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 Amendment
The Amendments to the Claims filed 02/13/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendment to the Claims have overcome each and every claim objection and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection previously set forth in the Non-final rejection dated 01/14/2026. Due to amendments to the claims new claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are presented below.
Claim Objections
As noted above the previous claim objections previously set forth have been overcome by amendment to the claims. However, new claim objections have arisen due to amendment to the claims.
Claims 3 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 line 1: “the device of claim 0” should be corrected to “the device of claim [[0]]2”.
Claim 12 line 2: “the system of claim Error! Reference source not found” should be corrected to “the system of claim 11 .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
As noted above the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections previously set forth have been overcome by amendment to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagues (EP 2550623 B1) in view of Sievers et al. (US 20230359784 A1) and Munk et al. (US 20240103508 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sagues teaches:
A device configured to train one or more condition monitoring systems which are arranged to monitor various aspects of a machine, the device comprising:
a plurality of physical connections configured to communicatively couple the device to one or more condition monitoring systems (See Fig. 5/1, Fig. 7, para[0018], and para[0053]: In the preferred embodiment, the configurable, connectorized input/output module 90 contains a 25-pin input/output connector 91. A controller 40 constantly measures all four temperatures and constantly evaluates the following logic statements:); and
a waveform generator configured to generate simulated waveforms, and a programming board configured to perform initial programming of the waveform generator (See para[0032], para[0037], and para[0091]: The control system simulator 60 sets its outputs to appropriate initial conditions as defined by the user of the simulator. Here the personal computer may also be a system controller. The embedded web server provides configuration pages for each device connected to the module 66. The user then uses a mouse, or other keyboard inputs, to configure the device function and assign input/output pins. The user may simply drag and drop icons on the configuration page to determine a specific interconnection apparatus for each of the contacts.),
wherein the waveform generator comprises at least one data processor and a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor (See Fig. 8, para[0029], and para[0065]: The control system simulator 60 of Fig. 3 is then electrically connected to the control system 40. The microprocessor contains a buffer memory 92.),
cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
determining, based on the sensor data, a simulated waveform characteristic of the sensor type (See para[0030] and para[0036]: The appropriate response includes causing the simulator to produce an electrical signal representative of the mass flow rate sensor 18. Second, the control system simulator will begin computing the changes to the other temperatures that would result given the speed of the variable-speed pump set by the control system 40.),
generating the simulated waveform, and transmitting the simulated waveform to the one or more condition monitoring systems to train the one or more condition monitoring systems by simulating an output from the sensor type (See para[0030] and para[0036]: The appropriate response includes causing the simulator to produce an electrical signal representative of the mass flow rate sensor 18. Second, the control system simulator will begin computing the changes to the other temperatures that would result given the speed of the variable-speed pump set by the control system 40.).
Sagues is silent as to the language of:
a computing system including a power generator configured to retrieve power from the one or more condition monitoring systems, via the plurality of physical connections, to power the device, and
receiving, from the one or more condition monitoring systems, sensor data characterizing a sensor type of a plurality of sensor types to be coupled to the one or more condition monitoring systems and arranged to monitor the various aspects of the machine.
Nevertheless Sievers teaches:
receiving, from the one or more condition monitoring systems, sensor data characterizing a sensor type of a plurality of sensor types to be coupled to the one or more condition monitoring systems and arranged to monitor the various aspects of the machine (See para[0013] and para[0019] – para[0022]: A module for simulating at least one sensor, the module has a sensor simulation and a first data interface of a first type, wherein the sensor simulation is designed and set up to supply synthetic sensor data to a device. In this step, moreover, enrichment can be performed with the information about the at least one property, therefore, with further information, such as, e.g., information about the sensor type of the real sensor. The kind of data that the transmitted data of the record are and where they can be found in the record can be determined on the basis of, e.g., the information about the sensor type (property).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sagues by receiving, from the one or more condition monitoring systems, sensor data characterizing a sensor type of a plurality of sensor types to be coupled to the one or more condition monitoring systems and arranged to monitor the various aspects of the machine such as that of Sievers. Sievers teaches, “The determination based on this property or these properties makes use of the fact that, with knowledge of the protocol used for the record for data exchange via the second data interface of the first type, the sensor used for the record, and/or the second data interface of the first type used for the record, it is also known (e.g., from the received information about the at least one property) where in the record which information can be found, which can then be used as the characteristic or characteristics to configure the sensor simulation and/or the first data interface of the first type” (See para[0032]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sagues, because receiving sensor type would have helped to determine what characteristics to use when simulating a sensor, as recognized by Sievers.
Sievers is silent as to the language of:
a computing system including a power generator configured to retrieve power from the one or more condition monitoring systems, via the plurality of physical connections, to power the device.
Nevertheless Munk teaches:
a computing system including a power generator configured to retrieve power from the one or more condition monitoring systems, via the plurality of physical connections, to power the device (See Fig. 2A, Fig. 2B, and para[0033] – para[0034]: The electronic control unit 2 is connected to the HIL simulator 3 via a two-wire cable 4 via the switchover device 5. In the normal state, the evaluation unit 12 of the electronic control unit 2 is connected to the simulator 3. The simulated sensor is powered by the evaluation unit 12.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sagues by a computing system including a power generator configured to retrieve power from the one or more condition monitoring systems, via the plurality of physical connections, to power the device such as that of Munk. Munk teaches, “The simulated sensor is then connected, for example, to the evaluation unit of the electronic control unit via a two-wire power interface, which ensures both the transmission of the signal and the supply of electrical energy to the sensor” (See para[0007]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sagues, because retrieving power from a condition monitoring system would have helped to ensure that the simulated sensor has a supply of electrical energy, as recognized by Munk.
Regarding Claim 2. Sagues teaches:
The device of claim 1,
Wherein the simulated waveform is generated digitally (See para[0005]: These electrical signals are then converted by the control system to digital representations mimicked by the simulator.),
the device further comprising:
a digital to analog converter configured to convert the simulated waveform determined by the processor from a digital signal to an analog signal to be transmitted to the one or more condition monitoring systems (See para[0074]: Fig. 10 shows a digital-to-analog converter (D/A or DAC) connectable to the device communication connector 69. In Fig. 11, the digital-to-analog converter 226 is connected to the output pin 208 via the switch 220.).
Regarding Claim 3. Sagues teaches:
The device of claim 2,
wherein the plurality of sensor types include at least one of a temperature sensor (See para[0006]: mimics the electrical signal produced by the temperature sensor.), a current sensor, a voltage sensor, a pressure sensor (See para[0045]: Glycol Pressure Transducer Signal 82.), a displacement sensor, a velocity sensor, an acceleration sensor, a flow sensors (See para[0030]: the simulator to produce an electrical signal representative of the mass flow rate sensor 18.) or any combination thereof, configured to monitor the various aspects of the machine, and wherein the simulated waveform is characteristic of the output from the sensor type (See para[0006] and para[0030]: Mimics the electrical signal produced by the temperature sensor. The simulator to produce an electrical signal representative of the mass flow rate sensor 18.).
Regarding Claim 4. Sagues teaches:
The device of claim 3,
wherein the memory is further configured to store data characterizing a plurality of simulated waveforms characteristic of the plurality of sensor types and the at least one processor is configured to determine the simulated waveform based on the data characterizing the plurality of simulated waveforms stored on the memory (See para[0036]: Second, the control system simulator will begin computing the changes to the other temperatures that would result given the speed of the variable-speed pump set by the control system 40. For example, the bottom of first tank temperature 26 and the top-of-first-tank temperature 28 will begin to increase given flow of hot propylene glycol into the heat exchanger 14 in first tank 16. The amount of change to the temperature is a function of both the variable pump flow rate set by the control system computer and the simulated and increasing solar radiation impinging upon the solar panel.).
Regarding Claim 5. Sagues is silent as to the language of:
The device of claim 1,
wherein the simulated waveform comprises one or more features characteristic of data recorded the sensor type monitoring the operation of the machine.
Nevertheless Sievers teaches:
wherein the simulated waveform comprises one or more features characteristic of data recorded the sensor type monitoring the operation of the machine (See para[0023]: The method can also determine at least one characteristic of the real sensor and/or the second data interface of the first type, and the method can include the step of configuring the sensor simulation and/or the first data interface of the first type based on the at least one characteristic such that the synthetic sensor data simulate the sensor data of the real sensor.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sagues wherein the simulated waveform comprises one or more features characteristic of data recorded the sensor type monitoring the operation of the machine such as that of Sievers. Sievers teaches, “by recording and reading out this communication, at least one characteristic can be obtained and the first data interface of the first type can be configured accordingly in the sensor simulation. This saves manual configuration in particular. The sensor simulation can therefore be adapted to the device more easily, reliably, and quickly” (See para[0029]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sagues, because using characteristic features to simulate sensor data would have helped to more easily and quickly adapt a simulation to the sensor, as recognized by Sievers.
Regarding Claim 8. Sagues teaches:
The device of claim 1,
wherein the one or more condition monitoring systems include a plurality of condition monitoring systems connected to the device in parallel (See Fig. 8 and para[0043]: Eight devices-six sensors and two actuators-are normally connected to the solar hot water control system computer 40. In order to simulate the function of these eight devices, the control system simulator computer 60 must be electrically connected in the place of these eight devices.).
Sagues is silent as to the language of:
The at least one data processor is configured to transmit the simulated waveform to the plurality of condition monitoring systems.
Nevertheless Sievers teaches:
the at least one data processor is configured to transmit the simulated waveform to the plurality of condition monitoring systems (See para[0063] - para[0064]: Sensor simulation 16 is designed and set up to supply synthetic sensor data to device 30 for executing open- and/or closed-loop tasks via the first data interface of the first type 14. The record and/or the configuration specification can be read in only once and then used for multiple chronologically consecutive tests or for multiple parallel tests of control units of the same type and configuration.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sagues by the at least one data processor is configured to transmit the simulated waveform to the plurality of condition monitoring systems such as that of Sievers. Sievers teaches, “The record and/or the configuration specification can be read in only once and then used for multiple chronologically consecutive tests or for multiple parallel tests of control units of the same type and configuration” (See para[0064]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sagues, because transmitting simulated waveforms to multiple systems would have helped to perform multiple parallel tests of control units, as recognized by Sievers.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagues (EP 2550623 B1) in view of Sievers et al. (US 20230359784 A1) and Munk et al. (US 20240103508 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Young (US 20060080075 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Sagues is silent as to the language of:
The device of claim 1,
wherein the programming board is removably coupled to the device via an input, and wherein the programming board is configured to be detached from the input after initial programming of the waveform generator.
Nevertheless Young teaches:
wherein the programming board is removably coupled to the device via an input, and wherein the programming board is configured to be detached from the input after initial programming of the waveform generator (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 5, and para[0034] – para[0035]: the first adapter module is then removed from the simulator card in step 506. Next, in step 508 a second adapter module is coupled to the simulator card. In step 510, the second adapter module is coupled to a second programmable logic controller card and in step 512 signals are output from the simulator card to the second programmable logic controller through the second adapter module.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sagues wherein the programming board is removably coupled to the device via an input, and wherein the programming board is configured to be detached from the input after initial programming of the waveform generator such as that of Young. Young teaches, “Advantageously, this provides for a very inexpensive solution for interchanging a simulator card 100 between different PLC cards” (See para[0020]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sagues, because removably coupling the device to programming board would have helped to interchange a simulator card between different programmable logic controllers, as recognized by Young.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagues (EP 2550623 B1) in view of Sievers et al. (US 20230359784 A1) and Munk et al. (US 20240103508 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brayton et al. (US 20060235637 A1).
Regarding Claim 7. Sagues is silent as to the language of:
The device of claim 1,
further comprising a graphical user interface display configured to display one or more operations performed by the device.
Nevertheless Brayton teaches:
a graphical user interface display configured to display one or more operations performed by the device (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 12, para[0003], and para[0044]: Many control systems will also incorporate a human-machine-interface (HMI) component comprising hardware and or software for facilitating operator interaction with the control system. HMI readouts, trend graphs, alarms, reports, system requirements, etc. Test results are stored in the form of textual date and time stamped data, graphs, and tester responses to prompted questions.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sagues by a graphical user interface display configured to display one or more operations performed by the device such as that of Brayton. Brayton teaches, “Many control systems will also incorporate a human-machine-interface (HMI) component comprising hardware and or software for facilitating operator interaction with the control system” (See para[0003]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sagues, because using a graphical user interface would have helped to facilitate operator interaction with the system, as recognized by Brayton.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagues (EP 2550623 B1) in view of Sievers et al. (US 20230359784 A1) and Munk et al. (US 20240103508 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Higuchi et al. (US 20090240477 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Sagues is silent as to the language of:
The device of claim 1,
further comprising a second plurality of physical connections configured to communicatively couple the device to one or more second devices, similar to the device.
Nevertheless Higuchi teaches:
further comprising a second plurality of physical connections configured to communicatively couple the device to one or more second devices, similar to the device (See Fig. 1, Fig. 5, para[0032], and para[0038]: The simulation system is composed of a plurality of simulation apparatuses 10A and 10B connected with each other via the bus 200, as shown in FIG. 1. Each interface circuit 30 is connected to the bus 200, and inputs and outputs signals via the bus 200.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sagues by a second plurality of physical connections configured to communicatively couple the device to one or more second devices, similar to the device such as that of Higuchi. Higuchi teaches, “the plurality of simulation apparatuses 100A and 100B are connected in a common bus form by the bus 200 from a viewpoint of the speed-up of the signal process” (See para[0059]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sagues, because using a plurality of second physical connections to couple devices in a point-to-point topography would have helped to speed-up signal processing, as recognized by Higuchi.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagues (EP 2550623 B1) in view of Sievers et al. (US 20230359784 A1), Munk et al. (US 20240103508 A1), and Higuchi et al. (US 20090240477 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Aichriedler (US 20170163366 A1).
Regarding Claim 10. Sagues is silent as to the language of:
The device of claim 9,
wherein the device further comprises a transceiver configured to read and transmit every bit to detect collisions, and
wherein the device is communicatively coupled to the one or more second devices and the at least one processor is further configured to perform operations comprising:
determining an arbitration process to avoid collisions based on a pulse frame; and
controlling the transceiver to transmit the simulated waveform based on the arbitration process.
Nevertheless Higuchi teaches:
wherein the device is communicatively coupled to the one or more second devices (See Fig. 1, Fig. 5, para[0032], and para[0038]: The simulation system is composed of a plurality of simulation apparatuses 10A and 10B connected with each other via the bus 200, as shown in FIG. 1. Each interface circuit 30 is connected to the bus 200, and inputs and outputs signals via the bus 200.) and
the at least one processor is further configured to perform operations comprising:
controlling the transceiver to transmit the simulated waveform based on the arbitration process (See Fig. 4 and para[0049]: Therefore, in this case, the arithmetic process unit 20 assigns the signals needing synchronism to any one of the interface circuits 30 of the simulation apparatuses 10A and 10B (i.e., assigns the signals needing synchronism to the interface circuit in the same simulation apparatus) (step ST3).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sagues by a second plurality of physical connections configured to communicatively couple the device to one or more second devices, similar to the device such as that of Higuchi. Higuchi teaches, “the plurality of simulation apparatuses 100A and 100B are connected in a common bus form by the bus 200 from a viewpoint of the speed-up of the signal process” (See para[0059]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sagues, because using a plurality of second physical connections to couple devices in a point-to-point topography would have helped to speed-up signal processing, as recognized by Higuchi.
Higuchi is silent as to the language of:
wherein the device further comprises a transceiver configured to read and transmit every bit to detect collisions, and
determining an arbitration process to avoid collisions based on a pulse frame.
Nevertheless Aichriedler teaches:
wherein the device further comprises a transceiver configured to read and transmit every bit to detect collisions (See para[0028]: The ECU 110 can be coupled to the sensor bus 120 (e.g., via a differential transceiver).), and
the at least one processor is further configured to perform operations comprising:
determining an arbitration process to avoid collisions based on a pulse frame (See para[0028]: The synchronization signal or pulse can both trigger sampling by at least one of the sensors 130i and be employed synchronize the one or more sensors 130i to a common clock. The length of the synchronization pulse can be the same length as data frames transmitted by the one or more sensors 130i (which can have constant length data frames in such embodiments), and the address information can be contained in the duty cycle of the frame, which can determine the number of address bits based on the common length of the data frames and synchronization pulse.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sagues wherein the device further comprises a transceiver configured to read and transmit every bit to detect collisions, and determining an arbitration process to avoid collisions based on a pulse frame such as that of Aichriedler. Aichriedler teaches, “Various embodiments described herein can include an addressing feature to allow for multiple sensors to be connected onto the same bus. Additionally, in aspects, a synchronization frame can be employed to enable synchronous sampling of multiple sensors” (See para[0025]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sagues, because arbitrating using pulse frames would have helped to enable synchronous sampling of multiple sensors, as recognized by Aichriedler.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagues (EP 2550623 B1) in view of Sievers et al. (US 20230359784 A1), Munk et al. (US 20240103508 A1), and Higuchi et al. (US 20090240477 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Sagues teaches:
A system comprising:
each device comprising
a plurality of first physical connections configured to communicatively couple the device to the one or more condition monitoring systems a plurality of devices communicatively coupled to one another in a point-to-point topography and configured to train one or more condition monitoring systems which are arranged to monitor various aspects of a machine,;
a waveform generator configured to generate simulated waveforms, and a programming board configured to perform initial programming of the waveform generator (See para[0032], para[0037], and para[0091]: The control system simulator 60 sets its outputs to appropriate initial conditions as defined by the user of the simulator. Here the personal computer may also be a system controller. The embedded web server provides configuration pages for each device connected to the module 66. The user then uses a mouse, or other keyboard inputs, to configure the device function and assign input/output pins. The user may simply drag and drop icons on the configuration page to determine a specific interconnection apparatus for each of the contacts.),
wherein the waveform generator comprises at least one data processor and a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor (See Fig. 8, para[0029], and para[0065]: The control system simulator 60 of Fig. 3 is then electrically connected to the control system 40. The microprocessor contains a buffer memory 92.),
cause the at least one processor to perform operations including
determining, based on the sensor data, a simulated waveform characteristic of the sensor type (See para[0030] and para[0036]: The appropriate response includes causing the simulator to produce an electrical signal representative of the mass flow rate sensor 18. Second, the control system simulator will begin computing the changes to the other temperatures that would result given the speed of the variable-speed pump set by the control system 40.),
generating the simulated waveform, and transmitting the simulated waveform to the one or more condition monitoring systems to train the one or more condition monitoring systems by simulating an output from the sensor type (See para[0030] and para[0036]: The appropriate response includes causing the simulator to produce an electrical signal representative of the mass flow rate sensor 18. Second, the control system simulator will begin computing the changes to the other temperatures that would result given the speed of the variable-speed pump set by the control system 40.).
Sagues is silent as to the language of:
a plurality of devices communicatively coupled to one another in a point-to-point topography and configured to train one or more condition monitoring systems which are arranged to monitor various aspects of a machine,
a plurality of second physical connections configured to communicatively couple the device to other devices in the plurality of devices in the point-to-point topography;
a computing system comprising a power generator configured to retrieve power from the one or more condition monitoring systems to operate the device, and
receiving, from the condition monitoring system, sensor data characterizing a sensor type of a plurality of sensor types to be coupled to the one or more condition monitoring systems and arranged to monitor the various aspects of the machine.
Nevertheless Sievers teaches:
receiving, from the condition monitoring system, sensor data characterizing a sensor type of a plurality of sensor types to be coupled to the one or more condition monitoring systems and arranged to monitor the various aspects of the machine (See para[0013] and para[0019] – para[0022]: A module for simulating at least one sensor, the module has a sensor simulation and a first data interface of a first type, wherein the sensor simulation is designed and set up to supply synthetic sensor data to a device. In this step, moreover, enrichment can be performed with the information about the at least one property, therefore, with further information, such as, e.g., information about the sensor type of the real sensor. The kind of data that the transmitted data of the record are and where they can be found in the record can be determined on the basis of, e.g., the information about the sensor type (property).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sagues by receiving, from the condition monitoring system, sensor data characterizing a sensor type of a plurality of sensor types to be coupled to the one or more condition monitoring systems and arranged to monitor the various aspects of the machine such as that of Sievers. Sievers teaches, “The determination based on this property or these properties makes use of the fact that, with knowledge of the protocol used for the record for data exchange via the second data interface of the first type, the sensor used for the record, and/or the second data interface of the first type used for the record, it is also known (e.g., from the received information about the at least one property) where in the record which information can be found, which can then be used as the characteristic or characteristics to configure the sensor simulation and/or the first data interface of the first type” (See para[0032]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sagues, because receiving sensor type would have helped to determine what characteristics to use when simulating a sensor, as recognized by Sievers.
Sievers is silent as to the language of:
a plurality of devices communicatively coupled to one another in a point-to-point topography and configured to train one or more condition monitoring systems which are arranged to monitor various aspects of a machine,
a plurality of second physical connections configured to communicatively couple the device to other devices in the plurality of devices in the point-to-point topography;
a computing system comprising a power generator configured to retrieve power from the one or more condition monitoring systems to operate the device.
Nevertheless Munk teaches:
a computing system comprising a power generator configured to retrieve power from the one or more condition monitoring systems to operate the device (See Fig. 2A, Fig. 2B, and para[0033] – para[0034]: The electronic control unit 2 is connected to the HIL simulator 3 via a two-wire cable 4 via the switchover device 5. In the normal state, the evaluation unit 12 of the electronic control unit 2 is connected to the simulator 3. The simulated sensor is powered by the evaluation unit 12.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sagues by a computing system comprising a power generator configured to retrieve power from the one or more condition monitoring systems to operate the device such as that of Munk. Munk teaches, “The simulated sensor is then connected, for example, to the evaluation unit of the electronic control unit via a two-wire power interface, which ensures both the transmission of the signal and the supply of electrical energy to the sensor” (See para[0007]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sagues, because retrieving power from a condition monitoring system would have helped to ensure that the simulated sensor has a supply of electrical energy, as recognized by Munk.
Munk is silent as to the language of:
a plurality of devices communicatively coupled to one another in a point-to-point topography and configured to train one or more condition monitoring systems which are arranged to monitor various aspects of a machine,
a plurality of second physical connections configured to communicatively couple the device to other devices in the plurality of devices in the point-to-point topography;
Nevertheless Higuchi teaches:
a plurality of devices communicatively coupled to one another in a point-to-point topography and configured to train one or more condition monitoring systems which are arranged to monitor various aspects of a machine (See Fig. 1, Fig. 5, para[0016], and para[0032]: The simulation system is composed of a plurality of simulation apparatuses 10A and 10B connected with each other via the bus 200, as shown in FIG. 1.),
a plurality of second physical connections configured to communicatively couple the device to other devices in the plurality of devices in the point-to-point topography (See Fig. 1, Fig. 5, para[0032], and para[0038]: Each interface circuit 30 is connected to the bus 200, and inputs and outputs signals via the bus 200.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sagues by a plurality of devices communicatively coupled to one another in a point-to-point topography and configured to train one or more condition monitoring systems which are arranged to monitor various aspects of a machine,
a plurality of second physical connections configured to communicatively couple the device to other devices in the plurality of devices in the point-to-point topography such as that of Higuchi. Higuchi teaches, “the plurality of simulation apparatuses 100A and 100B are connected in a common bus form by the bus 200 from a viewpoint of the speed-up of the signal process” (See para[0059]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sagues, because using a plurality of second physical connections to couple devices in a point-to-point topography would have helped to speed-up signal processing, as recognized by Higuchi.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagues (EP 2550623 B1) in view of Sievers et al. (US 20230359784 A1), Munk et al. (US 20240103508 A1), and Higuchi et al. (US 20090240477 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Singh et al. (US 9423822 B1) and Chandhoke et al. (US 20180217954 A1).
Regarding Claim 12. Sagues is silent as to the language of:
The system of claim 11,
wherein the plurality of devices are configured to perform a startup function to determine a master device and one or more slave devices of the plurality of devices,
wherein the at least one processor of the master device is further configured to determine a schedule for the transmission of a plurality of simulated waveforms from the plurality of devices to the one or more condition monitoring systems.
Nevertheless Singh teaches:
wherein the plurality of devices are configured to perform a startup function to determine a master device and one or more slave devices of the plurality of devices (See Col. 2 lines 8 – 21 and Col. 11 lines 10 – 15: Cause the at least one processor to select a first subsystem from a plurality of subsystems in a data acquisition (DAQ) module as a master subsystem, cause a clock signal and a trigger signal from the master subsystem to be provided to at least one additional subsystem in the plurality of subsystems in an order represented by a first linear chain, and initialize the master subsystem. The control module 106 can automatically identify a master DAQ module and/or a slave DAQ module.),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sagues wherein the plurality of devices are configured to perform a startup function to determine a master device and one or more slave devices of the plurality of devices such as that of Singh. Singh teaches, “Sub-components in multiple DAQ modules can be initialized to improve synchronization between the DAQ modules” (See Col. 60 - 65). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sagues, because determining a master device would have helped to synchronize transmissions between devices, as recognized by Singh.
Singh is silent as to the language of:
wherein the at least one processor of the master device is further configured to determine a schedule for the transmission of the plurality of simulated waveforms from the plurality of devices to the one or more condition monitoring systems.
Nevertheless Chandhoke teaches:
wherein the at least one processor of the master device is further configured to determine a schedule for the transmission of the plurality of simulated waveforms from the plurality of devices to the one or more condition monitoring systems (See para[0002]: schedule real time streams on the network to ensure timeliness of data delivery from the physical inputs (sensors) to the control function and from the control function to the physical outputs (actuators).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sagues wherein the at least one processor of the master device is further configured to determine a schedule for the transmission of the plurality of simulated waveforms from the plurality of devices to the one or more condition monitoring systems such as that of Chandhoke. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sagues, because using a schedule would have helped to ensure the timeliness of data delivery from sensors, as recognized by Chandhoke.
Regarding Claim 13. Sagues is silent as to the language of:
The system of claim 12,
wherein the at least one processor of the master device is further configured to transmit the schedule to the one or more slave devices, and
wherein the master device and each of the one or more slave devices are configured to transmit their simulated waveform to the one or more condition monitoring systems based on the schedule.
Nevertheless Chandhoke teaches:
wherein the at least one processor of the master device is further configured to transmit the schedule to the one or more slave devices (See para[0096]: Each timed function may be configured to export temporal properties regarding execution of the timed function, and coordination of the physical input operations and/or physical output operations of slave devices under control of the timed function with respect to other timed functions.), and
wherein the master device and each of the one or more slave devices are configured to transmit their simulated waveform to the one or more condition monitoring systems based on the schedule (See para[0002] and para[0095]: schedule real time streams on the network to ensure timeliness of data delivery from the physical inputs (sensors) to the control function and from the control function to the physical outputs (actuators). The schedule may include a schedule for execution and coordination of the timed functions of the master device, and a schedule for transmission of the streams produced by the master device to other master devices.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sagues wherein the at least one processor of the master device is further configured to transmit the schedule to the one or more slave devices, and wherein the master device and each of the one or more slave devices are configured to transmit their simulated waveform to the one or more condition monitoring systems based on the schedule such as that of Chandhoke. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sagues, because using a schedule would have helped to ensure the timeliness of data delivery from sensors, as recognized by Chandhoke.
Regarding Claim 14. Sagues teaches:
The system of claim 13,
wherein the schedule of the plurality of transmitted simulated waveforms are configured to mimic a series of waveforms that would typically by provided to the one or more condition monitoring systems by the plurality of sensor types monitoring the machine (See para[0006]: The simulator computer senses the actuation signal to the heater and responds by integrating the amount of heat in the system and then perhaps gradually increasing or decreasing its output electrical signal which mimics the electrical signal produced by the temperature sensor. The tool control system senses this electrical signal which it cannot distinguish from the electrical signal produced by the temperature sensor.).
Claim(s) 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagues (EP 2550623 B1) in view of Sievers et al. (US 20230359784 A1), Munk et al. (US 20240103508 A1), Higuchi et al. (US 20090240477 A1), Singh et al. (US 9423822 B1) and Chandhoke et al. (US 20180217954 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Brayton et al. (US 20060235637 A1) and Cane (US 20050220127 A1).
Regarding Claim 15. Sagues is silent as to the language of:
The system of claim 12,
wherein each of the plurality of devices further comprises a graphical user interface display configured to display one or more operations performed by the device, and
wherein the at least one processor of the master device is further configured to perform operations comprising:
determining that one or more slave devices has been removed from the system; and
providing a notification to the graphical user interface display indicating that the one or more slave devices has been removed from the system.
Nevertheless Brayton teaches:
wherein each of the plurality of devices further comprises a graphical user interface display configured to display one or more operations performed by the device (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 12, para[0003], para[0038], and para[0044]: Many control systems will also incorporate a human-machine-interface (HMI) component comprising hardware and or software for facilitating operator interaction with the control system. HMI readouts, trend graphs, alarms, reports, system requirements, etc. Test results are stored in the form of textual date and time stamped data, graphs, and tester responses to prompted questions. If the capacity of a single SIMCart 10 is insufficient to simulate an entire plant, multiple SIMCarts 10 can be used to achieve the simulation. Such a combination of SIMCarts 10 may utilize multiple HMI 130 devices, or may share a single HMI 130.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sagues wherein each of the plurality of devices further comprises a graphical user interface display configured to display one or more operations performed by the device such as that of Brayton. Brayton teaches, “Many control systems will also incorporate a human-machine-interface (HMI) component comprising hardware and or software for facilitating operator interaction with the control system” (See para[0003]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sagues, because using a graphical user interface would have helped to facilitate operator interaction with the system, as recognized by Brayton.
Brayton is silent as to the language of:
wherein the at least one processor of the master device is further configured to perform operations comprising:
determining that one or more slave devices has been removed from the system; and
providing a notification to the graphical user interface display indicating that the one or more slave devices has been removed from the system.
Nevertheless Cane teaches:
wherein the at least one processor of the master device is further configured to perform operations comprising:
determining that one or more slave devices has been removed from the system (See para[0086]: The master takes note of a slave being removed and that information is available to the other slaves (via communications channel), if required.); and
providing a notification to the graphical user interface display indicating that the one or more slave devices has been removed from the system (See para[0003] and para[0086]: The master takes note of a slave being removed and that information is available to the other slaves (via communications channel), if required. In other control systems, such apparatus monitor the device, process or system and display alarms or other indicia of its characteristics.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sagues by determining that one or more slave devices has been removed from the system; and providing a notification to the graphical user interface display indicating that the one or more slave devices has been removed from the system such as that of Cane. Cane teaches, “For example, if the current master module 308 should fail due to a hardware problem, another module must automatically and transparently assume the throne as the new master” (See para[0039]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sagues, because determining that a slave device has been removed would have helped to determine what devices remain to take over as the master in case of failure, as recognized by Cane.
Regarding Claim 19. Sagues is silent as to the language of:
The system of claim 12,
wherein the master device is removed from the system and the at least one processor of a first slave device of the one or more slave devices is configured to perform operations comprising:
determining that the master device has been removed from the system; and
repeating the step of performing the startup function to determine a new master device and one or more slave devices of the plurality of devices.
Nevertheless Cane teaches:
wherein the master device is removed from the system (See Fig. 4 and para[0039]: if the current master module 308 should fail due to a hardware problem, another module must automatically and transparently assume the throne as the new master.) and
the at least one processor of a first slave device of the one or more slave devices is configured to perform operations comprising:
determining that the master device has been removed from the system (See Fig. 4 and para[0079]: The slaves assume that the master has been removed if a period of inactivity occurs that is significantly longer than the retransmit delay associated with a ping message. When that happens, a backplane re-initialization will occur, step 400, so that one of the remaining slaves can assume the role as master.); and
repeating the step of performing the startup function to determine a new master device and one or more slave devices of the plurality of devices (See Fig. 4, Fig. 7 and para[0081]: At Phase 2, step 706, the system determine which module is the master module. This process is nearly identically to step 408 of the "power up" sequence described earlier.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sagues wherein the master device is removed from the system and the at least one processor of a first slave device of the one or more slave devices is configured to perform operations comprising: determining that the master device has been removed from the system; and repeating the step of performing the startup function to determine a new master device and one or more slave devices of the plurality of devices such as that of Cane. Cane teaches, “For example, if the current master module 308 should fail due to a hardware problem, another module must automatically and transparently assume the throne as the new master” (See para[0039]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sagues, because determining a new master would have helped to transfer functions if a master fails due to hardware problems, as recognized by Cane.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagues (EP 2550623 B1) in view of Sievers et al. (US 20230359784 A1), Munk et al. (US 20240103508 A1), Higuchi et al. (US 20090240477 A1), Singh et al. (US 9423822 B1) and Chandhoke et al. (US 20180217954 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Brayton et al. (US 20060235637 A1) and Okada (US 6137408 A).
Regarding Claim 16. Sagues is silent as to the language of:
The system of claim 12,
wherein each of the plurality of devices further comprises a graphical user interface display configured to display one or more operations performed by the device, and
wherein the at least one processor of the master device is further configured to perform operations comprising:
determining that one or more slave devices has been added to the system; and
providing a notification to the graphical user interface display indicating that the one or more slave devices has been added from the system.
Nevertheless Brayton teaches:
wherein each of the plurality of devices further comprises a graphical user interface display configured to display one or more operations performed by the device (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 12, para[0003], para[0038], and para[0044]: Many control systems will also incorporate a human-machine-interface (HMI) component comprising hardware and or software for facilitating operator interaction with the control system. HMI readouts, trend graphs, alarms, reports, system requirements, etc. Test results are stored in the form of textual date and time stamped data, graphs, and tester responses to prompted questions. If the capacity of a single SIMCart 10 is insufficient to simulate an entire plant, multiple SIMCarts 10 can be used to achieve the simulation. Such a combination of SIMCarts 10 may utilize multiple HMI 130 devices, or may share a single HMI 130.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sagues wherein each of the plurality of devices further comprises a graphical user interface display configured to display one or more operations performed by the device such as that of Brayton. Brayton teaches, “Many control systems will also incorporate a human-machine-interface (HMI) component comprising hardware and or software for facilitating operator interaction with the control system” (See para[0003]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sagues, because using a graphical user interface would have helped to facilitate operator interaction with the system, as recognized by Brayton.
Brayton is silent as to the language of:
determining that one or more slave devices has been added to the system; and
providing a notification to the graphical user interface display indicating that the one or more slave devices has been added from the system.
Nevertheless Okada teaches:
determining that one or more slave devices has been added to the system (See Col 8 lines 35 - 45: Further, a recognition flag that shows the addition of the slave controller 5A in the added sensor is sent to the master controller 4A, which hence is capable of positive detection of the addition of the slave controller 5A upon receiving the recognition flag.); and
providing a notification to the graphical user interface display indicating that the one or more slave devices has been added from the system (See Col 5 lines 30 – 13 and Col 8 lines 35 - 40: The slave controller 5A also has an indicator LED that shows the status of its operation and an indicator circuit 55 for driving this indicator LED.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sagues by determining that one or more slave devices has been added to the system; and providing a notification to the graphical user interface display indicating that the one or more slave devices has been added from the system such as that of Okada. Okada teaches, “As a further advantage, a change in the facility that employs the detection system can be dealt with by merely adding a slave controller and there is no need to replace the controller entirely” (See Col. 8 lines 60 - 65). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sagues, because adding slave devices would have helped to deal with a change in a facility without needing to replace controllers, as recognized by Okada.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagues (EP 2550623 B1) in view of Sievers et al. (US 20230359784 A1), Munk et al. (US 20240103508 A1), Higuchi et al. (US 20090240477 A1), Singh et al. (US 9423822 B1) and Chandhoke et al. (US 20180217954 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Schrum (US 20210103599 A1).
Regarding Claim 17. Sagues is silent as to the language of:
The system of claim 12,
wherein the at least one processor of the master device is further configured to perform operations comprising:
determining that a second master device has been added to the system upstream of the master device;
notifying upstream devices and downstream devices of the one or more slave devices that the second master device has been added to the system.
Nevertheless Schrum teaches:
determining that a second master device has been added to the system upstream of the master device (See Fig. 2 and para[0046] – para[0050]: The processor parses the received request to determine whether the message includes a request to add the new master node to the multi-master database environment.);
notifying upstream devices and downstream devices of the one or more slave devices that the second master device has been added to the system (See Fig. 2 and para[0062]: The processor generates a message that indicates that the new master node is configured to accept and process create, read, update, and delete (CRUD) operations.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sagues by determining that a second master device has been added to the system upstream of the master device; notifying upstream devices and downstream devices of the one or more slave devices that the second master device has been added to the system such as that of Schrum. Schrum teaches, “Generally, as the distance between the database node and the client computer increases, performance is reduced based on the accumulated latencies between the database node and the client computer” (See para[0001]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sagues, because adding master devices would have helped to increase performance by reducing latencies between nodes, as recognized by Schrum.
Regarding Claim 18. Sagues is silent as to the language of;
The system of claim 17,
wherein the at least one processor of the second master device is further configured to determine an updated schedule for the transmission of the plurality of simulated waveforms from the plurality of devices to the one or more condition monitoring systems.
Nevertheless Chandhoke teaches:
wherein the at least one processor of the second master device is further configured to determine an updated schedule for the transmission of the plurality of simulated waveforms from the plurality of devices to the one or more condition monitoring systems (See para[0011]: The at least one schedule generator may be further configured to generate respective schedules for the master devices based at least in part on the temporal properties and the associations, and distribute the respective schedules to the master devices, where the respective schedules are useable by the master devices to control execution of the timed functions and the streams between the master devices in real time in a coordinated manner.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sagues wherein the at least one processor of the second master device is further configured to determine an updated schedule for the transmission of the plurality of simulated waveforms from the plurality of devices to the one or more condition monitoring systems such as that of Chandhoke. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sagues, because using a schedule would have helped to ensure the timeliness of data delivery from sensors, as recognized by Chandhoke.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagues (EP 2550623 B1) in view of Sievers et al. (US 20230359784 A1), Munk et al. (US 20240103508 A1), Higuchi et al. (US 20090240477 A1), Singh et al. (US 9423822 B1) and Chandhoke et al. (US 20180217954 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yasuoka et al. (US 20150103649 A1).
Regarding Claim 20. Sagues is silent as to the language of:
The system of claim 12,
wherein each of the plurality of devices further comprises a graphical user interface display configured to display one or more operations performed by the device, and
wherein the at least one processor of the master device is further configured to perform operations comprising:
determining that there are too many slave devices in the system; and
providing a notification to the graphical user interface display indicating that there are too many slave devices in the system.
Nevertheless Brayton teaches:
wherein each of the plurality of devices further comprises a graphical user interface display configured to display one or more operations performed by the device (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 12, para[0003], para[0038], and para[0044]: Many control systems will also incorporate a human-machine-interface (HMI) component comprising hardware and or software for facilitating operator interaction with the control system. HMI readouts, trend graphs, alarms, reports, system requirements, etc. Test results are stored in the form of textual date and time stamped data, graphs, and tester responses to prompted questions. If the capacity of a single SIMCart 10 is insufficient to simulate an entire plant, multiple SIMCarts 10 can be used to achieve the simulation. Such a combination of SIMCarts 10 may utilize multiple HMI 130 devices, or may share a single HMI 130.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sagues wherein each of the plurality of devices further comprises a graphical user interface display configured to display one or more operations performed by the device such as that of Brayton. Brayton teaches, “Many control systems will also incorporate a human-machine-interface (HMI) component comprising hardware and or software for facilitating operator interaction with the control system” (See para[0003]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sagues, because using a graphical user interface would have helped to facilitate operator interaction with the system, as recognized by Brayton.
Brayton is silent as to the language of:
determining that there are too many slave devices in the system; and
providing a notification to the graphical user interface display indicating that there are too many slave devices in the system.
Nevertheless Yasuoka teaches:
determining that there are too many slave devices in the system (See para[0016]: The collection control device detects the excess of the number of connected wireless slave stations in advance, which are subordinate to the specific wireless master station, and provides notification to the wireless slave stations. Therefore, a wireless slave station which can select another wireless master station changes a transmission destination of the request to connect to another wireless master station, and thus it is possible to increase accommodation efficiency.); and
providing a notification to the graphical user interface display indicating that there are too many slave devices in the system (See para[0035]: When the number of accommodated terminals is equal to or greater than the threshold a, a "connection suppression notification" is simultaneously transmitted to the wireless slave stations which are subordinate to the wireless master station in a broadcast manner (S5). The "connection suppression notification" is announced to the subordinate wireless slave stations through the wireless master station.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sagues by determining that there are too many slave devices in the system; and providing a notification to the graphical user interface display indicating that there are too many slave devices in the system such as that of Yasuoka. Yasuoka teaches, “the collection control device detects the excess of the number of connected wireless slave stations in advance, which are subordinate to the specific wireless master station, and provides notification to the wireless slave stations. Therefore, a wireless slave station which can select another wireless master station changes a transmission destination of the request to connect to another wireless master station, and thus it is possible to increase accommodation efficiency” (See para[0016). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sagues, because determining that there are too many slave devices would have helped to determine when slave devices should connect to another master and increase accommodation efficiency, as recognized by Yasuoka.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that: Therefore, Sagues fails to teach "a plurality of physical connections," which are configured to provide both i) communicative coupling of the device to the condition monitoring systems, and ii) power to the device from the one or more condition monitoring systems, as required by claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that: In reference to the rejection of claim 6, the Office asserts that Sagues teaches that "[a] third connector 94 provides network connectivity, such as Ethernet. The network connectivity is used to load software, adjust parameters, visualize the simulation process and record simulation results." Office Action, p. 15 (citing Sagues, [0054]). However, Applicant submits that a connector that provides network connectivity is insufficient to teach the claimed programming board, which is a component of the computing system of the device.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the claimed programming board, which is a component of the computing system of the device”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In particular claim 1 recites the limitation “a waveform generator configured to generate simulated waveforms, and a programming board configured to perform initial programming of the waveform generator” and claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the programming board is removably coupled to the device via an input, and wherein the programming board is configured to be detached from the input after initial programming of the waveform generator”. Because dependent claims are intended to narrow the scope of independent claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the independent claim 1 must at least cover embodiments that include claim 6. In this case a broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 must at least include a “programming board” that is removably coupled to the device via an input. In light of claim 6, a broadest reasonable interpretation of a “programming board” includes programming interfaces that are not integrated components of the device. As such the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1 and 11 is maintained.
Applicant claims: Applicant submits that the references cited, alone or in any combination thereof, fail to teach "a plurality of devices communicatively coupled to one another in a point-to-point topography," as required by claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sagues (US 20150248509 A1) discloses a computer based simulator for simulating sensors (See Fig. 7 and para[0002]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 CARTER W FERRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 8 pm.
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, Catherine T. Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/CARTER W FERRELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights