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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-10, 13-15, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do et al. (hereinafter “Do”) (US 20120104295 A1) in view of Pettigrew et al. (hereinafter “Pettigrew”) (US 20130173024 A1).
As to claims 1, 10, and 15, Do teaches a system and method for controlling, comprising:
a first controller device [loop controllers 28] comprising circuitry configured to generate and transmit a first redundant output data packet associated with the control system ([Figs. 1-2] [0006, 0021] A first redundant loop controller processes the setpoint command signal and the feedback signal to generate a first actuator control signal…three separate loop controllers 28, 30, 32…. can include processors (e.g., microprocessors, microcontrollers, etc.) and/or integrated and discrete circuitry for performing the functions ascribed to them as discussed herein… The three loop controllers 28, 30, 32 are each capable of processing the setpoint command signal 20 and the feedback signal 18 to control the valve actuator 12);
a second controller device [loop controllers 30] comprising circuitry configured to generate and transmit a second redundant output data packet associated with the control system ([Figs. 1-2] [0006, 0021] A second redundant loop controller processes the setpoint command signal and the feedback signal to generate a second actuator control signal…three separate loop controllers 28, 30, 32…. can include processors (e.g., microprocessors, microcontrollers, etc.) and/or integrated and discrete circuitry for performing the functions ascribed to them as discussed herein… The three loop controllers 28, 30, 32 are each capable of processing the setpoint command signal 20 and the feedback signal 18 to control the valve actuator 12);
a third controller device [loop controllers 32] comprising circuitry configured to generate and transmit a third redundant output data packet associated with the control system ([Figs. 1-2] [0006, 0021] A third redundant loop controller processes the setpoint command signal and the feedback signal to generate a third actuator control signal…three separate loop controllers 28, 30, 32…. can include processors (e.g., microprocessors, microcontrollers, etc.) and/or integrated and discrete circuitry for performing the functions ascribed to them as discussed herein… The three loop controllers 28, 30, 32 are each capable of processing the setpoint command signal 20 and the feedback signal 18 to control the valve actuator 12);
an input/output (I/O) system comprising circuitry [Figs. 1-2, primary controller 34] configured to:
receive the first redundant output data packet, the second redundant output data packet, and the third redundant output data packet from the first controller device, the second controller device, and the third controller device ([0006, 0021-0023] A primary controller compares the first actuator control signal, the second actuator control signal, and the third actuator control signal to determine whether at least one of the actuator control signals is substantially similar to another of the actuator control signals... A function of the VC circuitry 34a is to conduct two-out-of-three voting using output signals from the loop controllers 28, 30, 32…the primary controller 34, via the VC circuitry 34a for example, decides which loop controller 28, 30, 32 should control the valve actuator 12 at any given moment…);
evaluate the first redundant output data packet, the second redundant output data packet, and the third redundant output data packet based on a voting process ([0006, 0021-0024] A function of the VC circuitry 34a is to conduct two-out-of-three voting using output signals from the loop controllers 28, 30, 32…the primary controller 34, via the VC circuitry 34a for example, decides which loop controller 28, 30, 32 should control the valve actuator 12 at any given moment…To make such a determination, the primary controller 34, in particular the VC circuitry 34a, can perform a two-out-of-three voting (2003) technique to determine whether two of the actuator control signals 36, 38, 40 are substantially similar…);
generate a control input responsive to evaluating the first redundant output data packet, the second redundant output data packet, and the third redundant output data packet based on the voting process ([0006, 0021-0023] To make such a determination, the primary controller 34, in particular the VC circuitry 34a, can perform a two-out-of-three voting (2003) technique to determine whether two of the actuator control signals 36, 38, 40 are substantially similar. Under normal conditions, each of the loop controllers 28, 30, 32 will generate a substantially similar actuator control signal 36, 38, 40. In this case the primary controller 34, in particular the VC circuitry 34a, can choose any of the loop controllers 28, 30, 32 to control the valve actuator 12… The actual drive signal 16 provided to the actuator 12 can be generated by a loop controller 28, 30, 32, by the primary controller 34, or by other circuitry within the valve controller 14. The drive signal 16 can be the same signal as one of the actuator control signals 36, 38, 40, or a different signal. For example, in certain embodiments the valve controller 14 outputs one of the actuator control signals 36, 38, 40 directly to the valve actuator 12 as the drive signal 16. In other embodiments, the valve controller 14 generates and outputs a different signal, based on the chosen actuator control signal, as the drive signal 16 for the valve actuator 12); and
Do teaches a system and method for controlling actuators and/or valves using a plurality of redundant controllers and voting technique to determine and provide appropriate controller output signal to affect operation of equipment in the control system, wherein the controller output signal can be configured differently [0006, 0021-0026]. Do does not explicitly teach provide the control input back to the first controller device, the second controller device, and the third controller device such that the first controller device, the second controller device, and the third controller device use the control input to control other equipment in the control system.
However, Pettigrew teaches a method and system for a redundant control. Especially, Pettigrew teaches using voting arbitration to provide multiple redundancy for monitoring process parameter and controller output signals to determine when a monitored parameter and/or output is in error and providing an alternative output from another component, such that output from the voting module provides the control input back to the first controller device, the second controller device, and the third controller device such that the first controller device, the second controller device, and the third controller device use the control input to control other equipment in the control system ([0002-0003, 0017, 0022-0025, 0031-0032] These other devices 144 may include, for example, sensors, gauges, measurements devices, actuators, valves, control subsystems, and/or other devices. One or more of these other devices 144 may be in communication with each other and/or with controllers 112, 114, and 116 via network 146…controllers 112, 114, and 116 each have an output signal deliverable to voting module 148, the output of which, is used to select outputs for one of controllers 112, 114, and 116 that is associated with an output that is determined to be not "true" due to inaccuracy, faulty input, health outside a threshold range or other indication…Feedback signals from voting module 148 are provided as input to each controller 112, 114, and 116…Voting module 148 includes an algorithm operable to determine which of the outputs of controllers 112, 114, and 116 is "true" (i.e., accurately represents the sensor signal, or, command signal)… Output from the voting algorithm is provided back to controllers 112, 114, and 116. The voting algorithm provides controllers 112, 114, and 116 a command to replace an output of one of controllers 112, 114, and 116 determined to have an "untrue" output with an output of another of controllers 112, 114, and 116).
Do and Pettigrew are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of providing redundant control for a control system using voting arbitration. At the time before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure and transmit the final decision output back to the redundant controllers to operate other devices based on the voting result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Pettigrew with the teachings of Do for the purpose of providing a control command back to redundant controllers to replace an output of one of the redundant controllers to control other devices in the control system as specified in the claim 1.
As to claims 2, 13, and 19, Do teaches the voting process comprises a two out of three (2oo3) or a two out of three with diagnostics (2oo3D) voting process [0021-0024].
As to claim 5, Pettigrew teaches a first redundant I/O module comprising circuitry configured to receive, from a first networking device in communication with the first controller device, the second controller device, and the third controller device, a first instance of the first redundant output data packet, a first instance of the second redundant output data packet, and a first instance of the third redundant output data packet; and a second redundant I/O module comprising circuitry configured to receive, from a second networking device in communication with the first controller device, the second controller device, and the third controller device, a second instance of the first redundant output data packet, a second instance of the second redundant output data packet, and a second instance of the third redundant output data packet [Fig. 1 shows IO Net Switches 118, 120, and 122 are communicatively coupled to associated inputs of controllers 112, 114, and 116] [0014, 0019-0025].
As to claim 6, Pettigrew teaches the circuitry of the I/O system is configured to: perform a value comparison by evaluating the first instance of the first redundant output data packet relative to the second instance of the first redundant output data packet, evaluating the first instance of the second redundant output data packet relative to the second instance of the second redundant output data packet, and evaluating first instance of the third redundant output data packet relative to the second instance of the third redundant output data packet; and invalidate the second redundant I/O module based on the value comparison [0002-0003, 0017, 0022-0025, 0031-0032].
As to claims 7, 14, and 20, Do teaches the first controller device comprises a first programmable logic controller (PLC) and the first redundant output data packet comprises a first Common Industrial Protocol (CIP) safety-encoded data packet; the second controller device comprises a second PLC and the second redundant output data packet comprises a second CIP safety-encoded data packet; and the third controller device comprises a third PLC and the third redundant output data packet comprises a third CIP safety-encoded data packet [0009, 0021-0026, 0031-0032].
As to claim 8, Pettigrew teaches the I/O system comprises: a first redundant I/O module comprising circuitry configured to receive a first instance of the first redundant output data packet, a first instance of the second redundant output data packet, and a first instance of the third redundant output data packet; a second redundant I/O module comprising circuitry configured to receive a second instance of the first redundant output data packet, a second instance of the second redundant output data packet, and a second instance of the third redundant output data packet; and a third redundant I/O module comprising circuitry configured to receive a third instance of the first redundant output data packet, a third instance of the second redundant output data packet, and a third instance of the third redundant output data packet [Fig. 1 shows IO Net Switches 118, 120, and 122 are communicatively coupled to associated inputs of controllers 112, 114, and 116] [0014, 0019-0025].
As to claim 9, Pettigrew teaches perform a value comparison by evaluating the first instance, the second instance, and the third instance of the first redundant output data packet relative to each other, evaluating the first instance, the second instance, and the third instance of the second redundant output data packet relative to each other, and evaluating first instance, the second instance, and the third instance of the third redundant output data packet relative to each other; and invalidate the third redundant I/O module based on the value comparison [0002-0003, 0017, 0022-0025, 0031-0032].
Claim(s) 3-4, 11-12, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do in view of Pettigrew, and further in view of Al Khunaizi et al. (hereinafter “Al Khunaizi”) (US 20190294184 A1).
As to claims 3, 11, and 16, Do teaches evaluate the first redundant output data packet, the second redundant output data packet, and the third redundant output data packet based on a control loop comparison; and invalidate the third controller device based on the control loop comparison [0022-0026]. Do and Pettigrew do not explicitly teach the voting process comprises a one out of two (1oo2) or a one out of two with diagnostics (1oo2D) voting process that is based on the first redundant output data packet and the second redundant output data packet.
However, Al Khunaizi teaches a system and method for a high integrity protection system in flow line control. Especially, Al Khunaizi teaches using voting configuration comprises a two-out-of-three (2oo3) voting configuration and a one-out-of-two (1oo2) voting configuration, wherein the 1oo2 voting process that is based on the first redundant output data and the second redundant output data [0040-0044].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Al Khunaizi with the teachings of Do and Pettigrew for the purpose of using different voting configuration to determine system integrity based on the number of available data input.
As to claims 4, 12, and 17, Do teaches activate a fourth controller device responsive to invalidating the third controller device based on the control loop comparison; receive a fourth redundant output data packet from the first controller device, a fifth redundant output data packet from the second controller device, and a sixth redundant output data packet from the fourth controller device after activating the fourth controller device; evaluate the fourth redundant output data packet, the fifth redundant output data packet, and the sixth redundant output data packet based on a two out of three (2oo3) or a two out of three with diagnostics (2oo3D) voting process; generate a second control input responsive to evaluating fourth redundant output data packet, the fifth redundant output data packet, and the sixth redundant output data packet based on the 2oo3 or the 2oo3D voting process; and provide the second control input to the first controller device, the second controller device, and the fourth controller device such that the first controller device, the second controller device, and the fourth controller device use the second control input to affect operation of the equipment in the control system [0022-0026].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do in view of Pettigrew, and further in view of Kuikka et al. (hereinafter “Kuikka”) (US 20210167710 A1).
As to claim 18, Do teaches he voting process comprises a two out of three (2oo3) voting process [0021-0024]. Do and Pettigrew do not explicitly teach the voting process comprises a two out of three with diagnostics (2oo3D) voting process.
However, Kuikka teaches a system and method for safety control, especially, Kuikka teaches using different voting processes for safety control comprises a two out of three with diagnostics (2oo3D) voting process [0028-0031].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kuikka with the teachings of Do and Pettigrew for the purpose of using different voting configuration to ensure system safety based on the number of available data input.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIPENG WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-7.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at 5712722279. 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.
/ZHIPENG WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights