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 19 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive.
By the amendment filed 19 December 2025, claims 1 and 14 have been amended.
Claims 1-15 are now pending.
Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Lessmann does not disclose a power supply module separate from the switch module and asserts that Lessmann only discloses integrated or internal power supply arrangements. (Rem. 5-6)
This argument is not persuasive.
Lessmann explicitly discloses that the station includes exchangeable pluggable modules, and that at least one module is a switch module and at least one module is a power supply module (Lessmann ¶¶30, 31, 37). These modules are described as pluggable modules on a module carrier, thereby constituting separate modules.
Applicant’s argument that a “power supply module” must be limited to a module whose only function is to provide power is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. The claim does not require that the power supply module be exclusively dedicated to power supply functionality. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a module that provides power qualifies as a power supply module.
Furthermore, Lessmann discloses that modules may include their own internal energy supply device (Lessmann ¶43), which confirms that power supply functionality is implemented at the module level within the modular architecture.
Accordingly, Lessmann discloses the claimed switch module and power supply module as separate modules.
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)(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 1-5 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lessmann (US 2021/0144877).
Regarding claim 1, Lessmann (US 2021/0144877) 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 (Lessmann ¶¶26–28, Figs. 1–2).
Lessmann further discloses at least one of the exchangeable pluggable modules is designed as a switch module to which the at least one field device is connectable (Lessmann ¶31, Fig. 2, module 4).
Lessmann further discloses at least one of the exchangeable pluggable modules is designed as a power supply module (Lessmann ¶¶30, 37).
Lessmann further discloses the at least one 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 ¶¶32, 38, 52).
Additionally, Lessmann discloses that modules connected to the system may include their own energy supply device (Lessmann ¶43), thereby evidencing that modules providing power are implemented as modular units within the system.
Accordingly, Lessmann discloses all limitations 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 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).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lessmann et al. (US 2021/0144877) (“Lessmann”).
Regarding claim 6: “The station of claim 5, wherein the separate Ethernet connection is a patch Ethernet cable connecting a second port of an Ethernet gateway module to a first port of the switch module.”
• Lessmann discloses a modular station comprising an Ethernet gateway module and one or more switch modules, each with Ethernet ports, and further discloses that control and data exchange can be separated such that data is exchanged via Ethernet links (paras. 32, 38, 52).
• While Lessmann does not expressly recite a “patch Ethernet cable,” the reference clearly teaches that the gateway and switch ports are interconnected by Ethernet connections. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that such interconnections are implemented using standard patch Ethernet cables, as is conventional in the field of Ethernet networking.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the Ethernet connection between Lessmann’s gateway module and switch module using a patch Ethernet cable. The motivation is straightforward: patch cables are the standard and universally accepted means for connecting Ethernet ports in modular or rack-mounted industrial systems. Employing a patch cable in Lessmann’s disclosed system would have been an obvious matter of design choice, yielding a predictable result of providing physical Ethernet connectivity between modules.
Official Notice is taken that patch Ethernet cables are well known in the art for interconnecting Ethernet ports in modular systems.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lessmann et al. (US 2021/0144877) (“Lessmann”) in view of Suzuki et al (US Pub. 2002/0041594).
Regarding claim 14, Lessmann (US 2021/0144877) discloses a switch module being exchangeably pluggable into a module carrier, to which one or more field devices can be connected (Lessmann ¶¶26–28, 31; Fig. 2).
Lessmann further discloses one or more APL Ethernet ports and/or one or more SPE Ethernet ports for connection to a field device (Lessmann ¶¶32, 38, 52).
Lessmann further discloses communication between modules over a bus system (Lessmann ¶¶30, 38).
However, Lessmann does not specifically disclose 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.
However, Suzuki from an analogous art discloses a bus communication system in which communication occurs over channels associated with respective bus systems, each channel having a channel identifier (Suzuki ¶0039).
Suzuki further discloses that a control unit determines switching operations based on channel identifiers and establishes connections between channels of different bus systems (Suzuki ¶0039).
Thus, Suzuki discloses at least two channels in a bus system that are used in controlling switching operations, corresponding to the claimed two-channel bus system for controlling a switch module.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Lessmann to incorporate channel-based switching control as taught by Suzuki in order to improve routing flexibility and control of communication between modules.
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