DETAILED ACTION
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, 3-15 are pending for examination. Claims 1 and 10 are independent claims. This Office Action is FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claim limitations that use the word “means” are recited in claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 10-11. The claim limitations that are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph are given below with functional language italicized and “means” limitation and linking phrase in bold for claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 10-11:
1. A circuit, adapted for at least one of recovery from and preventing of radiation induced faults, comprising a main circuit; power supply means to connect said main circuit to power lines; and communication connect means to connect said main circuit to communication means, characterized in that the circuit further being provided with first protection means comprising: a means for detecting occurrence of such radiation induced faults; one or more switching means, provided in between either said power supply means or said communication connect means and said main circuit to disconnect therefrom and reconnect thereto respectively in case of occurrence of such radiation induced faults or action to prevent occurrence thereof upon reception of a control signal generated by use of said fault occurrence detection and maintained to ensure that said disconnection is sufficient for all voltages, measured with respect to system ground, to drop to zero, while ensuring that no current flows thereby removing said radiation induced faults; the circuit further being provided with a second protection means; separate from the first protection means, capable to receive a plurality of input signals, and to generate the control signal based on said plurality of input signals.
3. The circuit of claim 1, comprising: a plurality of said second protection means themselves connected to said power lines and provided with a first protection means; and a third protection means, to disconnect said power lines, and reconnect thereto, of said second protection means via the first protection means in case of occurrence or prevention of such radiation induced faults, and to select, for instance via circuit for combination or a Boolean function implementing a voting approach, an outcome of said second protection means which is active.
5. The circuit of claim 3, wherein one or more of: said main circuit, said second protection means or third protection means are provided with mechanisms to handle transient radiation induced faults.
6. System adapted for at least one of recovery from and prevention of radiation induced faults, comprising circuits of claim 1; and communication means to enable communication between said circuits, to which said circuits are connected.
10. A method for re-active fault removal in a system adapted for at least one of recovery from and prevention of radiation induced faults, comprising circuits and communication means to enable communication between said circuits, to which said circuits are connected, the circuits being adapted for at least one of recovery from and preventing of radiation induced faults, comprising a main circuit; power supply means to connect said main circuit to power lines; and communication connect means to connect said main circuit to communication means, characterized in that the circuit further being provided with first protection means comprising: a means for detecting occurrence of such radiation induced faults; one or more switching means, provided in between either said power supply means or said communication connect means and said main circuit to disconnect therefrom and reconnect thereto respectively in case of occurrence of such radiation induced faults or action to prevent occurrence thereof upon reception of a control signal generated by use of said fault occurrence detection and maintained to ensure that said disconnection is sufficiently long for all the voltages, measured with respect to system ground, to drop to zero, while ensuring that no current flows thereby removing said radiation induced faults, whereby based on detecting of radiation induced faults in said main circuits, a control signal is generated to switch off at least one of said main circuit and second protection means the method comprising: receiving information related to detecting of radiation induced faults; switch off a circuit for which the information was received; and switch on said circuit for which the information was received after a predetermined period has lapsed.
11. A method for fault removal in a system adapted for at least one of recovery from and prevention of radiation induced faults, comprising circuits and communication means to enable communication between said circuits, to which said circuits are connected, the circuits being adapted for at least one of recovery from and preventing of radiation induced faults, comprising a main circuit; power supply means to connect said main circuit to power lines; and communication connect means to connect said main circuit to communication means, characterized in that the circuit further being provided with first protection means comprising: a means for detecting occurrence of such radiation induced faults; one or more switching means, provided in between either said power supply means or said communication connect means and said main circuit to disconnect therefrom and reconnect thereto respectively in case of occurrence of such radiation induced faults or action to prevent occurrence thereof upon reception of a control signal generated by use of said fault occurrence detection and maintained to ensure that said disconnection is sufficiently long for all the voltages, measured with respect to system ground, to drop to zero, while ensuring that no current flows thereby removing said radiation induced faults, wherein in addition to the method of claim 10, a method for proactive fault removal in said system is executed, wherein control signals to switch off and on periodically at least one of said main circuits and second protection means are generated, the method comprising: receiving information related to at least one of detecting of radiation induced faults and determining that time to proactive switch off has come, switch off the circuit for which the information was received accordingly; and switch on said circuit for which the information was received after a predetermined period has lapsed.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The portions of the specification that describe the corresponding structure that performs the claimed functions for claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 10-11 is Fig. 1, 6, 9, and 10 and their description in the originally filed specification.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, lines 2-3 “said second protection means and, or said second protection means” is unclear what “…and, or…” means? For the remainder of this Office Action, the Examiner will interpret this limitation as “said second protection means. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9, lines 3-4 “to execute a method for re-active fault removal the system, whereby …” is unclear and grammatically incorrect. For the remainder of this Office Action, the Examiner will interpret this limitation as “to execute a method for re-active fault removal in the system, whereby …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-5 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3, line 5 “the first protection means” is indefinite and unclear if refers to “first protection means” of claim 3, line 3 or claim 1, line 5? Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4-5 depend on claim 3 and inherit the deficiencies of claim 3. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 4, line 3 “or both” is indefinite and unclear what is meant by “both”, both of what? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9, line 4 and Claim 10, line 18 “said main circuits” lacks antecedent basis as claims 1, 10, respectively, recite singular main circuit. Claim 11, line 19 also includes same limitation and is rejected under the same grounds. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10, line 8 “the circuit” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10, line 22 “said circuit” is unclear if refers to claim 10, line 8 or line 21? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10, line 15 “the voltages” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 11, line 15 also includes same limitation and is rejected under the same grounds. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10, line 17 “said radiation induced faults” is unclear if refers to claim 10, line 2, line 5, line 9, or line 12? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10, lines 14-17 “ensure that said disconnection is sufficiently long for all the voltages, measured with respect to system ground, to drop to zero, while ensuring that no current flows through the device thereby removing said radiation induced faults” is indefinite, unclear and has multiple interpretations because it does not allow a PHOSITA to determine how long “sufficiently long” is based on the metes and bounds of the claim language? Claim 11, lines 14-17 also includes same limitation and is rejected under the same grounds. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 11-15 depend on claim 10 and inherits the deficiencies of claim 10. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 11, lines 7-8, line 22, and line 23 “the circuit” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12-13 depend on claim 11 and inherits the deficiencies of claim 11. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 13, line 2 “said circuits” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14, line 2 “when possible” is indefinite and unclear as the limitation suggests the action can or cannot happen (i.e. possible) but does not provide any clear conditions. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15, line 2 “it is possible” is indefinite and unclear as the limitation suggests the action can or cannot happen (i.e. possible) but does not provide any clear conditions. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fuchs et al., (WO Patent Publn No. 98/50856, cited in IDS), hereinafter Fuchs.
Regarding claim 1, Fuchs teaches:
A circuit, adapted for at least one of recovery from and preventing of radiation induced faults (Fuchs, page 1, lines 16-17; page 1, lines 27-31 teaches faults caused by radiation. Page 10, lines 24-27 “Correction of errors caused by device ‘latchup’ usually involves the reduction or removal of power to a processing unit or other component to prevent catastrophic damage because of a latched condition.”), comprising a main circuit (Fuchs, Figure 3: four separate CPUs 32 going from right to left); power supply means to connect said main circuit to power lines (Fuchs, Figure 3: power bus 20); and communication connect means to connect said main circuit to communication means (Fuchs, Figure 3: bus interface 42 connects to system bus 12), characterized in that the circuit further being provided with first protection means (Fuchs, Figure 3: right most redundant Power switch 22, and right most redundant interface control 28) comprising: a means for detecting occurrence of such radiation induced faults (Fuchs, Figure 3: voter 34, page 12, lines 13-15 “A CPU output signal which does not agree with the majority is detected by the voter, producing an error signal. The error signal is sent to the memory controller which reacts several ways …”); one or more switching means, provided in between either said power supply means or said communication connect means and said main circuit (Fuchs, Figure 3: right most power switch 22 disconnect the rightmost CPU 32 from the power bus 20; page 30, lines 29-32 teaches a disconnection of the communication connect) to disconnect therefrom and reconnect thereto respectively in case of occurrence of such radiation induced faults (Fuchs, Figs. 2b and 2c, page 17, lines 1-7. Page 2, lines 3-29 “Some particles that are not trapped by the Earth's magnetic field are steered by that field into our atmosphere near the poles. These particles can penetrate the electronic devices aboard satellites. When high energy particles and gamma rays penetrate a semiconductor device, they deposit charge within the computer circuit and create transients and/or noise. … The correction of errors caused by device latchup usually involves reduction or removal of power to a processing unit or other component to prevent catastrophic damage that could result from a latched condition. …When power is reapplied, the component may function normally.”) or action to prevent occurrence thereof upon reception of a control signal generated by use of said fault occurrence detection (Fuchs, page 18, lines 25-31: the voter issues an error signal if a miscompare occurs, which triggers the power removal. Each interface control 28 also generates a control signal 26 described in page 19, lines 19-29.) and maintained to ensure that said disconnection is sufficient for all voltages, measured with respect to system ground, to drop to zero, while ensuring that no current flows thereby removing said radiation induced faults (Fuchs, page 30, line 27 - page 31, line 4. In particular page 31, lines 1-4: describe a disconnection from the power supply, which lasts for at least 5 milliseconds. This time is considered sufficient for all voltages to drop to zero. Fuchs teaches on page 12, lines 17-21 “the disagreeing CPU is powered down, then re-powered” and page 13, lines 6-8 “when supply voltage (Vcc) is removed from a device, the input signals are driven to ground potential” (i.e. all the voltages, measured with respect to system ground, … drop to zero thus no current flows)); the circuit further being provided with a second protection means (Fuchs, Figure 3: two middle redundant Power switch 22, and two middle redundant interface control 28 and two middle components and signal lines to teach at least a second protection means); separate from the first protection means (Fuchs, Figure 3 shows that the two middle redundant Power switches and interface controls, components and signal lines are separate from first protection means (right most redundant Power switch 22, and right most redundant interface control 28)), capable to receive a plurality of input signals (Fuchs, Figure 3, input control signal lines 26 to power switch and input signal lines 33b to interface control, see page 18, lines 25-31 and page 19, lines 19-29 control signal 26), and to generate the control signal based on said plurality of input signals (Fuchs, page 19, lines 19-29 two middle redundant interface control 28 generates the control signal 26 and page 18, lines 25-31 the voter issues an error signal if a miscompare occurs, which triggers the power removal).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Fuchs teaches comprising: a plurality of said second protection means themselves connected to said power lines and provided with a first protection means (Fuchs, Figure 3, second protection means such as two middle components power switch 22 and interface controls 28 connects to power bus 20 and also couples to other power switch such as rightmost power switch, voter interface control 28 that is the first protection means); and a third protection means, to disconnect said power lines, and reconnect thereto (Fuchs, Fig. 3, leftmost component power switch and interface control disconnect and reconnect power lines as taught on pages 18-19 and Fig. 10, pages 30-31), of said second protection means via the first protection means in case of occurrence or prevention of such radiation induced faults (Fuchs, different power switches and interface controls work to disconnect a CPU from power if faulty independent of other CPUs that are not faulty as taught in pages 17-19 and Fig. 10, 30-31), and to select, for instance via circuit for combination or a Boolean function implementing a voting approach, an outcome of said second protection means which is active (Fuchs, voting is taught in Fig. 8 and Fig. 10 and applied to isolate defective CPUs).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Fuchs teaches wherein said main circuit is more complex than said second protection means (Fuchs, Fig. 3 main circuit CPU is more complex than two middle interface controls and power switches) and, or said second protection means is more complex than said third protection means (Fuchs, Fig. 3, second protection means has multiple power switches and interface controls and corresponding circuitry and third protection means has one power switch and interface control and corresponding circuitry), or both, in that a more complex main circuit or a more complex second protection is less intrinsic resistant to radiation induced events (Fuchs, Fig. 3 more complex protection means have larger group of CPUs, voter interface control, power switches and other circuitry that are more greatly effected by and have higher chance of being effected by radiation induced events).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Fuchs teaches wherein one or more of: said main circuit, said second protection means or third protection means are provided with mechanisms to handle transient radiation induced faults (Fuchs, page 4, lines 25-29 teaches transient faults and Abstract and Fig. 3, pages 17-19 teach voting mechanism for transient fault. Furthermore, Figure 8 teaches a resynchronization mechanism for transient faults).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Fuchs teaches system adapted for at least one of recovery from and prevention of radiation induced faults, comprising circuits of claim 1 (Fuchs, Abstract, Figs. 3 and 8, 10 ); and communication means to enable communication between said circuits, to which said circuits are connected (Fuchs, Figure 3: bus interface 42 connects to system bus 12).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Fuchs teaches further comprising a central control circuit, configured for one or both of receiving information and generating said control signal (Fuchs, Fig. 3 teaches that voter 34 is a central control circuit with interface control 28 generating control signals 26).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Fuchs teaches wherein said central control circuit comprises a computation engine (Fuchs, Fig. 9 voter 34 are application specific integrated circuits or FPGA that are a central control circuit that is implemented using computation circuitry such as multiple interface controllers 28 taught in Fuchs, pages 11-12 and 17).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Fuchs teaches comprising a storage medium comprising instructions which when executed by the computation engine cause the computation engine to execute a method for re-active fault removal the system (Fuchs, Abstract, Figs. 3, 8, and 10), whereby based on detecting of radiation induced faults in said main circuits, a control signal is generated to switch off at least one of said main circuit and second protection means (Fuchs, Figs. 3, 8, and 10, pages 26-28 and 30-31 teaches in Fig. 8, page 26, lines 22-32 voter through signals received from each CPU in interface control 28 that each of CPUs shown in Fig. 3 has a disagreement with other CPU, so CPU coupled to first protection means on right generates output signal that is different from CPUs (two center CPUs) coupled to second protection means that is different and the two CPUs coupled to second protection means have different output signals and finally CPU coupled to third protection means has a different output signal from other 3 CPUs. “If no two operating CPUs 32 agree 204, the system is considered to have failed 206. In such event, a system restart with a substituted spare computer 11b will be attempted.” System restart with second computer includes switching off failed first computer and its four CPUs (i.e. main circuit)) the method comprising: receiving information related to detecting of radiation induced faults (Fuchs, page 1, lines 16-17; page 1, lines 27-31 teaches faults caused by radiation. Page 10, lines 24-27 “Correction of errors caused by device ‘latchup’ usually involves the reduction or removal of power to a processing …” that causes CPU disagreement and corresponding resync as taught in Fig. 10, blocks 202, 304. CPU disagreement teaches receiving information related to detecting); switch off the circuit (Fuchs, Fig. 10, blocks 306-312); and switch on said circuit after a predetermined period has lapsed (Fuchs, Fig. 10, blocks 313-315).
Regarding claim 10, Fuchs teaches:
A method for re-active fault removal in a system (Fuchs, Abstract, Figs. 3, 8, and 10) adapted for at least one of recovery from and prevention of radiation induced faults (Fuchs, page 1, lines 16-17; page 1, lines 27-31 teaches faults caused by radiation. Page 10, lines 24-27 “Correction of errors caused by device ‘latchup’ usually involves the reduction or removal of power to a processing unit or other component to prevent catastrophic damage because of a latched condition.”), comprising circuits (Fuchs, Figure 3: four separate CPUs 32 going from right to left) and communication means to enable communication between said circuits, to which said circuits are connected (Fuchs, Figure 3: bus interface 42 connects to system bus 12), the circuits being adapted for at least one of recovery from and preventing of radiation induced faults (Fuchs, page 1, lines 16-17; page 1, lines 27-31 teaches faults caused by radiation. Page 2, lines 3-29 “Some particles that are not trapped by the Earth's magnetic field are steered by that field into our atmosphere near the poles. These particles can penetrate the electronic devices aboard satellites. When high energy particles and gamma rays penetrate a semiconductor device, they deposit charge within the computer circuit and create transients and/or noise. … The correction of errors caused by device latchup usually involves reduction or removal of power to a processing unit or other component to prevent catastrophic damage that could result from a latched condition. …When power is reapplied, the component may function normally.”), comprising a main circuit (Fuchs, Figure 3: four separate CPUs 32 going from right to left); power supply means to connect said main circuit to power lines (Fuchs, Figure 3: power bus 20); and communication connect means to connect said main circuit to communication means (Fuchs, Figure 3: bus interface 42 connects to system bus 12), characterized in that the circuit further being provided with first protection means (Fuchs, Figure 3: right most redundant Power switch 22, and right most redundant interface control 28) comprising: a means for detecting occurrence of such radiation induced faults (Fuchs, Figure 3: voter 34, page 12, lines 13-15 “A CPU output signal which does not agree with the majority is detected by the voter, producing an error signal. The error signal is sent to the memory controller which reacts several ways …” [i.e. means for detecting]. Page 2, lines 3-29 “Some particles that are not trapped by the Earth's magnetic field are steered by that field into our atmosphere near the poles. These particles can penetrate the electronic devices aboard satellites. When high energy particles and gamma rays penetrate a semiconductor device, they deposit charge within the computer circuit and create transients and/or noise. … The correction of errors caused by device latchup usually involves reduction or removal of power to a processing unit or other component to prevent catastrophic damage that could result from a latched condition.” [i.e. radiation induced faults]); one or more switching means, provided in between either said power supply means or said communication connect means and said main circuit (Fuchs, Figure 3: right most power switch 22 disconnect the rightmost CPU 32 from the power bus 20; page 30, lines 29-32 teaches a disconnection of the communication connect) to disconnect therefrom and reconnect thereto respectively in case of occurrence of such radiation induced faults (Fuchs, Figs. 2b and 2c, page 17, lines 1-7. Page 2, lines 3-29 “Some particles that are not trapped by the Earth's magnetic field are steered by that field into our atmosphere near the poles. These particles can penetrate the electronic devices aboard satellites. When high energy particles and gamma rays penetrate a semiconductor device, they deposit charge within the computer circuit and create transients and/or noise. … The correction of errors caused by device latchup usually involves reduction or removal of power to a processing unit or other component to prevent catastrophic damage that could result from a latched condition. …When power is reapplied, the component may function normally.”) or action to prevent occurrence thereof upon reception of a control signal generated by use of said fault occurrence detection (Fuchs, page 18, lines 25-31: the voter issues an error signal if a miscompare occurs, which triggers the power removal. Each interface control 28 also generates a control signal 26 described in page 19, lines 19-29.) and maintained to ensure that said disconnection is sufficiently long for all the voltages, measured with respect to system ground, to drop to zero, while ensuring that no current flows thereby removing said radiation induced faults (Fuchs, page 30, line 27 - page 31, line 4. In particular page 31, lines 1-4: describe a disconnection from the power supply, which lasts for at least 5 milliseconds. This time is considered sufficient for all voltages to drop to zero. Fuchs teaches on page 12, lines 17-21 “the disagreeing CPU is powered down, then re-powered” and page 13, lines 6-8 “when supply voltage (Vcc) is removed from a device, the input signals are driven to ground potential” (i.e. all the voltages, measured with respect to system ground, … drop to zero thus no current flows)), whereby based on detecting of radiation induced faults in said main circuits, a control signal is generated to switch off at least one of said main circuit and second protection means (Fuchs, Figs. 3, 8, and 10, pages 26-28 and 30-31 teaches in Fig. 8, page 26, lines 22-32 voter through signals received from each CPU in interface control 28 that each of CPUs shown in Fig. 3 has a disagreement with other CPU, so CPU coupled to first protection means on right generates output signal that is different from CPUs (two center CPUs) coupled to second protection means that is different and the two CPUs coupled to second protection means have different output signals and finally CPU coupled to third protection means has a different output signal from other 3 CPUs. “If no two operating CPUs 32 agree 204, the system is considered to have failed 206. In such event, a system restart with a substituted spare computer 11b will be attempted.” System restart with second computer includes switching off failed first computer and its four CPUs (i.e. main circuit) Page 18, lines 25-31: the voter issues an error signal if a miscompare occurs, which triggers the power removal [i.e. control signal is generated]) the method comprising: receiving information related to detecting of radiation induced faults (Fuchs, Fig. 10, blocks 202, 304); switch off a circuit for which the information was received (Fuchs, Fig. 10, blocks 306-312); and switch on said circuit for which the information was received after a predetermined period has lapsed (Fuchs, Fig. 10, blocks 313-315).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Fuchs teaches a method for fault removal in a system (Fuchs, Abstract, Figs. 3, 8, and 10) adapted for at least one of recovery from and prevention of radiation induced faults (Fuchs, page 1, lines 16-17; page 1, lines 27-31 teaches faults caused by radiation. Page 10, lines 24-27 “Correction of errors caused by device ‘latchup’ usually involves the reduction or removal of power to a processing unit or other component to prevent catastrophic damage because of a latched condition.”), comprising circuits (Fuchs, Figure 3: four separate CPUs 32 going from right to left) and communication means to enable communication between said circuits, to which said circuits are connected (Fuchs, Figure 3: bus interface 42 connects to system bus 12), the circuits being adapted for at least one of recovery from and preventing of radiation induced faults (Fuchs, page 1, lines 16-17; page 1, lines 27-31 teaches faults caused by radiation. Page 2, lines 3-29 “Some particles that are not trapped by the Earth's magnetic field are steered by that field into our atmosphere near the poles. These particles can penetrate the electronic devices aboard satellites. When high energy particles and gamma rays penetrate a semiconductor device, they deposit charge within the computer circuit and create transients and/or noise. … The correction of errors caused by device latchup usually involves reduction or removal of power to a processing unit or other component to prevent catastrophic damage that could result from a latched condition. …When power is reapplied, the component may function normally.”), comprising a main circuit (Fuchs, Figure 3: four separate CPUs 32 going from right to left); power supply means to connect said main circuit to power lines (Fuchs, Figure 3: power bus 20); and communication connect means to connect said main circuit to communication means (Fuchs, Figure 3: bus interface 42 connects to system bus 12), characterized in that the circuit further being provided with first protection means (Fuchs, Figure 3: right most redundant Power switch 22, and right most redundant interface control 28) comprising: a means for detecting occurrence of such radiation induced faults (Fuchs, Figure 3: voter 34, page 12, lines 13-15 “A CPU output signal which does not agree with the majority is detected by the voter, producing an error signal. The error signal is sent to the memory controller which reacts several ways …” [i.e. means for detecting]. Page 2, lines 3-29 “Some particles that are not trapped by the Earth's magnetic field are steered by that field into our atmosphere near the poles. These particles can penetrate the electronic devices aboard satellites. When high energy particles and gamma rays penetrate a semiconductor device, they deposit charge within the computer circuit and create transients and/or noise. … The correction of errors caused by device latchup usually involves reduction or removal of power to a processing unit or other component to prevent catastrophic damage that could result from a latched condition.” [i.e. radiation induced faults]); one or more switching means, provided in between either said power supply means or said communication connect means and said main circuit (Fuchs, Figure 3: right most power switch 22 disconnect the rightmost CPU 32 from the power bus 20; page 30, lines 29-32 teaches a disconnection of the communication connect) to disconnect therefrom and reconnect thereto respectively in case of occurrence of such radiation induced faults (Fuchs, Figs. 2b and 2c, page 17, lines 1-7. Page 2, lines 3-29 “Some particles that are not trapped by the Earth's magnetic field are steered by that field into our atmosphere near the poles. These particles can penetrate the electronic devices aboard satellites. When high energy particles and gamma rays penetrate a semiconductor device, they deposit charge within the computer circuit and create transients and/or noise. … The correction of errors caused by device latchup usually involves reduction or removal of power to a processing unit or other component to prevent catastrophic damage that could result from a latched condition. …When power is reapplied, the component may function normally.”) or action to prevent occurrence thereof upon reception of a control signal generated by use of said fault occurrence detection (Fuchs, page 18, lines 25-31: the voter issues an error signal if a miscompare occurs, which triggers the power removal. Each interface control 28 also generates a control signal 26 described in page 19, lines 19-29.) and maintained to ensure that said disconnection is sufficiently long for all the voltages, measured with respect to system ground, to drop to zero, while ensuring that no current flows thereby removing said radiation induced faults (Fuchs, page 30, line 27 - page 31, line 4. In particular page 31, lines 1-4: describe a disconnection from the power supply, which lasts for at least 5 milliseconds. This time is considered sufficient for all voltages to drop to zero. Fuchs teaches on page 12, lines 17-21 “the disagreeing CPU is powered down, then re-powered” and page 13, lines 6-8 “when supply voltage (Vcc) is removed from a device, the input signals are driven to ground potential” (i.e. all the voltages, measured with respect to system ground, … drop to zero thus no current flows)), wherein in addition to the method of claim 10, a method for proactive fault removal in said system is executed (Fuchs, page 1, lines 16-17; page 1, lines 27-31 and Figs. 3, 8, and 10), wherein control signals to switch off and on periodically at least one of said main circuits and second protection means are generated (Fuchs, Figure 3,page 19, lines 19-29: power switches 22 send a signal [i.e. control signals] to disconnect the CPUs 32 from the power bus 30; Figure 10, page 30, lines 29-32 teaches a disconnection of the communication connect. Figs. 3, 8, and 10, pages 26-28 and 30-31 teaches in Fig. 8, page 26, lines 22-32 voter through signals received from each CPU in interface control 28 that each of CPUs shown in Fig. 3 has a disagreement with other CPU, so CPU coupled to first protection means on right generates output signal that is different from CPUs (two center CPUs) coupled to second protection means that is different and the two CPUs coupled to second protection means have different output signals and finally CPU coupled to third protection means has a different output signal from other 3 CPUs. “If no two operating CPUs 32 agree 204, the system is considered to have failed 206. In such event, a system restart with a substituted spare computer 11b will be attempted.” System restart with second computer includes switching off failed first computer and its four CPUs (i.e. main circuit) Page 18, lines 25-31: the voter issues an error signal if a miscompare occurs, which triggers the power removal.), the method comprising: receiving information related to at least one of detecting of radiation induced faults (Fuchs, Fig. 10, blocks 202, 304, page 30, lines 19-32) and determining that time to proactive switch off has come, switch off the circuit for which the information was received accordingly (Fuchs, Fig. 10, blocks 306-312); and switch on said circuit for which the information was received after a predetermined period has lapsed (Fuchs, Fig. 10, blocks 313-315).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Fuchs teaches the method being central, the system further comprising a central control circuit, configured for receiving information, generating said control signals or both, whereby said central control circuit generates said control signals (Fuchs, Fig. 3 teaches that voter 34 is a central control circuit generating control signals 26 from each of interface control 28).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Fuchs teaches the method being distributed, whereby said circuit generates said control signals (Fuchs, Fig. 3, page 17, lines 27-30 and page 18, lines 1-7 teaches memory signals 37a are “distributed equally as input signals 33i to each of the CPUs 32 through the memory controller 36 and the voter 34 via the CPU bus 35a.” Page 18, lines 8-33 and page 19, lines 1-10 teaches “CPU output signals 33o [33b]” that is a distributed control signal).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Fuchs teaches wherein prior to switching off a circuit, when possible, a task is transferred to another circuit (Fuchs, Fig. 8, page 27, lines 2-27).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Fuchs teaches wherein said system is managed in that circuits are reserved to ensure that, prior to switching off a circuit, it is possible, that a task is transferred to another circuit (Fuchs, Fig. 8, page 27, lines 2-30 and page 28, lines 1-22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-15 have been fully considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejections given in this office action necessitated by Applicant’s claim amendments.
Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments given on page 8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue on top of page 8:
While amended claim 1 requires two protection means: first and second protection means, the Examiner identifies the same hardware multiple times for the first protection means and the second protection means. The two protection means (first and second) are thus merged in Fuchs.
Herein, claim 1 is further amended to clarify that the second protection means are separate and distinct from the first protection means. Accordingly, at least this aspect distinguishes the amended claim from the cited reference.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that the Examiner “identifies the same hardware multiple times for the first protection means and the second protections means”. The Examiner in the claim mappings given above, under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of Applicant’s amended claim 1 limitations, recites that first protection means is taught by Fuchs in Figure 3: right most redundant Power switch 22, and right most redundant interface control 28 and second protection means is taught by Fuchs in Figure 3: two middle redundant Power switch 22, and two middle redundant interface control 28 and two middle components and signal lines that are clearly not the same hardware. Thus, Applicant’s arguments given above for claim 1 is not persuasive and the rejection of independent claim 1 is respectfully maintained.
Applicants further argue on page 8, center paragraph:
Regarding claim 3, the Examiner identifies in the Office Action a subset of power switches 22 as the plurality of second protections means. Here, the Examiner seems to interpret Fuchs differently depending on the claim that is under consideration. The identification made for claim 3 is not compatible with the identification made for amended claim 1. This is made even more clear considering that the second protection means are now clearly required to be separate and distinct from the first protection means in amended claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that the Examiner interprets “Fuchs differently depending on the claim that is under consideration” as independent claim 1 and claim 3 are interpreted consistently under BRI and rejected consistently by the teachings of Fuchs as given in the claim mappings above. Thus, for example, in claim 3 mapping given above, the second protection means is taught by Fuchs as shown in Figure 3 as two middle components power switches 22 and interface controls 28 and first protection means is taught as the rightmost power switch and interface control. Therefore, the claim mappings and identification made for amended claim 3 are compatible with the claim mappings and identification made for amended claim 1. Thus, Applicant’s arguments given above for claim 3 is not persuasive and the rejection of dependent claim 3 is respectfully maintained.
Applicants on page 8, paragraph 5 state that the “remaining claims variously depend from claims one and three and are thus correspondingly novel, not obvious, and are hence allowable” and provide no other evidence or arguments for the remaining claims. Thus, the Examiner respectfully maintains the rejections of these claims as given in the claim mappings above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Kimbrough et al (U.S. Patent No. 5,672,918) teaches mitigating the effects of single event current latchup and prompt pulse destructive radiation on a micro-electronic circuit. The system includes event detection circuitry, power dump logic circuitry, and energy limiting measures with autonomous recovery. The event detection circuitry includes ionizing radiation pulse detection means for detecting a pulse of ionizing radiation and for providing at an output terminal thereof a detection signal indicative of the detection of a pulse of ionizing radiation. The current sensing circuitry is coupled to the power bus for determining an occurrence of excess current through the power bus caused by ionizing radiation or by ion-induced destructive latchup of a semiconductor device. The power dump circuitry includes power dump logic circuitry having a first input terminal connected to the output terminal of the ionizing radiation pulse detection circuitry and having a second input terminal connected to the output terminal of the current sensing circuitry. The power dump logic circuitry provides an output signal to the input terminal of the circuitry for opening the power bus and the circuitry for shorting the power bus to a ground potential to remove power from the power bus. The energy limiting circuitry with autonomous recovery includes circuitry for opening the power bus and circuitry for shorting the power bus to a ground potential. The circuitry for opening the power bus and circuitry for shorting the power bus to a ground potential includes a series FET and a shunt FET. The invention provides for self-contained sensing for latchup, first removal of power to protect latched components, and autonomous recovery to enable transparent operation of other system elements.
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.
Inquiry Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INDRANIL CHOWDHURY whose telephone numbe