DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-9 (filed 01/07/2026) have been considered in this action. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-9 have been filed in the same format as previously presented. Claims 10-20 have been elected to be restricted on the basis of a restriction requirement by the examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/07/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-9, drawn to a diagnostic tool in the form of a machine, classified in G06F1/1601.
II. Claims 10-20, drawn to a method for diagnosing a PLC, classified in G05B2219/14008.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions classified in groups I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the method steps relating to the causing of an HMI to display an internal state of a PLC and having an invisible but active button on the HMI in group II are not claimed in the machine of group I, and the particular arrangement of parts including the adjustable angle of the HMI in group I is not claimed by group II. The subcombination has separate utility such as being able to view a screen at different angles for group I, while being able to view the internal state of a PLC is the separate utility of group II.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
When searching for an HMI that is adjustable relative to a mounting board, it is unlikely for one to also find a system whereby an HMI can display the internal state of a PLC because these are distinct and unrelated concepts.
During a telephone conversation with David Glass (80,116) on 02/19/2026 and through a subsequent voicemail left on 02/26/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-9. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 paragraph 2, filed 01/07/2026, with respect to rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 paragraph 3, filed 01/07/2026 with respect to rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 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’s newly recited features of a screen connected to a mounting board and adjustable between two angles relative to the mounting board are taught by newly applied reference Raju (US 20220287681). See below for a mapping of the newly claimed features to prior art.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amatrol (“Portable PLC Troubleshooting Learning System – Allen Bradley CompactLogix”, hereinafter Amatrol) in view of Quora (“Is there a way to permanently uninstall wifi capabilities on my laptop?”, hereinafter Quora) and Raju (US 20220287681, hereinafter Raju).
In regards to Claim 1, Amatrol teaches “A diagnostic tool comprising: a LAN port;” ([page 2] Technical Data….Siemens Ethernet Switch, 4-port; Human Machine Interface (HMI)… Learners will study basic operating skills, such as downloading a project and connecting the HMI to an ethernet network; Siemens HMI panel…Ethernet Interface (TCP/IP)) “a human-machine interface (HMI) comprising a display” ([page 2] Human Machine Interface (HMI) HMI panels replace or compliment traditional hard-wired control panels by integration operation input control and output display information. On the 990-PS712, learning will use a KTP600 HMI, which features a display screen and six tactile function keys) “a mounting board configured to connect to the LAN port and the HMI, wherein a lower portion of the HMI is connected to the mounting board, and wherein…a first position in which the upper position is at a first angle relative to the mounting board…” (see below image; [page 1] [page 1] image shows a board/workstation mounting panel with a display mounted via 4 screws, along with ports for power/AC-in, LAN, USB; “The 990-PAB53F comes with a mobile carrying case, workstation mounting panel, master control relay circuit, Allen-Bradley CompactLogix 5300 Programmable Controller, RS Linx and RS Logix 5000 software, a PanelView Plus Terminal, an Ethernet Switch, I/O Simulator”)
PNG
media_image1.png
588
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“a CPU configured to transmit a command issued from the HMI by a user to a connection destination of the LAN port” ([page 2] Human Machine Interface (HMI) …learning will use a KTP600 HMI, which features a display screen and six tactile function keys. Learners will study basic operation skill, such as downloading a project and connecting the HMI to an ethernet network, before moving to more advanced skills, like using WinCC software to create and configure project screens and configuring an I/O Field object as an input and an output; wherein when the HMI is configured to have projects screens for configuring I/O field objects as an input, it would use the CPU of the HMI to send the command over the LAN port of the HMI to the field object as that is the only interface offered by the HMI) “wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to be incapable of wireless communication” (Amatrol makes no mention of any wireless, wifi, or antenna capability, thus without any mention of wireless capability it can be considered to be incapable of wireless communication).
Amatrol fails to explicitly teach “…and wherein upper portion of the HMI is configured to be adjustable from a first position in which the upper portion is at a first angle relative to the mounting board to a second position in which the upper portion is at a second angle relative to the mounting board, wherein the second angle is greater than the first angle; wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to be incapable of wireless communication”.
Quora teaches “wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to be incapable of wireless communication” ([page 1] Is there a way to permanently uninstall wifi capabilities on my laptop? Permanently? You can physically uninstall the wireless receiver. This would involve you opening the laptop, finding the receiver, and unplugging it. Or you may have to remove a screw or two and physically remove it from the device).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the diagnostic tool of Amatrol with the functionality of removing a wireless receiver so that any wireless functionality is removed so that the tool is incapable of wireless communication, because it would gain the obvious benefit of reducing the radiated energy emitted via wireless modules. While Amatrol fails to mention any form of wireless communication, even if it did, the same procedure of removing a wireless module would effective achieve the same claimed intended use of making the tool incapable of wireless capability. By combining these elements, it can be considered taking the known diagnostic tool of Amatrol, and improving it with the known technique of removing a wireless module to disable any wireless functionality as taught by Quora in a known way that would achieve predictable results.
The combination of Amatrol and Quora fail to teach “…and wherein upper portion of the HMI is configured to be adjustable from a first position in which the upper portion is at a first angle relative to the mounting board to a second position in which the upper portion is at a second angle relative to the mounting board, wherein the second angle is greater than the first angle”.
Raju teaches “…and wherein upper portion of the HMI is configured to be adjustable from a first position in which the upper portion is at a first angle relative to the mounting board to a second position in which the upper portion is at a second angle relative to the mounting board, wherein the second angle is greater than the first angle” (Fig. 3-6 shows a display that tilts relative to the board it is mounted on from a bottom edge [0017] the touch control panel 116 may be movably coupled relative to the first control panel 114, for example pivotally coupled to the first control panel 114, such as to enable adjusting a tilt angle of the secondary control panel 116; [0024] The touch control panel 216 may be located on a same side of the hinge joint and may itself be pivotally connected to the underlying structure in accordance with the principles of the present disclosure. In this manner, the touch control panel 216 may be adjustable from the stowed position, in which the touch control panel 216 is substantially flush with the main control panel, to various tilt angles, as will be described further below).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the HMI display of Amatrol that is connected to a mounting board, with the connecting mechanism for the touch panel display of Raju that allows a display to be laid flat and flush with the mounting board it is attached to and also allows the angle to be adjusted and held at a second angle that is greater than the first because it would gain the stated benefit of Raju, namely “[0025] A tilt-adjustable touch display according to the present disclosure may reduce or prevent glare associated with conventional touch displays and thus improve the readability/visibility of such a display, enable ergonomic adjustments to the display by enabling the angle of the display to be varied to accommodate different user sizes or positions (e.g., seated or standing) thereby potentially reducing repetitive use injuries and generally improving the user experience”. By combining these elements, it can be considered taking the known technique of using a hinge to install a screen so that the screen can be tilted at two or more different angles, and using it to improve the diagnostic tool of Amatrol in a known way that achieves predictable results.
In regards to Claim 2, the combination of Amatrol, Quora and Raju teaches the diagnostic tool as incorporated by claim 1 above. Amatrol further teaches “The diagnostic tool according to claim 1, wherein the display of the HMI is a touch panel” ([page 2] Technical Data….Siemens HMI panel, 5.7” TFT with 256 colors, Touch screen with 6 tactile function keys, Ethernet interface).
In regards to Claim 4, the combination of Amatrol, Quora and Raju teaches the diagnostic tool as incorporated by claim 1 above. Amatrol further teaches “The diagnostic tool according to claim 1, further comprising an attaché case configured to accommodate the mounting board and in which the LAN port, the HMI and the CPU are accommodated via the mounting board” ([page 1] shows the 990-PAB53F as a portable workstation that is stored within a wheeled attaché case, with the mounting board accommodated to be shown when the portable workstation is opened).
In regards to Claim 7, the combination of Amatrol, Quora and Raju teaches the diagnostic tool as incorporated by claim 1 above. Amatrol further teaches “The diagnostic tool according to claim 1, wherein the diagnostic tool causes the HMI to display an internal state of a programmable logic controller (PLC) connected to the LAN port.” ([page 2] HMI only has a single interface via ethernet, and thus receives data via the LAN/ethernet port; “Human Machine Interface (HMI) …learning will use a KTP600 HMI, which features a display screen and six tactile function keys. Learners will study basic operation skill, such as downloading a project and connecting the HMI to an ethernet network, before moving to more advanced skills, like using WinCC software to create and configure project screens and configuring an I/O Field object as an input and an output;”; wherein PHOSITA would understand that the HMI is for troubleshooting a PLC and reading those internal states would be required by the HMI to view the outputs, because they are outputs from the PLC to control the plant).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amatrol, Quora and Raju as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Higashiyama et al. (US 20220390934, hereinafter Higashiyama).
In regards to Claim 3, the combination of Amatrol, Quora and Raju teaches the diagnostic tool as incorporated by claim 1 above.
The combination of Amatrol, Quora and Raju fails to teach “The diagnostic tool according to claim 1, wherein the HMI further comprises a mouse and a keyboard”.
Higashiyama teaches “The diagnostic tool according to claim 1, wherein the HMI further comprises a mouse and a keyboard” ([0076] Each processing at the SCADA web HMI execution device 3 illustrated in FIG. 3 is achieved by a processing circuit. The processing circuit has a configuration in which a processor 3a, a memory 3b, a display 3c, an input interface 3d, and a network interface 3e are connected to one another. The input interface 3d includes an input device such as a keyboard or a mouse, and a device capable of reading the web HMI data 2 and the device list 23. The network interface 3e is a device connected to the monitoring control system 4 and capable of transmitting and receiving signal data and control commands.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the HMI of Amatrol, with the use of a keyboard and mouse as an input device for an HMI as taught by Higashiyama, because it would gain the obvious improvement of having another means of interfacing with the HMI beyond the touch panel interface of Amatrol. By combining these elements, it can be considered taking the known HMI panel of Amatrol, and improving it with the known use of a keyboard and mouse to interact with the HMI as taught by Higashiyama in a known way to achieve predictable results.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amatrol, Quora and Raju as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miami Law Information Technology article on “Saving files to a USB drive” (hereinafter, Miami).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Amatrol, Quora and Raju teaches the diagnostic tool as incorporated by claim 1 above. Amatrol further teaches “data displayed at the HMI” ([page 1] Inside this attractive, durable carrying case, learners will find a world-class learning system with components like the KTP 600 Human Machine Interface (HMI)Npanel, which allows user input and displays output data).
The combination of Brayton and Quora fail to teach “The diagnostic tool according to claim 1, further comprising a USB port configured to store data displayed at the HMI in an external memory”.
Miami teaches “The diagnostic tool according to claim 1, further comprising a USB port configured to store data displayed at the HMI in an external memory” ([page 1] In order to save files onto a USB Drive, insert the thumb drive into any available USB slot located on PC Desktop, below the DVD/CD Trays….In order to save, from whatever application you are using, click on File, then Save As… then click on the My Computer icon, then double-click on the USB drive).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the diagnostic tool of Amatrol that displays output data, with the use of USB ports and a method for saving files to the USB port, such that the USB ports when connected to a USB memory stick allows saving of files/data to said stick as taught by Miami, because it would gain the obvious benefit of being able to separate the data from the diagnostic tool and share it with another entity. By combining these references, it can be considered taking the known USB ports on a computer and method of saving data to a memory stick inserted into that USB port as taught by Miami, and using it to improve the PLC diagnostic tool of Amatrol by incorporating that hardware and method into the tool of Brayton in a known way that achieves predictable results.
In regards to Claim 9, the combination of Amatrol, Quora, Raju and teaches the diagnostic tool as incorporated by claim 5 above. Amatrol further teaches “The diagnostic tool according to claim 5, wherein data is given and received only via the LAN port and the USB port” ([page 1-2] the only data interface noted by Amatrol is the ethernet/LAN port, and thus the only way to give and receive data is the ethernet/LAN port, as this claim language does not actually require that data is given and received via the USB, only that the device be limited to giving and receiving data via LAN and USB only, and so by only giving and receiving data via LAN it covers this limitation).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amatrol, Quora and Raju as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 5245220, hereinafter Lee).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Amatrol, Quora and Raju teaches the diagnostic tool as incorporated by claim 1 above.
The combination of Amatrol, Quora and Raju fail to teach “The diagnostic tool according to claim 1, further comprising an IEC connector for power supply, and an AC-DC conversion circuit configured to support an input voltage from 85 to 265 V”.
Lee teaches “The diagnostic tool according to claim 1, further comprising an IEC connector for power supply, and an AC-DC conversion circuit configured to support an input voltage from 85 to 265 V” ([col 1 line 51] Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, the present invention is comprised of a standard IEC three-wire socket 1, an AC/DC power supply detector circuit 2, an AC/DC power supply selector circuit 3, an AC/DC power supply pre-treating circuit 4, a DC power supply transformer circuit 5, a feedback and regulating circuit 6, and a DC output circuit 7.; [col 2 line 14] The transistors are designed to protect against high voltage. Input voltage ranging from 90 VAC-265 VAC or from 9 V-26 VDC is acceptable. Therefore, any city power supply or car battery power supply can be used; wherein 90VAC is an input voltage from 85 to 265V).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the diagnostic tool of Amatrol and Quora in the form of a laptop, with the use of the power supply which supports an input voltage from 85 to 265V as taught by Lee, because it would offer a power supply for powering the laptop of Brayton in order for it to operate. By combining these elements, it can be considered taking the known power supply of Lee, and providing it to Amatrol so that the HMI can be powered by a range of voltages, and specifically one between 85-265V.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpate ntable over Amatrol, Quora and Raju as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brayton et al. (US 20060235637, hereinafter Brayton).
In regards to Claim 8, the combination of Amatrol, Quora and Raju teaches the diagnostic tool as incorporated by claim 1 above.
The combination of Amatrol, Quora and Raju fail to teach “The diagnostic tool according to claim 1, wherein the diagnostic tool causes the HMI to display details of an alarm of a programmable logic controller (PLC)”.
Brayton teaches “The diagnostic tool according to claim 1, wherein the diagnostic tool causes the HMI to display details of an alarm of a programmable logic controller (PLC)” ([0044] HMI 130 is contemplated as incorporating software which allows testing of alarm responses (including deadbands), loops, and logic, and reporting of 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; [0055] FIGS. 12-18 show some of the fields and data which might be included. The table of FIG. 12 is an "Alarm" table and includes, possibly among others, the fields TagName, Initial, LL_Limit, L_Limit, H_Limit, HH_Limit, and Deadband. The table of FIG. 13 is an "Alarm G" table and includes, possibly among others, the fields Alm_Ind, QNum, Type, and Question).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have modified the diagnostic tool with HMI for troubleshooting a PLC as taught by Amatrol with the ability to display alarm data from the PLC at the HMI as taught by Brayton, because it would gain the obvious benefit of being able to better troubleshoot the equipment connected to the PLC by knowing which equipment is in an alarm state that may degrade the system controlled by the PLC. By combining these elements it can be considered taking the known technique of Brayton for displaying PLC alarm data on an HMI, and using it to improve the diagnostic tool of Amatrol in a known way that achieves predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M SKRZYCKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0933. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-3:30.
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, Ken Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN MICHAEL SKRZYCKI/Examiner, Art Unit 2116