioned sample to the control processor using a proprietary protocol. (Papenbreer in ¶0055 teaches, communication The safety controller 100 and non-safety controller 130 over the backplane 300 using over Ethernet/IP.)
Regarding claim 12,
Alagic teaches, A method comprising:
receiving, at a safety controller and from a sensor, measurement data; (Column 4 Line 57-58 teaches sensor module 102 receives sensor data from sensors 150)
performing, by the safety controller, signal conditioning on the measurement data to generate a conditioned sample; (Column 4 Line 58-59 teaches, The sensor module 102 processes the raw sensor data)
analyzing, by the safety controller, the conditioned sample and determining whether to take a safety action; and (Column 5 Line 38-45 teaches, In an embodiment, the vehicle management system 100 includes a safety management controller 108 configured to receive the sensor data from the sensor module 102 and apply one or more safety protocols to ensure the AGV 101 does not collide with any detected objects. In one embodiment, the safety management controller 108 can generate, based on the sensor data, instructions to stop the AGV 101 and provide the instructions to the motion controller 106.)
receiving, by the control processor and from the boundary processor, the conditioned sample; and (Column 4 Line 57-61 teaches, the environment interpretation module 110 receives processed sensor data from the sensor module 102.)
controlling, by the control processor, one or more operations of the machine based on the conditioned sample. (Column 4 Line 62- Column 5 Line 37 teaches environment interpretation module 110, environment interpretation module 110 and motion controller 106 controlling drive system based on the sensor data)
Alagic doesn’t explicitly teach,
a sensor configured to measure an operating characteristic of a machine (Alagic doesn’t explicitly teach sensor configured to measure operating characteristics of a machine. Papenbreer in ¶0036 teaches sensors 185 may comprise any number of devices adapted to detect process conditions)
sending the conditioned sample to a boundary processor that isolates operations of a control processor from the safety controller for transmission to the control processor; (Alagic teaches, sensor module sends the processed sensor data to the environment interpretation module it doesn’t teach the communication through a boundary processor. Papenbreer in ¶0055 teaches, communication The safety controller 100 and non-safety controller 130 over the backplane 300)
Papenbreer is an art in the area of interest as it teaches, a control system configured to control safety-critical and non-safety-critical processes. A combination of Papenbreer with Alagic would allow using sensor data regarding an operating characteristic of a machine and communication between safety controller and control processor to take place through a boundary processor (backplane). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Papenbreer with Alagic. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow for detecting sensor data in order to control the industrial process 170 and for distribution of power and data signals between safety controller module 100 and the non-safety controller 130. Such backplanes are currently in use throughout industrial applications to provide data and control signals to and from automation controllers, computer components and peripherals and so forth, as taught by Papenbreer in ¶0054.
Regarding claim 18,
Alagic teaches, A machinery control system comprising:
a safety controller in communication with the sensor, (Fig. 1 teaches, sensor module 102 and safety management controller in communication with sensor 150)
and wherein the safety controller is configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from the sensor, measurement data; (Column 4 Line 57-58 teaches sensor module 102 receives sensor data from sensors 150)
performing signal conditioning on the measurement data to generate a conditioned sample; (Column 4 Line 58-59 teaches, The sensor module 102 processes the raw sensor data)
analyzing the conditioned sample and determining whether to take a safety action; and (Column 5 Line 38-45 teaches, In an embodiment, the vehicle management system 100 includes a safety management controller 108 configured to receive the sensor data from the sensor module 102 and apply one or more safety protocols to ensure the AGV 101 does not collide with any detected objects. In one embodiment, the safety management controller 108 can generate, based on the sensor data, instructions to stop the AGV 101 and provide the instructions to the motion controller 106.)
wherein the control processor controls one or more operations of the machine based on the conditioned sample. (Column 4 Line 62- Column 5 Line 37 teaches environment interpretation module 110, environment interpretation module 110 and motion controller 106 controlling drive system based on the sensor data)
Alagic doesn’t explicitly teach,
a sensor configured to measure an operating characteristic of a machine; (Alagic doesn’t explicitly teach sensor configured to measure operating characteristics of a machine. Papenbreer in ¶0036 teaches sensors 185 may comprise any number of devices adapted to detect process conditions)
the safety controller comprising a dedicated boundary processor, wherein the safety controller is in communication with a control processor through the boundary processor which isolates operations of the control processor from the safety controller, (Alagic teaches, sensor module and safety management controller is communication with environment interpretation module, path and trajectory planning module and motion controller, it doesn’t teach the communication through a boundary processor. Papenbreer in ¶0055 teaches, communication The safety controller 100 and non-safety controller 130 over the backplane 300.)
sending the conditioned sample to the boundary processor for transmission to the control processor, (Alagic teaches, sensor module sends the processed sensor data to the environment interpretation module it doesn’t teach the communication through a boundary processor. Papenbreer in ¶0055 teaches, communication The safety controller 100 and non-safety controller 130 over the backplane 300)
Papenbreer is an art in the area of interest as it teaches, a control system configured to control safety-critical and non-safety-critical processes. A combination of Papenbreer with Alagic would allow using sensor data regarding an operating characteristic of a machine and communication between safety controller and control processor to take place through a boundary processor (backplane). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Papenbreer with Alagic. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow for detecting sensor data in order to control the industrial process 170 and for distribution of power and data signals between safety controller module 100 and the non-safety controller 130. Such backplanes are currently in use throughout industrial applications to provide data and control signals to and from automation controllers, computer components and peripherals and so forth, as taught by Papenbreer in ¶0054.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, 13-15, 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alagic (US11762390B1) in view of Papenbreer (US20170123396A1) and further in view of Schleede et al. (US12280796Bl)
Regarding claim 2,
Alagic and Papenbreer doesn’t teach, The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor is triggered by a timer to perform a measurement periodically. (Schleede in Column 4 Line 7-11 teaches, In at least one example, a sensor may generate sensor data 106 in association with a time, which may be referred to herein as a timestep-a reference to a discrete point in time that is indexed by timesteps. Sensor data may be generated at intervals between timesteps, such as 5 milliseconds,)
Schleede is an art in the area of interest as it teaches receiving sensor data (see Column 4 Line 7-11). A combination of Schleede with Alagic and Papenbreer would allow the sensor to perform measurement periodically. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow the system to comply with measurement frequency supported by sensor output, a digital signal processing component or a user-defined parameter, as taught by Schleede in Column 4 Line 14-18.
Regarding claim 3,
Alagic, Papenbreer and Schleede teaches, The system of claim 2, wherein the control processor is configured to wait to control one or more operations of the machine until a next trigger of the timer. (Schleede in Column 2 Line 20-23 teaches, The techniques discussed herein include determining a set of controls for each timestep up to a time horizon. For example, the timesteps may be 0.2 seconds and the time horizon may be 2 seconds; 0.5 second timesteps and a 5 or 10 second time horizon; or the like)
Regarding claim 4,
Alagic, Papenbreer and Schleede teaches, The system of claim 2, wherein the timer triggers the measurement every 5ms. (Schleede in Column 4 Line 7-11 teaches, In at least one example, a sensor may generate sensor data 106 in association with a time, which may be referred to herein as a timestep-a reference to a discrete point in time that is indexed by timesteps. Sensor data may be generated at intervals between timesteps, such as 5 milliseconds,)
Regarding claim 6,
Alagic and Papenbreer doesn’t teach, The system of claim 1, wherein the operations of the safety controller are configured to occur during a scheduled period, and wherein the conditioned sample is sent to the boundary processor and transmitted to the control processor within the first 10% of the scheduled period. (Schleede in Column 2 Line 19-25 teaches, determining a set of controls for each time step which may be 0.2 seconds. Schleede in Column 4 Line 7-11 teaches, Sensor data may be generated at intervals between timesteps, such as 5 milliseconds. Therefore, the sensor data is generated within less than 10% of the timestep of control determination)
Schleede is an art in the area of interest as it teaches receiving sensor data (see Column 4 Line 7-11). A combination of Schleede with Alagic and Papenbreer would allow the sensor to perform measurement periodically. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow the system to comply with measurement frequency supported by sensor output, a digital signal processing component or a user-defined parameter, as taught by Schleede in Column 4 Line 14-18.
Regarding claim 13,
Alagic and Papenbreer doesn’t teach, The method of claim 12, wherein the sensor is triggered by a timer to perform a measurement periodically. (Schleede in Column 4 Line 7-11 teaches, In at least one example, a sensor may generate sensor data 106 in association with a time, which may be referred to herein as a timestep-a reference to a discrete point in time that is indexed by timesteps. Sensor data may be generated at intervals between timesteps, such as 5 milliseconds,)
Schleede is an art in the area of interest as it teaches receiving sensor data (see Column 4 Line 7-11). A combination of Schleede with Alagic and Papenbreer would allow the sensor to perform measurement periodically. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow the system to comply with measurement frequency supported by sensor output, a digital signal processing component or a user-defined parameter, as taught by Schleede in Column 4 Line 14-18.
Regarding claim 14,
Alagic, Papenbreer and Schleede teaches, The method of claim 13, wherein the control processor is configured to wait to control one or more operations of the machine until a next trigger of the timer. (Schleede in Column 2 Line 20-23 teaches, The techniques discussed herein include determining a set of controls for each timestep up to a time horizon. For example, the timesteps may be 0.2 seconds and the time horizon may be 2 seconds; 0.5 second timesteps and a 5 or 10 second time horizon; or the like)
Regarding claim 15,
Alagic, Papenbreer and Schleede teaches, The method of claim 13, wherein the timer triggers the measurement every 5ms. (Schleede in Column 4 Line 7-11 teaches, In at least one example, a sensor may generate sensor data 106 in association with a time, which may be referred to herein as a timestep-a reference to a discrete point in time that is indexed by timesteps. Sensor data may be generated at intervals between timesteps, such as 5 milliseconds,)
Regarding claim 17,
Alagic and Papenbreer doesn’t teach, The method of claim 12, wherein the operations of the safety controller are configured to occur during a scheduled period, and wherein the conditioned sample is sent to the boundary processor and transmitted to the control processor within the first 10% of the scheduled period. (Schleede in Column 2 Line 19-25 teaches, determining a set of controls for each time step which may be 0.2 seconds. Schleede in Column 4 Line 7-11 teaches, Sensor data may be generated at intervals between timesteps, such as 5 milliseconds. Therefore, the sensor data is generated within less than 10% of the timestep of control determination)
Schleede is an art in the area of interest as it teaches receiving sensor data (see Column 4 Line 7-11). A combination of Schleede with Alagic and Papenbreer would allow the sensor to perform measurement periodically. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow the system to comply with measurement frequency supported by sensor output, a digital signal processing component or a user-defined parameter, as taught by Schleede in Column 4 Line 14-18.
Regarding claim 19,
Alagic and Papenbreer doesn’t teach, The system of claim 18, wherein the sensor is triggered by a timer to perform a measurement periodically. (Schleede in Column 4 Line 7-11 teaches, In at least one example, a sensor may generate sensor data 106 in association with a time, which may be referred to herein as a timestep-a reference to a discrete point in time that is indexed by timesteps. Sensor data may be generated at intervals between timesteps, such as 5 milliseconds,)
Schleede is an art in the area of interest as it teaches receiving sensor data (see Column 4 Line 7-11). A combination of Schleede with Alagic and Papenbreer would allow the sensor to perform measurement periodically. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow the system to comply with measurement frequency supported by sensor output, a digital signal processing component or a user-defined parameter, as taught by Schleede in Column 4 Line 14-18.
Regarding claim 20,
Alagic, Papenbreer and Schleede teaches, The system of claim 19, wherein the control processor is configured to wait to control one or more operations of the machine until a next trigger of the timer. (Schleede in Column 2 Line 20-23 teaches, The techniques discussed herein include determining a set of controls for each timestep up to a time horizon. For example, the timesteps may be 0.2 seconds and the time horizon may be 2 seconds; 0.5 second timesteps and a 5 or 10 second time horizon; or the like)
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alagic (US11762390B1) in view of Papenbreer (US20170123396A1) and further in view of Schleede et al. (US12280796Bl) and further om view of Maharyta (US9176636B1)
Regarding claim 5,
Alagic, Papenbreer and Schleede doesn’t teach, The system of claim 2, wherein analyzing the conditioned sample comprises confirming that the measurement was performed within 10% of a total period of the periodic measurements. (Maharyta in Column 4 Line 39-44 teaches, the measurement periods 261 represent a relatively small percentage of the button monitoring period 260; thus, the operational duty cycle of the sensing block 220 is relatively low, and the sensing block 220 draws current for only a small percentage (e.g., 1%-10%) of the time during which the button 201 states are being monitored.)
Maharyta is an art in the area of interest as it relates to using sensor to perform measurement. A combination of Maharyta with Alagic, Papenbreer and Schleede would allow the measurement to be performed 10% of the total period of the periodic measurement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Maharyta with Alagic, Papenbreer and Schleede because doing so would reduce the amount of current drawn by the sensor and reduce overall power consumption of the sensor, as taught by Maharyta in Column 4 Line 39-44.
Regarding claim 16,
Alagic, Papenbreer and Schleede doesn’t teach, The method of claim 13, wherein analyzing the conditioned sample comprises confirming that the measurement was performed within 10% of a total period of the periodic measurements. (Maharyta in Column 4 Line 39-44 teaches, the measurement periods 261 represent a relatively small percentage of the button monitoring period 260; thus, the operational duty cycle of the sensing block 220 is relatively low, and the sensing block 220 draws current for only a small percentage (e.g., 1%-10%) of the time during which the button 201 states are being monitored.)
Maharyta is an art in the area of interest as it relates to using sensor to perform measurement. A combination of Maharyta with Alagic, Papenbreer and Schleede would allow the measurement to be performed 10% of the total period of the periodic measurement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Maharyta with Alagic, Papenbreer and Schleede because doing so would reduce the amount of current drawn by the sensor and reduce overall power consumption of the sensor, as taught by Maharyta in Column 4 Line 39-44.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alagic (US11762390B1) in view of Papenbreer (US20170123396A1) and further in view of Hess et al. (US20210072723A1)
Regarding claim 7,
Alagic and Papenbreer doesn’t teach, The system of claim 1, wherein the machine is a turbine generator. (Hess in ¶0036 teaches, a safety instrumented system being used in a gas turbine system)
Hess is an art in the area of interest as it teaches a gas turbine system (¶0036). A combination of Hess with Alagic and Papenbreer would teach applying the safety control system of Alagic and Papenbreer to be applied to a turbine generator. Many industries, such as hydrocarbon refining and power generation, can rely heavily upon operation of machinery, and in some instances, continuous operation of machinery. In these environments, failure of one or more machines can incur significant costs due to repair expenses, as well as loss of production, potential injury to workers, and/or environmental hazard. Given these risks, it can be common to employ protection monitoring systems to monitor one or more processes performed by a machine, as taught by Hess in ¶0002-¶0003. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the safety control system of Alagic and Papenbreer to be applied to a turbine generator.
Regarding claim 9,
Alagic and Papenbreer doesn’t teach, The system of claim 1, wherein the measurement data comprises information associated with machine temperature, pressure, acceleration rate, and speed. (Alagic doesn’t explicitly teach sensor data comprises information associated with machine temperature, pressure, acceleration rate, and speed. Hess in ¶0043 teaches receiving sensor data comprising speed, acceleration, pressure and temperature of the machine)
Hess is an art in the area of interest as it teaches a gas turbine system (¶0036). A combination of Hess with Alagic and Papenbreer would teach applying the safety control system of Alagic and Papenbreer to be applied to a turbine generator. Many industries, such as hydrocarbon refining and power generation, can rely heavily upon operation of machinery, and in some instances, continuous operation of machinery. In these environments, failure of one or more machines can incur significant costs due to repair expenses, as well as loss of production, potential injury to workers, and/or environmental hazard. Given these risks, it can be common to employ protection monitoring systems to monitor one or more processes performed by a machine, as taught by Hess in ¶0002-¶0003. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the safety control system of Alagic and Papenbreer to be applied to a turbine generator and use sensor regarding turbine generator operation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISTIAQUE AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-7087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 10AM -6PM and alternate Fridays.
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, Kenneth M Lo can be reached at (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 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.
/ISTIAQUE AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights