DETAILED ACTION
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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “at least one of the first industrial controller of the second industrial controller” (emphasis added) includes a typographical error. “of” should be “or”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-6, 9, 11-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0323910 (McLaughlin) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0197802 (Sambandan) (cited by Applicant).
Claim 1:
The cited prior art describes a system for connecting distributed controllers within industrial systems, the system comprising: (McLaughlin: “This disclosure relates generally to industrial process control and automation systems. More specifically, this disclosure relates to redundant process controllers for segregated supervisory and industrial control networks.” Paragraph 0001)
McLaughlin does not explicitly describe cache coherency or ethernet as described below. However, Sambandan teaches the cache coherency and ethernet as described below.
a cross-controller interface including an Ethernet physical media configured to establish a communication channel to maintain cache-coherency across a plurality of industrial controllers of an industrial system; (McLaughlin: see the switch 210 as illustrated in figure 2; “For example, the switch 210 can transport synchronization data between the controllers 202-204 so that a secondary one of the controllers 202-204 is synchronized with a primary one of the controllers 202-204.” Paragraph 0042) (Sambandan: see the local interconnects 330-1, 330-2, 330-3, 330-4 as illustrated in figure 3; see the ethernet communication as described in paragraph 0019; “In one or more embodiments, each of the local interconnects 330 maintains the cache coherency of the local address space of their respective domain of the domains 320. The local interconnects 330 may include any suitable coherent interconnect, for example, AXI-4+ACE.” Paragraph 0032)
a first industrial controller of the plurality of industrial controllers, the first industrial controller configured to control at least a first portion of an industrial process of the industrial system; and (McLaughlin: see the controllers 1 202, 2 204, 3 206, and 4 208 connected together via the switch 210 as illustrated in figure 2; “For example, control functions for controlling actuators could be executed by the controllers 202-204, the controllers 206-208, or both types of controllers 202-208 (such as in a peer-to-peer manner).” Paragraph 0040)
a second industrial controller of the plurality of industrial controllers, the second industrial controller directly connected to the first industrial controller via the cross-controller interface and configured to control at least a second portion of the industrial process of the industrial system. (McLaughlin: see the controllers 1 202, 2 204, 3 206, and 4 208 connected together via the switch 210 as illustrated in figure 2; “For example, control functions for controlling actuators could be executed by the controllers 202-204, the controllers 206-208, or both types of controllers 202-208 (such as in a peer-to-peer manner).” Paragraph 0040)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of McLaughlin, namely, redundant process controllers, with the known techniques of Sambandan, namely, controllers that maintain cache coherency, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of McLaughlin to provide for connected and distributed controllers with the teachings of Sambandan to provide for connected controllers with cache coherency would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved distributed controller system (i.e., the combination of the references provides for distributed controllers that maintain cache coherency based on the teachings of distributed controllers in McLaughlin and the teachings of distributed controllers with cache coherency in Sambandan).
Claim 4:
McLaughlin does not explicitly describe ethernet as described below. However, Sambandan teaches the ethernet as described below.
The cited prior art describes the system of claim 1, wherein the Ethernet physical media includes an Ethernet cable. (Sambandan: see the wired data communication with hardware connection including the ethernet communication as described in paragraph 0019)
McLaughlin and Sambandan are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 5:
The cited prior art describes the system of claim 1, wherein the cross-controller interface is a secure private channel between the first industrial controller and the second industrial controller. (McLaughlin: “During their operations, the first controllers are synchronized with one another over the private network at step 512, and the second controllers are synchronized with one another over the private network at step 514.” Paragraph 0056; “In FIGS. 2 and 3, the switches 210 and 310a-310d support a private network between the controllers 202-208 in the controller group 106. For example, each controller 202-208 could be joined with a private medium access control (MAC) network to form a private and secure network between controllers. In particular embodiments, each controller 202-208 includes at least three MAC ports (and associated MAC addresses). Two MAC ports can be used to connect to the redundant networks 104 or 108, and one MAC port can be used to connect to the switch 210 or 310a-310d for communication over the private network.” Paragraph 0044)
Claim 6:
McLaughlin does not explicitly describe a packet redundancy protocol as described below. However, Sambandan teaches the packet redundancy protocol as described below.
The cited prior art describes the system of claim 1, wherein the second industrial controller is configured to execute, using packet redundancy protocol, task redistribution and network redundancy for the first industrial controller and the second industrial controller. (McLaughlin: “As part of this process, the first and second controllers exchange data with one another over the private network at step 510. This could include, for example, the controllers 202-204 providing data from higher-level controllers to the controllers 206-208. This could also include the controllers 206-208 providing data for the higher-level controllers to the controllers 202-204, which act as proxies for the controllers 206-208.” Paragraph 0055; “In this example, a switch 210 facilitates communication between the controllers 202-208. For example, the switch 210 can transport synchronization data between the controllers 202-204 so that a secondary one of the controllers 202-204 is synchronized with a primary one of the controllers 202-204. This allows the secondary controller 202-204 to take over operations for the primary controller 202-204 upon a failure of the primary controller. Each controller 202-204 can operate in the primary or secondary mode of operation. Similarly, the switch 210 can transport synchronization data between the controllers 206-208 so that a secondary one of the controllers 206-208 is synchronized with a primary one of the controllers 206-208. This allows the secondary controller 206-208 to take over operations for the primary controller 206-208 upon a failure of the primary controller. Each controller 206-208 can operate in the primary or secondary mode of operation. The switch 210 includes any suitable structure for transporting data between networked devices.” Paragraph 0042; “Moreover, this configuration supports redundancy for both supervisory and industrial control controllers, and the private network between controllers could also provide redundant paths. This provides improved robustness in the overall industrial process control and automation system.” Paragraph 0057) (Sambandan: see the local interconnects 330-1, 330-2, 330-3, 330-4 as illustrated in figure 3; see the ethernet communication as described in paragraph 0019; “In one or more embodiments, each of the local interconnects 330 maintains the cache coherency of the local address space of their respective domain of the domains 320. The local interconnects 330 may include any suitable coherent interconnect, for example, AXI-4+ACE.” Paragraph 0032)
McLaughlin and Sambandan are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 9:
The cited prior art describes the system of claim 1, further comprising: a third industrial controller of the plurality of industrial controllers, the third industrial controller directly connected to at least one of the first industrial controller of [or] the second industrial controller via the cross-controller interface. (McLaughlin: see the controller 3 206 connected to the controller 1 202 and the controller 2 204 via the switch 210 as illustrated in figure 2)
Claim 11:
The cited prior art describes the system of claim 9, wherein the first industrial controller, the second industrial controller, and the third industrial controller provide co-processing functionality for the industrial system. (McLaughlin: see the controllers 1 202, 2 204, 3 206, and 4 208 connected together via the switch 210 as illustrated in figure 2; “For example, control functions for controlling actuators could be executed by the controllers 202-204, the controllers 206-208, or both types of controllers 202-208 (such as in a peer-to-peer manner).” Paragraph 0040; “In this example, a switch 210 facilitates communication between the controllers 202-208. For example, the switch 210 can transport synchronization data between the controllers 202-204 so that a secondary one of the controllers 202-204 is synchronized with a primary one of the controllers 202-204. This allows the secondary controller 202-204 to take over operations for the primary controller 202-204 upon a failure of the primary controller. Each controller 202-204 can operate in the primary or secondary mode of operation. Similarly, the switch 210 can transport synchronization data between the controllers 206-208 so that a secondary one of the controllers 206-208 is synchronized with a primary one of the controllers 206-208. This allows the secondary controller 206-208 to take over operations for the primary controller 206-208 upon a failure of the primary controller. Each controller 206-208 can operate in the primary or secondary mode of operation. The switch 210 includes any suitable structure for transporting data between networked devices.” Paragraph 0042)
Claim 12:
The cited prior art describes the system of claim 9, wherein the third industrial controller provides fail over redundancy for at least one of the first industrial controller or the second industrial controller. (McLaughlin: see the controller 4 208 providing fail over to the controller 3 206 via the switch 210 as illustrated in figure 2; “Similarly, the switch 210 can transport synchronization data between the controllers 206-208 so that a secondary one of the controllers 206-208 is synchronized with a primary one of the controllers 206-208. This allows the secondary controller 206-208 to take over operations for the primary controller 206-208 upon a failure of the primary controller. Each controller 206-208 can operate in the primary or secondary mode of operation.” Paragraph 0042)
Claim 13:
The cited prior art describes the system of claim 9, wherein the first industrial controller, the second industrial controller, and the third industrial controller are arranged in a device level ring ("DLR") topology. (McLaughlin: see the ring configuration as illustrated in figure 3; “As shown in FIG. 3, multiple switches can also be used to interconnect the controllers 202-208 in a controller group 106. In the example shown in FIG. 3, four switches 310a-310d are connected in a ring configuration, and each switch 310a-310d is connected to one of the controllers 202-208. In this arrangement, there is no single point of failure in the controller group 106. One switch 310a-310d can fail, and the remaining switches can maintain connectivity between all controllers 202-208. While shown in a ring configuration, any other suitable arrangement of multiple switches could be used.” Paragraph 0043)
Claim 14:
The cited prior art describes the system of claim 9, further comprising:
a fourth industrial controller of the plurality of industrial controllers, (McLaughlin: see the controller 4 208 connected to the controller 1 202 and the controller 2 204 and the controller 3 206 via the switch 210 as illustrated in figure 2)
wherein the fourth industrial controller is directly connected to at least one of the first industrial controller, the second industrial controller, or the third industrial controller via the cross-controller interface, (McLaughlin: see the controller 4 208 connected to the controller 1 202 and the controller 2 204 and the controller 3 206 via the switch 210 as illustrated in figure 2)
wherein the third industrial controller is configured to provide fail over redundancy for the first industrial controller when the first industrial controller fails and (McLaughlin: see the controller 4 208 providing fail over to the controller 3 206 via the switch 210 as illustrated in figure 2; “Similarly, the switch 210 can transport synchronization data between the controllers 206-208 so that a secondary one of the controllers 206-208 is synchronized with a primary one of the controllers 206-208. This allows the secondary controller 206-208 to take over operations for the primary controller 206-208 upon a failure of the primary controller. Each controller 206-208 can operate in the primary or secondary mode of operation.” Paragraph 0042)
the fourth industrial controller is configured to provide fail over redundancy for the second industrial controller when the second industrial controller fails. (McLaughlin: see the controller 1 202 providing fail over to the controller 2 204 via the switch 210 as illustrated in figure 2; “For example, the switch 210 can transport synchronization data between the controllers 202-204 so that a secondary one of the controllers 202-204 is synchronized with a primary one of the controllers 202-204. This allows the secondary controller 202-204 to take over operations for the primary controller 202-204 upon a failure of the primary controller. Each controller 202-204 can operate in the primary or secondary mode of operation.” Paragraph 0042)
Claim 15:
The cited prior art describes a method of providing distributed controller connections within industrial systems, the method comprising: (McLaughlin: “This disclosure relates generally to industrial process control and automation systems. More specifically, this disclosure relates to redundant process controllers for segregated supervisory and industrial control networks.” Paragraph 0001)
providing a plurality of industrial controllers for an industrial system, wherein the plurality of industrial controllers are configured to perform coprocessing for an industrial process of the industrial system; (McLaughlin: see the controllers 1 202, 2 204, 3 206, and 4 208 connected together via the switch 210 as illustrated in figure 2; “For example, control functions for controlling actuators could be executed by the controllers 202-204, the controllers 206-208, or both types of controllers 202-208 (such as in a peer-to-peer manner).” Paragraph 0040; “In this example, a switch 210 facilitates communication between the controllers 202-208. For example, the switch 210 can transport synchronization data between the controllers 202-204 so that a secondary one of the controllers 202-204 is synchronized with a primary one of the controllers 202-204. This allows the secondary controller 202-204 to take over operations for the primary controller 202-204 upon a failure of the primary controller. Each controller 202-204 can operate in the primary or secondary mode of operation. Similarly, the switch 210 can transport synchronization data between the controllers 206-208 so that a secondary one of the controllers 206-208 is synchronized with a primary one of the controllers 206-208. This allows the secondary controller 206-208 to take over operations for the primary controller 206-208 upon a failure of the primary controller. Each controller 206-208 can operate in the primary or secondary mode of operation. The switch 210 includes any suitable structure for transporting data between networked devices.” Paragraph 0042)
McLaughlin does not explicitly describe cache coherency or ethernet as described below. However, Sambandan teaches the cache coherency and ethernet as described below.
establishing, with an Ethernet cable, a direct Ethernet interconnect between a first industrial controller of the plurality of industrial controllers and a second industrial controller of the plurality of industrial controllers; (McLaughlin: see the switch 210 as illustrated in figure 2; “For example, the switch 210 can transport synchronization data between the controllers 202-204 so that a secondary one of the controllers 202-204 is synchronized with a primary one of the controllers 202-204.” Paragraph 0042) (Sambandan: see the local interconnects 330-1, 330-2, 330-3, 330-4 as illustrated in figure 3; see the ethernet communication as described in paragraph 0019; “Wired data communication may include, or utilize, any suitable hardware connection such as, e.g., advanced microcontroller bus architecture (AMBA), ethernet” paragraph 0019)
executing, with the first industrial controller and the second industrial controller, the industrial process of the industrial system; and (McLaughlin: see the controllers 1 202, 2 204, 3 206, and 4 208 connected together via the switch 210 as illustrated in figure 2; “For example, control functions for controlling actuators could be executed by the controllers 202-204, the controllers 206-208, or both types of controllers 202-208 (such as in a peer-to-peer manner).” Paragraph 0040)
while executing the industrial process with the first industrial controller and the second industrial controller, maintaining cache-coherency across the plurality of industrial controllers in accordance with a packetized cache-coherency protocol. (McLaughlin: see the switch 210 as illustrated in figure 2; “For example, the switch 210 can transport synchronization data between the controllers 202-204 so that a secondary one of the controllers 202-204 is synchronized with a primary one of the controllers 202-204.” Paragraph 0042) (Sambandan: see the local interconnects 330-1, 330-2, 330-3, 330-4 as illustrated in figure 3; see the ethernet communication as described in paragraph 0019; “In one or more embodiments, each of the local interconnects 330 maintains the cache coherency of the local address space of their respective domain of the domains 320. The local interconnects 330 may include any suitable coherent interconnect, for example, AXI-4+ACE.” Paragraph 0032)
McLaughlin and Sambandan are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 19:
The cited prior art describes the method of claim 15, wherein providing the plurality of industrial controllers includes providing a third industrial controller, wherein the third industrial controller is configured to provide fail over redundancy for at least one of the first industrial controller or the second industrial controller. (McLaughlin: see the controller 3 206 connected to the controller 1 202 and the controller 2 204 via the switch 210 as illustrated in figure 2)
Claims 2-3, 10, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0323910 (McLaughlin) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0197802 (Sambandan) and further in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0008667 (Majima).
Claim 2:
McLaughlin and Sambandan do not explicitly describe IPC or PLC as described below. However, Majima teaches the IPC and PLC as described below.
The cited prior art describes the system of claim 1, wherein the first industrial controller is an industrial personal computer ("IPC") and the second industrial controller is a programmable logic controller ("PLC"). (Majima: “The controllers 1 are, for example, DCS controllers, PLCs, and the like. The controllers 1 include a central processing unit (CPU) 11, a RAM 12, a ROM 13, a storage 14, a first interface 15, and a second interface 16.” Paragraph 0032)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of McLaughlin, namely, redundant process controllers, with the known techniques of Sambandan, namely, controllers that maintain cache coherency, and the known techniques of Majima, namely, a duplicative controller system, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of McLaughlin to provide for connected and distributed controllers with the teachings of Sambandan to provide for connected controllers with cache coherency and the teachings of Majima to provide for various network connections for a redundant control system would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved distributed controller system (i.e., the combination of the references provides for distributed controllers that maintain cache coherency using various networking techniques based on the teachings of distributed controllers in McLaughlin and the teachings of distributed controllers with cache coherency in Sambandan and the teachings of using various network techniques in a controller system in Majima).
Claim 3:
McLaughlin and Sambandan do not explicitly describe PLC as described below. However, Majima teaches the PLC as described below.
The cited prior art describes the system of claim 1, wherein the first industrial controller and the second industrial controller are PLCs. (Majima: “The controllers 1 are, for example, DCS controllers, PLCs, and the like.” Paragraph 0032)
McLaughlin, Sambandan, and Majima are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 2.
Claim 10:
McLaughlin and Sambandan do not explicitly describe PLC as described below. However, Majima teaches the PLC as described below.
The cited prior art describes the system of claim 9, wherein the third industrial controller is a PLC. (Majima: “The controllers 1 are, for example, DCS controllers, PLCs, and the like.” Paragraph 0032)
McLaughlin, Sambandan, and Majima are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 2.
Claim 16:
McLaughlin and Sambandan do not explicitly a direct Ethernet as described below. However, Majima teaches the direct Ethernet as described below.
The cited prior art describes the method of claim 15, wherein establishing the direct Ethernet interconnect between the first industrial controller and the second industrial controller includes receiving, at an Ethernet port of the first industrial controller, a first connector of the ethernet cable and receiving, at an Ethernet port of the second industrial controller, a second connector of the ethernet cable. (Majima: see the monitoring ethernet 6 between the first controller 1a and the second controller 1b as illustrated in figure 5; “In a small-scale control system S, the monitoring Ethernet 6 is a single (wiring of one system), and transmission of the own station information 112 and the own station information 122 via the monitoring Ethernet 6 can be performed by only one system.” Paragraph 0060; “The first controller and the second controller are connected to each other via the Ethernet hub, a monitoring Ethernet, and ports.” Paragraph 0020; “The ports P11 and P13 are Ethernet ports. The port P12 is an I/O port. The first controller 1a is connected to a monitoring Ethernet 6 via the port P11, connected to an I/O network 7 via the port P12, and connected to a tracking Ethernet 131 via the port P13.” Paragraph 0032; “The ports P21 and P23 are Ethernet ports. The port P22 is an I/O port. The second controller 1b is connected to the monitoring Ethernet 6 via the port P21, connected to the I/O network 7 via the port P22, and connected to the tracking Ethernet 131 via the port P23.” Paragraph 0033)
McLaughlin, Sambandan, and Majima are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 2.
Claim 17:
McLaughlin and Sambandan do not explicitly a direct Ethernet as described below. However, Majima teaches the direct Ethernet as described below.
The cited prior art describes the method of claim 15, wherein establishing the direct Ethernet interconnect between the first industrial controller and the second industrial controller includes establishing the direct Ethernet interconnect between an IPC as the first industrial controller and a PLC as the second industrial controller. (Majima: “The controllers 1 are, for example, DCS controllers, PLCs, and the like.” Paragraph 0032; see the monitoring ethernet 6 between the first controller 1a and the second controller 1b as illustrated in figure 5)
McLaughlin, Sambandan, and Majima are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 2.
Claim 18:
McLaughlin and Sambandan do not explicitly a direct Ethernet as described below. However, Majima teaches the direct Ethernet as described below.
The cited prior art describes the method of claim 15, wherein establishing the direct Ethernet interconnect between the first industrial controller and the second industrial controller includes establishing the direct Ethernet interconnect between a first PLC as the first industrial controller and a second PLC as the second industrial controller. (Majima: “The controllers 1 are, for example, DCS controllers, PLCs, and the like.” Paragraph 0032; see the monitoring ethernet 6 between the first controller 1a and the second controller 1b as illustrated in figure 5)
McLaughlin, Sambandan, and Majima are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 2.
Claim 20:
The cited prior art describes a system for connecting distributed controllers within industrial systems, the system comprising: (McLaughlin: “This disclosure relates generally to industrial process control and automation systems. More specifically, this disclosure relates to redundant process controllers for segregated supervisory and industrial control networks.” Paragraph 0001)
McLaughlin does not explicitly describe cache coherency, ethernet, IPC, or PLC as described below. However, Sambandan teaches the cache coherency and ethernet and Majima teaches the IPC and PLC as described below.
an Ethernet physical media configured to facilitate a packetized cache-coherency protocol across a plurality of industrial controllers of an industrial system; (McLaughlin: see the switch 210 as illustrated in figure 2; “For example, the switch 210 can transport synchronization data between the controllers 202-204 so that a secondary one of the controllers 202-204 is synchronized with a primary one of the controllers 202-204.” Paragraph 0042) (Sambandan: see the local interconnects 330-1, 330-2, 330-3, 330-4 as illustrated in figure 3; see the ethernet communication as described in paragraph 0019; “In one or more embodiments, each of the local interconnects 330 maintains the cache coherency of the local address space of their respective domain of the domains 320. The local interconnects 330 may include any suitable coherent interconnect, for example, AXI-4+ACE.” Paragraph 0032)
an industrial personal computer ("IPC") included in the plurality of industrial controllers, the IPC configured to control at least a first portion of an industrial process of the industrial system; and (Majima: “The controllers 1 are, for example, DCS controllers, PLCs, and the like. The controllers 1 include a central processing unit (CPU) 11, a RAM 12, a ROM 13, a storage 14, a first interface 15, and a second interface 16.” Paragraph 0032) (McLaughlin: see the controllers 1 202, 2 204, 3 206, and 4 208 connected together via the switch 210 as illustrated in figure 2; “For example, control functions for controlling actuators could be executed by the controllers 202-204, the controllers 206-208, or both types of controllers 202-208 (such as in a peer-to-peer manner).” Paragraph 0040)
a programmable logic controller ("PLC") included in the plurality of industrial controllers, the PLC directly connected to the PLC with the Ethernet physical media and configured to control at least a second portion of the industrial process of the industrial system. (Majima: “The controllers 1 are, for example, DCS controllers, PLCs, and the like. The controllers 1 include a central processing unit (CPU) 11, a RAM 12, a ROM 13, a storage 14, a first interface 15, and a second interface 16.” Paragraph 0032) (McLaughlin: see the controllers 1 202, 2 204, 3 206, and 4 208 connected together via the switch 210 as illustrated in figure 2; “For example, control functions for controlling actuators could be executed by the controllers 202-204, the controllers 206-208, or both types of controllers 202-208 (such as in a peer-to-peer manner).” Paragraph 0040) (Sambandan: see the wired data communication with hardware connection including the ethernet communication as described in paragraph 0019)
McLaughlin, Sambandan, and Majima are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 2.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0323910 (McLaughlin) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0197802 (Sambandan) and further in view of
CN 111421543 (Tian) (citation to English translation) (cited by Applicant).
Claim 7:
McLaughlin and Sambandan do not explicitly motion control as described below. However, Tian teaches the motion control as described below.
The cited prior art describes the system of claim 1,
wherein the industrial process of the industrial system is a motion control process, and (Tian: “Fig. 1 illustrates a control system of a robot arm according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. The system comprises: a main controller 10, a robot arm 20; the robot arm 20 includes one or more joints 21, and a joint controller 22 corresponding to each joint 21.” Page 4; “The application is suitable for the technical field of robots, and provides a control method of a mechanical arm, which comprises the following steps: the main controller determines target operation parameters of each joint of the mechanical arm from a current posture to a target posture according to the path planning of the mechanical arm; the main controller determines a target PID parameter corresponding to the target operation parameter of each joint according to the corresponding relation between a preset operation parameter and a preset PID parameter, and sends the target PID parameter of each joint to a joint controller of the joint; and each joint controller controls the corresponding joint to move to a target posture according to the received target PID parameter. Target PID parameters with different gains are adopted under the condition of different required torques by determining target operation parameters, such as required torque, and determining corresponding target PID parameters according to the target operation parameters; the PID parameters which are more matched with the required torque are adopted to control the motion of each joint, so that the operation of the joints is more stable.” abstract)
wherein the first industrial controller is configured to perform processing for a first motion axis of the motion control process and (Tian: see the joint controller for each of the joints 21 on the robot as illustrated in figure 1 and as described on page 4)
the second industrial controller is configured to perform processing for a second motion axis of the motion control process. (Tian: see the joint controller for each of the joints 21 on the robot as illustrated in figure 1 and as described on page 4)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of McLaughlin, namely, redundant process controllers, with the known techniques of Sambandan, namely, controllers that maintain cache coherency, and the known techniques of Tian, namely, a robot control system, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of McLaughlin to provide for connected and distributed controllers with the teachings of Sambandan to provide for connected controllers with cache coherency and the teachings of Tian to provide controllers for robot arm controller would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved distributed controller system (i.e., the combination of the references provides for distributed controllers that maintain cache coherency using various control techniques based on the teachings of distributed controllers in McLaughlin and the teachings of distributed controllers with cache coherency in Sambandan and the teachings of using different controllers for the different robot arms in Tian).
Claim 8:
McLaughlin and Sambandan do not explicitly motion control as described below. However, Tian teaches the motion control as described below.
The cited prior art describes the system of claim 7, wherein the first industrial controller and the second industrial controller provide distributed motion control for the industrial system. (Tian: “Fig. 1 illustrates a control system of a robot arm according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. The system comprises: a main controller 10, a robot arm 20; the robot arm 20 includes one or more joints 21, and a joint controller 22 corresponding to each joint 21.” Page 4; “The application is suitable for the technical field of robots, and provides a control method of a mechanical arm, which comprises the following steps: the main controller determines target operation parameters of each joint of the mechanical arm from a current posture to a target posture according to the path planning of the mechanical arm; the main controller determines a target PID parameter corresponding to the target operation parameter of each joint according to the corresponding relation between a preset operation parameter and a preset PID parameter, and sends the target PID parameter of each joint to a joint controller of the joint; and each joint controller controls the corresponding joint to move to a target posture according to the received target PID parameter. Target PID parameters with different gains are adopted under the condition of different required torques by determining target operation parameters, such as required torque, and determining corresponding target PID parameters according to the target operation parameters; the PID parameters which are more matched with the required torque are adopted to control the motion of each joint, so that the operation of the joints is more stable.” abstract)
McLaughlin, Sambandan, and Tian are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0036626 describes a redundant controller.
U.S. Patent No. 11,402,806 describes a controller system with a control network with communication cables.
U.S. Patent No. 6,170,044 describes a redundant controllers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E EVERETT whose telephone number is (571)272-2851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm (Pacific).
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.
/Christopher E. Everett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117