DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment/Remarks received on 2 December 2025. Claims 1 and 2 have been amended. Claims 1-10 are pending in this application.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 4-5, filed 2 December 2025 with respect to rejected claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument,
The positioning and setting during manufacture are not taught in the prior art of record. Therefore, these features, combined with the fact that the first electronic modules are not programmable while the second electronic modules are programmable, and that both safety controller functions and programmable logic controller functions are provided in the same unit, distinguish claim 1 over Veryha, Sichner and Veil considered individually or in any combination. (see Remarks, pg. 4, paragraph 4)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner emphasizes that all anticipated components and limitations
of pending claims are present in the prior art as supported below. In addition, the Examiner notes the limitations of “… each first and second electronic module being positioned in the row during manufacture of the apparatus in accordance with the function of that module; safety functions of the first electronic modules are preset during manufacture of the control apparatus so as to not be programmable …” were newly presented in the Amendment After Non-Final received on 2 December 2025 by the Office, and has been addressed as set forth in the Office Action below.
Further, the Examiner respectfully notes the Applicant has set forth a broad and conclusionary argument without presenting any specific evidence/rationales/arguments as to how or why the combination of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0073355 A1 (Veryha), U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0224811 A1 (Sichner), and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0058602 A1 (Veil) fail to teach the newly presented claim limitations. In addition, the Examiner recognizes the newly presented claim limitations are similar to the cancelled limitation of “… the safety functions of the first electronic modules are defined by positions of the first electronic modules in the row of modules and/or by fixed hardware settings …” as previously presented in claim 1. The Examiner maintains the combination of Veryha, Sichner, and Veil teach the newly presented limitations of “… each first and second electronic module being positioned in the row during manufacture of the apparatus in accordance with the function of that module; safety functions of the first electronic modules are preset during manufacture of the control apparatus so as to not be programmable …” as set forth below in the current rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103. Hence, the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
In regards to the Applicant’s argument
In other words, the module positions in Veryha are required to be flexible as to module function, not fixed. Therefore, it cannot be obvious to modify the Veryha system with the teaching of Sichner to have module function fixed by module position. (see Remarks, pg. 5, paragraph 1)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s argument is against the references individually, wherein one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, the Examiner maintains the prior art of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0058602 A1 (Veil) was cited for its teaching of “… the safety functions of the first electronic modules are defined by positions of the first electronic modules in the row of modules and/or by fixed hardware settings …” as previously presented in the rejection claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0224811 A1, pgs. 3-7, paragraph 3) and not that of Sichner. Hence, the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth below.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0073355 A1 (hereinafter Veryha) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0224811 A1 (hereinafter Sichner) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0058602 A1 (hereinafter Veil).
As per claim 1, Veryha substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Veryha teaches the limitations of a modular control apparatus, comprising:
a central control module (Fig 1, element CL of element 100; i.e. a central unit (CL) of a modular designed control or automation system) with a first logic unit (Fig. 1, element 2; i.e. a safety control unit) and a second logic unit (pg. 3, par. [0033] and [0036] and Fig. 1, element 1; i.e. a control unit);
first electronic modules (Fig. 1, elements 21, 72, 82; i.e. safe units) connected to the first logic unit and having safety inputs and safety outputs (pg. 3, par. [0038]; i.e. “Input and output units typically comprise … safe units 21, 72, 82 …, and the safe units 21, 72, 81 being able to be controlled by the safety control unit 2 with a safety function.”), wherein the first electronic modules are designed to provide safety functions of a safety controller (pg. 3, par. [0036]; “… there is provision for at least one second control unit 2, also called safety control unit 2. This is used for controlling safety-critical applications and/or safety-critical installation components. The safety control unit 2 comprises at least one master safety subunit 2a and/or at least one minion safety subunit 2b, which are typically realized in program logic.”); and
second electronic modules (Fig. 1, elements 11, 71, and 81; i.e. non-safe units) connected to the second logic unit (Fig. 1, element 2) and having inputs and outputs (pg. 3, par. [0038]; i.e. “Input and output units typically comprise … non-safe units 11, 71, 81, the non-safe units 11, 71, 81 being able to be controlled by the first control unit 1 without a safety function …”), wherein the second electronic modules are designed to provide standard functions of a programmable logic controller (pg. 3, par. [0037]; “The control unit 1 designed to control non-safety-critical processes and/or non-safety-critical installation components also comprises respective subunits with master functionality 1a and subunits with minion functionalities 1b.”), wherein:
the central control module (Fig 1, element CL of element 100; i.e. a central unit (CL) of a modular designed control or automation system) and the first (Fig. 1, elements 21, 72, 82; i.e. safe units) and second electronic modules (Fig. 1, elements 11, 71, and 81; i.e. non-safe units) are arranged in a row of modules (Fig. 1, element 100; i.e. the vertical arrangement of the central control module and the first and second electronic modules).
Not explicitly taught are wherein the second electronic modules are designed to provide standard functions of a programmable logic controller;
each first and second electronic module being positioned in the row during manufacture of the apparatus in accordance with the function of that module;
safety functions of the first electronic modules are preset during manufacture of the control apparatus so as to not be programmable; and
the standard functions of the second electronic modules are programmable.
However Sichner, in an analogous art of a modular system integrating non-safety (i.e. standard) and safety data processing (pg. 1, par. [0002] and [0006]), teaches the missing limitations of electronic modules are designed to provide standard functions of a programmable logic controller (pg. 4, par. [0041]; i.e. standard programmable logic controllers and [0041]: “… one or more industrial automation protocols to communicate on the control network is the ability to connect safety devices and standard devices on the same network or wire, either with or without the need for a safety controller. For example, utilizing DeviceNet safety, safety interlock switches can operate alongside variable speed drives, safety network monitors with light curtains, and safety programmable logic controllers with standard programmable logic controllers (PLCs).”); and
the standard functions of the electronic modules are programmable (pg. 4, par. [0040], [0041], and [0046]; i.e. [0040]: “… preexisting networks can be updated to process safety data alongside non-safety data in conformance with various safety standards.”, [0041]: “… one or more industrial automation protocols to communicate on the control network is the ability to connect safety devices and standard devices on the same network or wire, either with or without the need for a safety controller. For example, utilizing DeviceNet safety, safety interlock switches can operate alongside variable speed drives, safety network monitors with light curtains, and safety programmable logic controllers with standard programmable logic controllers (PLCs).”, and [0046]: “In addition, firmware and/or software can be updated periodically to specify handling of particular data within the MNIC 32 and/or the USB 10.”) for the purpose of centralized data management (pg. 1, par. [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Veryha to include the addition of the limitations of electronic modules are designed to provide standard functions of a programmable logic controller; and the standard functions of the electronic modules are programmable to advantageously provide a flexible machine control architecture to transfer safety and non-safety data with multiple protocols within a single control architecture (Sichner: pg. 1, par. [0006]).
Veryha in view of Sichner does not expressly teach each first and second electronic module being positioned in the row during manufacture of the apparatus in accordance with the function of that module; and
safety functions of the first electronic modules are preset during manufacture of the control apparatus so as to not be programmable.
However Veil, in an analogous art of a modular safety device arranged in a row (pg. 1, par. [0002] and pg. 2, par. [0031]; i.e. modules placed in a series), teaches
each electronic module being positioned in a row during manufacture of an apparatus in accordance with a function of that electronic module (pg. 2, par. [0031] and pg. 3, par. [0041]; i.e. [0031]: “This safety switching device module arrangement (called the module arrangement in brief below) comprises a large number of module places 12.1 to 12.7 arranged in a series which, in the present exemplary embodiment, each accommodate a module 14. In particular, module place 12.1 contains a control module 16, the module places 12.2, 12.3, 12.5 and 12.7 in each case contain an input module 18.1 to 18.4, and the two module places 12.4 and 12.6 each contain an output module 19.1 and 19.2. The input and output modules thus form a series of modules in which each module assumes a specific position or occupies a specific module place.” and [0041]: “A special feature of the present module arrangement 10 can be seen in the fact that the association of module places 12.2, 12.3, 12.5 and 12.7 for input modules 18.1 to 18.4 to module places 12.4 and 12.6 for output modules 19.1, 19.2 is provided independently of the input modules 18 actually used. The user can therefore assemble a system in a modular manner, only the predefined association table restricting the number of different linking possibilities.”); and
safety functions of the electronic modules are preset during manufacture so as to not be programmable (pg. 3, par. [0034 and pg. 5, par. [0062]; i.e. [0034]: “The two output modules 19.1 and 19.2 provided usually comprise electromechanical or electronic switching elements, which safely switch to and from between two switching states on the basis of input signals that are supplied.” and [0062]: “… the wire-bound bus solution described above, the data is transmitted here on an optical path in the module arrangement 10' according to FIG. 6. For this purpose, the input modules 18 and the output modules 19 each have two transmitting/receiving units 80, 82.”) for the purpose of assembling a system in a modular manner (pg. 3, par. [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Veryha in view of Sichner to include the addition of the limitations of each electronic module being positioned in a row during manufacture of an apparatus in accordance with a function of that electronic module; and safety functions of the electronic modules are preset during manufacture so as to not be programmable to advantageously provide a simpler and less expensive modular structure without any deterioration in a safety system (Veil: pg. 1, par. [0006]).
As per claim 2, Veryha in view of Sichner does not expressly teach the first logic unit is designed to detect automatically the positions of the first electronic modules in the row of modules.
However Veil, in an analogous art of a modular safety device arranged in a row (pg. 1, par. [0002] and pg. 2, par. [0031]; i.e. modules placed in a series), teaches the missing limitation of a logic unit (Fig. 1, element 16; i.e. a control module) is designed to detect automatically the positions of the electronic modules in the row of modules (pg. 4, par. [0052]; i.e. “Thus, in the control device there is an exact depiction of all the module places and therefore of the entire series of modules with the inserted input and output modules. This information, together with the calculated absolute association table, makes it possible for the control module 16 to pass on the output signals from the input modules 18.1 to 18.4 to the associated output module in accordance with the linking rules specified in the association table.”) for the purpose of assembling a system in a modular manner (pg. 3, par. [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Veryha in view of Sichner to include the addition of the limitation of a logic unit is designed to detect automatically the positions of the electronic modules in the row of modules to advantageously provide a simpler and less expensive modular structure without any deterioration in a safety system (Veil: pg. 1, par. [0006]).
As per claim 3, Veryha in view of Sichner does not expressly teach the fixed hardware settings of the first electronic modules comprise fixed settings of potentiometers and/or switches of the first electronic modules.
However Veil, in an analogous art of a modular safety device arranged in a row (pg. 1, par. [0002] and pg. 2, par. [0031]; i.e. modules placed in a series), teaches the missing limitation of the fixed hardware settings of the electronic modules comprise fixed settings of switches of the electronic modules (pg. 3, par. [0034 and pg. 5, par. [0062]; i.e. [0034]: “The two output modules 19.1 and 19.2 provided usually comprise electromechanical or electronic switching elements, which safely switch to and from between two switching states on the basis of input signals that are supplied.” and [0062]: “… the wire-bound bus solution described above, the data is transmitted here on an optical path in the module arrangement 10' according to FIG. 6. For this purpose, the input modules 18 and the output modules 19 each have two transmitting/receiving units 80, 82.”) for the purpose of assembling a system in a modular manner (pg. 3, par. [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Veryha in view of Sichner to include the addition of the limitation of the fixed hardware settings of the electronic modules comprise fixed settings of switches of the electronic modules to advantageously provide a simpler and less expensive modular structure without any deterioration in a safety system (Veil: pg. 1, par. [0006]).
As per claim 5, Veryha teaches the second logic unit is designed to receive and to process data from the first logic unit (pg. 3, par. [0039] and pg. 4, par. [0050]; i.e. [0039]: “The safe and non-safe control units 1, 2 communicate with one another via an internal coupler bus B1 and a dual port RAM DPR1 integrated in the second control unit 2, and also via the internal coupler bus B1 and by means of the master and minion communication couplers 5, 6 with arbitrary other, preferably local, units connected to the field bus FB.” and [0050]: “The data interchange for the data between the safety control unit 2 and the first control unit 1 for the non-safety-critical applications is effected by means of the predefined interface via the first dual port RAM DPR1 arranged in the safety control unit.”).
As per claim 6, Veryha teaches the central control module (Fig 1, element CL of element 100; i.e. the central unit (CL) of the modular designed control or automation system) has a bidirectional communications interface between the first and second logic units (pg. 3, par. [0039] and pg. 4, par. [0050]; i.e. [0039]: “The safe and non-safe control units 1, 2 communicate with one another via an internal coupler bus B1 and a dual port RAM DPR1 integrated in the second control unit 2, and also via the internal coupler bus B1 and by means of the master and minion communication couplers 5, 6 with arbitrary other, preferably local, units connected to the field bus FB.” and [0050]: “The data interchange for the data between the safety control unit 2 and the first control unit 1 for the non-safety-critical applications is effected by means of the predefined interface via the first dual port RAM DPR1 arranged in the safety control unit.”).
As per claim 7, Veryha teaches the bidirectional communications interface is a data bus (pg. 3, par. [0039]; i.e. [0039]: “The safe and non-safe control units 1, 2 communicate with one another via an internal coupler bus B1 and a dual port RAM DPR1 integrated in the second control unit 2, and also via the internal coupler bus B1 and by means of the master and minion communication couplers 5, 6 with arbitrary other, preferably local, units connected to the field bus FB.”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Veryha in view of Sichner in further view of Veil and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0029167 A1 (hereinafter Degli Innocenti).
As per claim 4, Veryha in view of Sichner in further view of Veil does not expressly teach the switches are DIP switches.
However Degli Innocenti, in analogous art of a modular device (pg. 3, par. [0067] and Fig. 3), teaches switches are DIP switches (pg. 4, par. [0106]) for the purpose of protection and control in an industrial installation (pg. 1, par. [0007] and pg. 6, par. [0164]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Veryha in view of Sichner in further view of Veil to include the addition of the limitation of switches are DIP switches to advantageously provide an accessory device that can be easily inserted/withdrawn into/from a supporting frame (Degli Innocenti: pg. 1, par. [0015] and pg. 5, par. [0158]).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Veryha in view of Sichner in further view of Veil and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0123396 (hereinafter Papenbreer).
As per claim 8, Veryha in view of Sichner in further view of Veil does not expressly teach the second logic unit is designed to generate switch-off signals for the safety outputs of the first electronic modules.
However Papenbreer, in an analogous art of safety control (pg. 1, par. [0001] and [0008]), teaches the missing limitation of a logic unit is designed to generate switch-off signals for safety outputs of electronic modules (pg. 5, par. [0044]; i.e. [0041]: The safety controller module 100, upon receipt of a muting signal received from the muting generating device 195, via an input terminal of a non-safety controller 130, processes the muting signal and, as a result thereof, mutes a safety function of the safety controller module 100. The muting according to embodiments is restricted to a limited period of time and according to present embodiments can be provided via non-safe input channels.”) to protect humans and health (pg. 1, par. [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Veryha in view of Sichner in further view of Veil to include the addition of the limitation of a logic unit is designed to generate switch-off signals for safety outputs of electronic modules to reduce wiring or cabling between a non-safety controller and a safety controller to reduce susceptibility to failure in hazardous environments (Papenbreer: pg. 1, par. [0005] and [0006]).
As per claim 9, Veryha in view of Sichner in further view of Veil does not expressly teach the second logic unit is designed to generate disable signals for the safety outputs of the first electronic modules.
However Papenbreer, in an analogous art of safety control (pg. 1, par. [0001] and [0008]), teaches the missing limitation of a logic unit is designed to generate disable signals for safety outputs of electronic modules (pg. 5, par. [0044]; i.e. [0041]: The safety controller module 100, upon receipt of a muting signal received from the muting generating device 195, via an input terminal of a non-safety controller 130, processes the muting signal and, as a result thereof, mutes a safety function of the safety controller module 100. The muting according to embodiments is restricted to a limited period of time and according to present embodiments can be provided via non-safe input channels.”) to protect humans and health (pg. 1, par. [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Veryha in view of Sichner in further view of Veil to include the addition of the limitation of a logic unit is designed to generate disable signals for safety outputs of electronic modules to reduce wiring or cabling between a non-safety controller and a safety controller to reduce susceptibility to failure in hazardous environments (Papenbreer: pg. 1, par. [0005] and [0006]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Veryha in view of Sichner in further view of Veil and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0079755 (hereinafter Jones).
As per claim 10, Veryha in view of Sichner in further view of Veil does not expressly teach the first logic unit is designed to be redundant.
However Jones, in an analogous art of modular control systems (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitations a logic unit is designed to be redundant (pgs. 5-6, par. [0043] and [0044]; i.e. [0043]: “In embodiments, the controller module 202 may include two redundant distributed controllers 207 and 208, as well as associated switches 211 and 212, each controlling a set of communication ports (e.g., Ethernet ports) 213 and 214, respectively.” and [0044]: “…the controller 207 may be considered the primary controller and the controller 208 may be considered the backup or redundant controller.”) for the purpose of executing a control logic of a modular control system (pg. 2, par. [0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Veryha in view of Sichner in Veil to include the addition of the limitation of a logic unit is designed to be redundant to effectively and efficiently assess and manage configuration files associated with modular control systems (Jones: pg. 1, par. [0002]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to modular structures and safety systems.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0071654 A1 discloses a control system for controlling safety-critical processes in an automated system by using a communications network with a communications master for controlling the communications on the network and a plurality of network subscribers.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0163155 A1 discloses a safety controller module for providing safety control comprises a non-volatile memory configured for storing a safety control program and one or more processing units configured to execute safety control functions associated with the safety control program to provide independent safety control.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0064819 A1 discloses a distributed networking system and protocol is provided to a networking system with a modular design
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0266748 A1 discloses a modular control network architecture for an industrial distributed control system.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117