DETAILED ACTION
FINAL ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claims 1-10 are rejected below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura (U.S. PG Pub. 2004/0215354).
As to claims 1, 9 and 10, Nakamura teaches a gateway device (element 2 or 7) that relays communication of safety data between a safety input/output unit (element 4 or gateway I/O see [0077]) and a safety controller (element 1) that controls the safety input/output unit so as to establish a safety connection between the safety input/output unit and the safety controller, the safety input/output unit and the safety controller being included in a safety control system[0053], the gateway device comprising processing circuitry to: manage a control state that is a state corresponding to a state of the safety control system and is one of a safety state and a non-safety state[0013], and control a state transition of the control state by applying safety data that the gateway device has received from the safety input/output unit to state transition information that indicates a state transition concerning the control state[0013]; and generate, in response to the control state transitioning from the non-safety state to the safety state, safety data that indicates the safety state and itransmits the safety data that indicates the safety to the safety input/output unit[0079 Element 2 sends data based on its state to the gateway]. Nakamura teaches a PLC (controller) transmitting and receiving data from a slave/gateway. The slave/gateway receives signals from safety device 4 (or other slaves - fig. 8). During operations the safety of the system can transition from safe to non-safe based on the data sent to and from the controller to the devices/saves via the gateway.
As to claim 2, Nakamura teaches wherein the processing circuitry disconnects the safety connection when the control state has transitioned from the non-safety state to the safety state[0051].
As to claim 3, Nakamura teaches wherein the processing circuitry controls a state transition of the control state by applying safety data that the gateway device has received from the safety controller to the state transition information[0079], and wherein while the safety connection is disconnected, the processing circuitry cancels disconnection of the safety connection when the control state has transitioned from the safety state to the non-safety state (fig.5 when a safety flag is set to 0 detailed information sent and the “safe” flag is monitored and continues to keep the safety flag at 0.)
As to claim 4, Nakamura teaches wherein as control to disconnect the safety connection, the processing circuitry performs control to rewrite safety data that the gateway device has received from the safety controller so as to make the safety data indicate the safety state [0065].
As to claim 5, Nakamura teaches wherein while the safety connection is disconnected, the processing circuitry controls a state transition of the control state without using safety data that the gateway device has received from the safety controller, and that indicates a result of performing control based on safety data older than safety data that has caused the safety connection to be disconnected [0068 if a communication error or other examples given occur, then the transmission would use old data since the data from the master/controller/PLC cannot be received].
As to claim 6, Nakamura teaches wherein the processing circuitry uses partial control logic that is at least part of control logic used by the safety controller, and wherein the state transition information is information that indicates at least part of the partial control logic [0065 flag logic].
As to claim 7, Nakamura teaches wherein the state transition information is information that is set using an engineering tool that can communicate with the gateway device (element 4 for instance).
As to claim 8, Nakamura teaches wherein a communication method adopted by the safety input/output unit is different from a communication method adopted by the safety controller (field bus and 2 channels in fig. 1 or high-order and low-order in fig. 8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2-11-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Nakamura discloses determining a change in safety status but does not disclose that a message is sent to the safety input/output unit. This is in correct. As can be seen in paragraph [0079] Nakamura states whether or not the safety gateway 7 satisfies a safety condition by itself is determined in the low-order network (field bus) 3b based on the safety input informations from the plurality of safety slaves 2 connected to the low-order network 3b, and, as a result, a safety determination result code showing safety/danger is sent to the safety PLC 1 through the high-order network 3a (high-order field bus) (refer to FIG. 9(a)). This shows that the safety data (message as argued) from the slaves (element 2) are sent to the gateway (element 7). See abstract also.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/NATHAN L LAUGHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights