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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks page 6, filed 09/01/2026, with respect rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant argues, “The Office Action alleges that the claims are directed to an abstract idea due to the feature "analyzing the conditioned sample and determining whether to take a safety action." Applicant has removed this feature from each of the independent claims, and respectfully submits that the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is moot.”
Examiner agrees. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks pages 6-7, filed 09/01/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8, 10-11, 12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Alagic (US11762390B1) in view of Papenbreer (US20170123396A1) and further in view of Snuggerud (US20170046057A1).
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, 12 and 18 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 Snuggerud (US20170046057A1)
Regarding claim 1,
Alagic teaches, A machinery control system comprising:
a sensor configured to measure an operating characteristic of a machine;
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)
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 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, as taught by Papenbreer in ¶0036. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the system of Alagic sensors that measure operating characteristic of machine as taught Papenbreer since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Alagic and Papenbreer doesn’t teach, 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 by enforcing one-way communication from the safety controller to the control processor, (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. Snuggerud in ¶0084, ¶0077-¶0079 teaches, transmitting sensor data from MPS (module protection system) to MCS (module control system) network via a data diode. ¶0084 also teaches, A data diode 166 may protect the MPS 180 by enabling data to flow from the MPS 180 to the MCS 198, but prevent data flowing from MCS network 198 to MPS 180)
sending the conditioned sample to the boundary processor for transmission to the control processor; (Alagic in Column 4 Line 58-62 teaches, sensor module sends the processed sensor data to the environment interpretation module it doesn’t teach the communication through a boundary processor. Snuggerud in in ¶0084, ¶0077-¶0079 teaches sending sensor data over a data diode)
Snuggerud is an art in the area of interest as it relates to transmission of sensor data in a process control environment. A combination of Snuggerud with Alagic and Papenbreer would allow the system to use a dedicated boundary processor (data diode) to transmit the sensor data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Snuggerud with Alagic and Papenbreer. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow protecting the data buses upstream of the data diode from data buses downstream of the data diode, as taught by Snuggerud in ¶0084. Doing so would improve data security of the sensor data.
Regarding claim 8,
Alagic, Papenbreer and Snuggerud 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, Papenbreer and Snuggerud teaches, The system of claim 1, wherein the safety controller is configured to perform an emergency machine stop based on the conditioned signal. (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 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; and (Column 4 Line 58-59 teaches, The sensor module 102 processes the raw sensor data)
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)
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 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, as taught by Papenbreer in ¶0036. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the system of Alagic sensors that measure operating characteristic of machine as taught Papenbreer since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Alagic and Papenbreer doesn’t teach, sending the conditioned sample to a boundary processor that isolates operations of a control processor from the safety controller by enforcing one-way communication from the safety controller to the control processor for transmission to the control processor; (Alagic in Column 4 Line 58-62 teaches, sensor module sends the processed sensor data to the environment interpretation module it doesn’t teach the communication through a boundary processor. Snuggerud in in ¶0084, ¶0077-¶0079 teaches sending sensor data over a data diode. ¶0084 also teaches, A data diode 166 may protect the MPS 180 by enabling data to flow from the MPS 180 to the MCS 198, but prevent data flowing from MCS network 198 to MPS 180)
Snuggerud is an art in the area of interest as it relates to transmission of sensor data in a process control environment. A combination of Snuggerud with Alagic and Papenbreer would allow the system to use a dedicated boundary processor (data diode) to transmit the sensor data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Snuggerud with Alagic and Papenbreer. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow protecting the data buses upstream of the data diode from data buses downstream of the data diode, as taught by Snuggerud in ¶0084. Doing so would improve data security of the sensor data.
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; and (Column 4 Line 58-59 teaches, The sensor module 102 processes the raw sensor data)
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)
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 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, as taught by Papenbreer in ¶0036. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the system of Alagic sensors that measure operating characteristic of machine as taught Papenbreer since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Alagic and Papenbreer doesn’t teach, 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 by enforcing one-way communication from the safety controller to the control processor, (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. Snuggerud in ¶0084, ¶0077-¶0079 teaches, transmitting sensor data from MPS (module protection system) to MCS (module control system) network via a data diode. ¶0084 also teaches, A data diode 166 may protect the MPS 180 by enabling data to flow from the MPS 180 to the MCS 198, but prevent data flowing from MCS network 198 to MPS 180)
sending the conditioned sample to the boundary processor for transmission to the control processor, (Alagic in Column 4 Line 58-62 teaches, sensor module sends the processed sensor data to the environment interpretation module it doesn’t teach the communication through a boundary processor. Snuggerud in in ¶0084, ¶0077-¶0079 teaches sending sensor data over a data diode)
Snuggerud is an art in the area of interest as it relates to transmission of sensor data in a process control environment. A combination of Snuggerud with Alagic and Papenbreer would allow the system to use a dedicated boundary processor (data diode) to transmit the sensor data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Snuggerud with Alagic and Papenbreer. One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow protecting the data buses upstream of the data diode from data buses downstream of the data diode, as taught by Snuggerud in ¶0084. Doing so would improve data security of the sensor data.
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 Snuggerud (US20170046057A1) and further in view of Schleede et al. (US12280796Bl)
Regarding claim 2,
Alagic, Papenbreer and Snuggerud 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, Papenbreer and Snuggerud 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, Snuggerud 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, Snuggerud 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, Papenbreer and Snuggerud 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, Papenbreer and Snuggerud 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, Papenbreer and Snuggerud 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, Papenbreer and Snuggerud 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, Snuggerud 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, Snuggerud 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, Papenbreer and Snuggerud 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, Papenbreer and Snuggerud 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, Snuggerud 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 Snuggerud (US20170046057A1) and further in view of Schleede et al. (US12280796Bl) and further om view of Maharyta (US9176636B1)
Regarding claim 5,
Alagic, Papenbreer, Snuggerud 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, Snuggerud 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, Snuggerud 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, Snuggerud 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, Snuggerud 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, Snuggerud 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 Snuggerud (US20170046057A1) and further in view of Hess et al. (US20210072723A1)
Regarding claim 7,
Alagic, Papenbreer and Snuggerud 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, Papenbreer and Snuggerud would teach applying the safety control system of Alagic, Papenbreer and Snuggerud 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, Papenbreer and Snuggerud 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, Papenbreer and Snuggerud would teach applying the safety control system of Alagic, Papenbreer and Snuggerud 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.
Claim(s) 11 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 Snuggerud (US20170046057A1) and further in view of Rotvold et al. (US20180115517A1)
Regarding claim 11,
Alagic, Papenbreer and Snuggerud teaches. The system of claim 1, wherein the boundary processor isolates the control processor from the safety controller, and (Snuggerud in ¶0084, ¶0077-¶0079 teaches, transmitting sensor data from MPS (module protection system) to MCS (module control system) network via a data diode. ¶0084 also teaches, A data diode 166 may protect the MPS 180 by enabling data to flow from the MPS 180 to the MCS 198, but prevent data flowing from MCS network 198 to MPS 180)
Alagic, Papenbreer and Snuggerud doesn’t teach, wherein the boundary processor sends the conditioned sample to the control processor using a proprietary protocol. (Alagic and Snuggerud as combined teaches a boundary processor sending conditioned sample to the control processor. However, the combination doesn’t teach, using a proprietary protocol. Rotvold in ¶0052, ¶0053, ¶0077, ¶0078, ¶0080, ¶0081 and ¶0087 teaches transmitting process control data over data diode using various different communication protocol)
Rotvold is an art in the area of interest as it relates to data communication in a process control environment (¶0002). A combination of Rotvold with Alagic, Papenbreer and Snuggerud would allow transmitting data over the boundary processor (data diode) using proprietary protocol. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Rotvold with Alagic, Papenbreer and Snuggerud. One would have been motivated to do so because using different proprietary communication protocols while transmitting over a data diode is known in the art as evident by Rotvold in ¶0052, ¶0053, ¶0077, ¶0078, ¶0080, ¶0081 and ¶0087. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
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