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
Applicants’ arguments filed on 22 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
By the amendment filed 22 June 2026, claims 1 and 14 have been amended.
Claims 1-15 are now pending.
Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lessmann et al. (US 2021/0144877 A1) in view of Liang et al. (US 2015/0076915 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lessmann discloses:
“A station for use in a field network between at least one field device and a central unit, the station comprising a module carrier and exchangeable pluggable modules thereon; wherein”
Lessmann discloses a modular interface system 10 connecting a control device 100 and field devices 101–108. The system includes a modular SPE-based bus system 20 having connectors 22–27 to which multiple modules are electrically and mechanically coupled. Lessmann further teaches that the modules can be removed and inserted during ongoing operation without affecting neighboring modules. Lessmann ¶¶19–20, 32; Fig. 1.
“at least one of the exchangeable pluggable modules is designed as a switch module to which the at least one field device is connectable, and wherein”
Lessmann discloses module 70 having switch 80 and interfaces 72–74 for connecting field devices 106–108. Switch 80 includes ports 81–84 corresponding to the bus connector and the field-device interfaces. Lessmann ¶29; Fig. 1.
“at least another one of the exchangeable pluggable modules is designed as a power supply module, wherein”
Lessmann discloses modular embodiments including an energy supply device 260 implemented in module 250 and supplying electrical energy through the modular bus system to other modules and connected field devices. Lessmann ¶¶44–48; Fig. 5. Lessmann therefore teaches providing power through a module in the modular interface system, but does not expressly disclose that the power-supply module is a dedicated, exchangeable unit whose sole function is supplying power.
“the switch module comprises at least one APL Ethernet port and/or at least one SPE Ethernet port for connecting the at least one field device,”
Lessmann discloses that module 70 includes SPE-based interfaces 72 and 73 connected to respective SPE ports 82 and 83 of Ethernet switch 80 for connection to field devices 106 and 107. Lessmann also discloses interface 74 and port 84 using conventional Ethernet technology. Lessmann ¶29; Fig. 1.
Lessmann does not expressly disclose:
“wherein the power supply module is a dedicated unit whose sole function is to provide power for the entire station or for at least one of the exchangeable pluggable modules other than the power supply module.”
Liang teaches a hot-pluggable uninterruptible power supply module 40 dedicated to supplying electrical power to an electronic system 30. The power-supply module includes a battery 43, power-conversion circuitry 42, monitoring circuitry, and control circuitry for controlling charging and discharging, and is electrically connected to the electronic system to maintain uninterrupted power. Liang ¶¶3, 7–10, 25–31; Figs. 1–10.
Liang’s internal monitoring and control circuitry does not give the module a separate system function. Rather, those components perform and regulate the module’s dedicated power-supply function. Thus, Liang teaches a dedicated, hot-pluggable unit whose sole functional purpose is to provide power to the associated electronic system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lessmann’s modular interface system by providing its power supply as Liang’s dedicated hot-pluggable power-supply module. The modification would have predictably permitted replacement or servicing of the power-supply unit without shutting down the station, provided power redundancy, and maintained uninterrupted station operation. Liang expressly identifies redundancy, hot swapping, and maintaining the powered system in an uninterrupted condition as purposes of the disclosed module. Liang ¶¶3, 7.
Accordingly, the combination of Lessmann and Liang teaches or suggests every limitation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Lessmann further discloses an Ethernet gateway module via which the switch module is connectable to the central unit (paras. 26, 29, 31).
Regarding claim 3, Lessmann further discloses at least two power supply modules configured such that one can be removed or exchanged without interrupting operation of the station and other modules (para. 37).
Regarding claim 4, Lessmann further discloses that control of the switch module and data exchange with the field device(s) can be carried out via a bus system (paras. 30, 38).
Regarding claim 5, Lessmann further discloses that control of the switch module is via a bus system while data exchange with the field device(s) is via a separate Ethernet connection (paras. 32, 38).
Regarding claim 6, Lessmann further discloses wherein the separate Ethernet connection is a patch Ethernet cable connecting a second port of a Ethernet gateway module to a first port of the switch module.
Lessmann teaches the Ethernet gateway/head module including multiple Ethernet interfaces and switch 170 interconnected to provide Ethernet communication between the gateway and the switch module. Utilizing a conventional Ethernet patch cable between Ethernet ports of modular industrial networking components constitutes nothing more than the predictable implementation of the disclosed Ethernet interfaces using known Ethernet interconnections. (¶¶35, 36, 59)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a conventional Ethernet patch cable between the disclosed Ethernet ports because Ethernet devices are routinely interconnected by patch cables to provide wired Ethernet communication.
Regarding claim 7, Lessmann further discloses that the switch module comprises a second port via which it is connected to a further switch module of the same station (para. 38).
Regarding claim 8, Lessmann further discloses that the separate Ethernet connection may be a ring connection connecting multiple switch modules, with the last switch module providing a port to the central unit and the central unit also connected to the gateway module (para. 52).
Regarding claim 9, Lessmann further discloses that the module carrier comprises a backplane into which the modules can be plugged, and optionally the backplane integrates a control unit for controlling the switch module (para. 29).
Regarding claim 10, Lessmann further discloses that the backplane comprises at least two Ethernet ports with which the control unit is connectable to the central unit (para. 30).
Regarding claim 11, Lessmann further discloses that the control unit can control the switch module and carry out data exchange via a bus system (para. 30, 38).
Regarding claim 12, Lessmann further discloses that a plurality of switch modules are pluggable side-by-side in the carrier; scalability up to higher numbers (e.g., 16) is a design choice, and modules may provide between two and six ports per module (para. 36, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Lessmann further discloses that the station is suitable for use in explosive or hazardous environments (e.g., Ex area, hazardous area class 1) via APL/SPE modules (para. 38).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lessmann et al. (US 2021/0144877 A1) in view of Entelis et al. (US 2022/0046114 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Lessmann discloses:
“A switch module being exchangeably pluggable into a module carrier, to which one or more field devices can be connected,”
Lessmann discloses a modular SPE-based bus system having connectors for electrically and mechanically receiving modules. Module 70 includes switch 80 and interfaces 72–74 for connecting field devices 106–108. Lessmann further states that modules can be removed and inserted during ongoing operation without affecting neighboring modules. Lessmann ¶¶20, 29, 32; Fig. 1.
“having at least two channels for controlling the switch module via a two-channel bus system, the two-channel bus system being provided for controlling the switch module,”
Lessmann does not expressly disclose a two-channel control bus.
Entelis teaches FlexRay as a control-oriented bus system used for communication between electronic control units and expressly teaches that FlexRay can have two independent data channels for fault tolerance, such that communication can continue with reduced bandwidth if one channel becomes inoperative. Entelis ¶¶108–110.
“and one or more APL Ethernet ports and/or one or more SPE Ethernet ports for connection to a field device,”
Lessmann discloses switch 80 having SPE ports 82 and 83 connected to SPE interfaces 72 and 73 for connection to field devices 106 and 107. Lessmann ¶29; Fig. 1.
“wherein control of the switch module is carried out via the two-channel bus system”
Entelis teaches that FlexRay is an automotive network communication protocol used for control communications and that the FlexRay bus can include two independent channels for fault-tolerant communication. Entelis ¶¶108–110.
It would have been obvious to use Entelis’s dual-channel FlexRay bus to carry control communications for Lessmann’s switch module. Doing so would have predictably provided fault-tolerant control of the switch module and allowed control communication to continue if one bus channel failed.
“and data exchange with the one or more field devices is carried out via the one or more APL Ethernet ports and/or the one or more SPE Ethernet ports independently of the two-channel bus system.”
Lessmann discloses that field-device data are exchanged through the separate SPE interfaces 72 and 73 and corresponding Ethernet-switch ports 82 and 83. Switch 80 is an Ethernet Layer 2 switch that forwards data messages through the Ethernet ports. Lessmann ¶29.
Entelis separately teaches Automotive Ethernet as an Ethernet-based physical network for connecting electronic systems and transmitting Ethernet frames. Entelis ¶¶119–121. Entelis further teaches single-pair Ethernet, including 100BASE-T1 and 1000BASE-T1, for Ethernet communication over a single balanced twisted pair. Entelis ¶¶122, 126.
In the proposed combination, switch-control communications would be carried over Entelis’s two-channel FlexRay control bus, while field-device data would be exchanged over Lessmann’s separate SPE Ethernet ports. Because the FlexRay control channels and the SPE Ethernet connections are separate communication paths using different communication protocols, field-device data exchange would occur independently of the two-channel control bus.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to separate fault-tolerant control communications from Ethernet field-device data communications to preserve reliable switch control while allowing Ethernet data to be transferred at higher bandwidth over dedicated SPE connections. The modification would have been a predictable use of known communication buses according to their established functions.
Accordingly, the combination of Lessmann and Entelis teaches or suggests every limitation of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Lessmann further discloses:
• in addition a first and a second port are provided via which the switch module is connectable to an Ethernet connection — Lessmann discloses multiple Ethernet ports on switch modules (para. 38, Fig. 2).
• via which a data exchange via the switch module can be carried out between the field device(s) and a central unit — Lessmann discloses that Ethernet ports of switch modules enable data exchange between field devices connected through the switch and a central control unit (paras. 32, 38, 52).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (see form 892).
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 LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights