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 .
1. Claims 1 and 3-10 are presented for examination and claim 2 is cancelled.
Response to Amendment/Response to Arguments
2. 2.1 The rejection under 112 has been withdrawn since applicant’s amendments and remarks are persuasive and overcome the rejection.
2.2 Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection under 103 has been maintained since applicant’s amendments and remarks are not persuasive.
Applicant combined the rejection claim 2 to the independent claim 1 and argues that Yi fails to disclose the amended limitation of claim 1, “wherein the blocks corresponding to the plurality of tags are sequentially put in the window with a predetermined size, wherein a respective block is determined to be split when only a portion of the respective block is to be put in the window”.
However, examiner respectively argues that Yi discloses the blocks corresponding to the plurality of tags are sequentially put in the window with a predetermined size ([0024]-[0026], Fig. 9, Fig. 10, The reception window in the receiver receives only PDUs that lie within a valid range and receiver receives only PDUs having transmission sequence numbers that lie within the limits of the reception window ( a predetermined size). PDUs (block) received beyond the range of the reception window are discarded as soon as the PDUs are received. wherein a respective block is determined to be split when only a portion of the respective block is to be put in the window ([0027], [0033]-[0034], [0076], The reception window is updated only when a new in-sequence PDU is received in the reception window. When a number of PDUs beyond the range of the transmission window are stored in the transmission buffer, the PDUs exceeding the range of the transmission window cannot be transmitted until the transmission window is updated to a point where these PDUs lie within the transmission window range).
In addition, applicant argues that Yi is non-analogous art since Yi relates to communications systems, but the claims related to data communication with PLC. However, examiner respectively disagrees that the preamble is not limit the claim 1 to the PLC. The PLC mentions only in the preamble of claim 1, the body of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure and does not depend on the preamble for completeness. A preamble that describes the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention generally does not limit the claims and the preamble merely extols benefits or features of the claimed invention and there is no clear reliance on those benefits or features as patentably significant (e.g., preamble recites, “a head for a lacrosse stick which provides improved handling and playing characteristics.”) See: MPEP 2111.02 & 2111.02(II). As claim 1 the rest of the limitations does not attach with preamble, PLC. For this reason, the Yi refence is appropriate and it is analogs art.
Furthermore, applicant argues that Yi’s window is not a physical data container or payload into which a smaller data blocks are packed. However, examiner respectively disagrees since Yi discloses or shows that the “window” is a physical data container in Fig. 9 and 10, [0023], [0024], a transmission window and reception window are respectively used in the transmitter and receiver for transmitting and receiving PDUs. After PDUs within the range of the window are transmitted from a transmission buffer, subsequent PDUs are loaded into the buffer and transmitted within an updated transmission window. Which shoes that the “window” is a physical data container.
Fors this reason, the rejection under 103 has been maintained.
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 (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.
3. 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAZUYA et al. (JP 5450328 B2) in view of Yi et al. (US 20060062323 A1) further in view of Chang et al. (US 5566176A).
Regarding claim 1, KAZUYA discloses method of communication with a programmable logic controller (PLC) system, performed by a computing device (Page 2, Par. 2, a method for monitoring and controlling a transmission type control device and a plurality of HMI devices that have an input / output interface and are operated for monitoring by a network configured to connect each other through a network) the method comprising:
converting a plurality of tags into a same operation unit by generating blocks of the plurality of tags where each of the plurality of tags is aligned according to an offset ( Abstract, Page 3, A tag that converts the received block data into a tag by referring to the table 38 and stores the converted tag in the tag DB 24, while converting the tag stored in the tag DB 24 into block data and transmits it to the block transmission control device 50 / Block conversion means 31. The tag DB 82 that collects the tags obtained by converting the respective block data for 50 (50x, 50y)).
KAZUYA fails to disclose determining whether or not to split one or more of the blocks, and putting the one or more blocks and/or one or more split blocks in a window corresponding to a protocol data unit; wherein the blocks corresponding to the plurality of tags are sequentially put in the window with a predetermined size, wherein a respective block is determined to be split when only a portion of the respective block is to be put in the window.
Yi discloses determining whether or not to split one or more of the blocks (Fig. 9 and 10, [0034], when the transmission window has a size which corresponds to PDUs 1 through 100 (the size of the transmission window is 100 PDU positions) and PDUs 1 through 150 are received from the upper layer of the transmitter and stored in the transmission buffer, the transmitter and receiver will be deadlocked. This is because the polling bit is set when the last-stored PDU in the buffer (i.e., PDU No. 150) is transmitted, when the related method of polling is used. Under these circumstances, because the size of the transmission window is only 100 PDU positions, the transmitter can only transmit PDU 1 through 100); and
putting the one or more blocks and/or one or more split blocks in a window corresponding to a protocol data unit (abstract, [0024], selecting a protocol data unit (PDU) from a buffer, determining whether the data unit is located at a predetermined position within a transmission window, and then transmitting polling information with the data unit if the data unit is determined to be at the predetermined position of the transmission window),
wherein the blocks corresponding to the plurality of tags are sequentially put in the window with a predetermined size ([0024], [0026], The transmission window has a size which corresponds to a predetermined maximum number), wherein a respective block is determined to be split when only a portion of the respective block is to be put in the window (Fig. 9 and 10, [0034], Under these circumstances, because the size of the transmission window is only 100 PDU positions, the transmitter can only transmit PDU 1 through 100. As a result, all PDUs within the range of the transmission window are transmitted without the polling bit split the from 101 to 150).
KAZUYA and Yi are analogous art. They relate to managing data transmitting.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify controlling the transmission of signals in a communications system, taught by Yi, incorporated with plurality of tag transmission, taught by KAZUYA, in order to improve the speed, efficiency and the reliability and quality of communications system.
However, Yi and KAZUYA fail to disclose the device communication system is the PLC communication system.
Chang discloses Abstract, a parameter setting method for a PLC communication system. In a transmission mode, a self-station identification number is set, and transmitting data is divided into a plurality of blocks if it exceeds a predetermined size. Block identification numbers are assigned to the divided blocks.
Chang, KAZUYA and Yi are analogous art. They relate to managing data transmitting.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify a PLC communication system, taught by Chang, incorporated with the teaching of Yi and KAZUYA, as state above, since it is capable of setting efficient parameters when a plurality of PLCs exchanges rapid data through a single communication network, to enhance an efficiency of the PLC communication system.
Regarding claim 3, Chang discloses determining comprises determining that the respective block is to be split when the respective block is a leading block located first in the window (Fig. 9-10, column 6, lines 15-24, transmission parameter setting step of setting a self-station identification number in a transmission mode, dividing transmitting data into a plurality of blocks if it exceeds a predetermined size, assigning block identification numbers to the divided blocks).
Regarding claim 4, Yi discloses determining comprises determining that a respective block is not split when the respective block has a size not larger than the size of the window and corresponds to a last block in the window (([0076], Fig. 3, Fig. 5, determining whether the selected protocol data unit is a last data unit in a transmission window. (Block 302). The transmission window used by the AM RLC of the transmitter has a predetermined size for holding a maximum number of PDUs. For example, the transmission window may have a range of 100 PDUs positions).
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Yi and KAZUYA disclose:
Yi discloses converting, by the computing device, one window into one PDU to perform communication with the PLC system ([0002], Abstract, controlling the transmission of signals in a communications system uses a polling trigger which prevents a deadlock condition from occurring between a transmitter and receiver; selecting a protocol data unit from a buffer, determining whether the data unit is located at a predetermined position within a transmission window);
In addition, KAZUYA discloses in Abstract, a monitoring control system includes a plurality of tag transmission control devices that control devices, a block transmission control device, and a plurality of HMI devices that monitor and control the control devices, respectively. The HMI device is configured to be connected by a network so as to be able to transmit, and the HMI device converts the control device and connected via the network to each other, block data, and tags. A tag that converts the received block data into a tag by referring to the table 38 and stores the converted tag in the tag DB.
Regarding claim 9, combination of Yi and Chang disclose:
Yi discloses identifying, by the computing device, one window for one block container ([[0024], [0034], Fig. 5, Fig. 10, The transmission window has a size which corresponds to a predetermined maximum number of PDUs that can be transmitted), and converting, by the computing device, the one block container into a PDU to perform communication with the PLC system (Abstract, [0002], communications systems for controlling the transmission of polling information with one or more protocol data units (PDU) in a wireless communications system).
wherein each tag ([0041], selecting a data unit from a buffer), is configured to subscribe to one or more block containers ([0041] Fig. 5, Fig. 10, determining whether the data unit is a last data unit in a transmission window, and transmitting polling information with the data unit if the data unit is determined to be the last data unit in the transmission window).
Change discloses in abstract, column 6, lines 2-14, a parameter setting method for a PLC communication system. In a transmission mode, a self-station identification number is set, and transmitting data is divided into a plurality of blocks if it exceeds a predetermined size; a parameter setting method for a PLC communication system in which, in a transmission mode, data exceeding a predetermined size is transmitted while being divided into a plurality of blocks and, in a reception mode, a desired portion of received data is selectively stored according to a common reception region and an individual reception region set in a parameter.
Regarding claim 10, Yi discloses processing, by the computing device, the converted PDU in a queue waiting manner ([0088], Fig. 8, step 406, If the selected PDU is not the last PDU in the transmission buffer or the transmission window, the PDU is transmitted to the receiver without polling information. The method then waits for the next transmission time interval (Block 406) and another PDU is selected).
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Citation Pertinent prior art
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Decarreau (US20210297915A1) discloses a packet data convergence protocol, protocol data unit handling for mobility between new radio access technology and long-term evolution.
Jiang (US 6996063 B2) discloses a receiver 64 and a transmitter 65 in a wireless communications system 60. Both the receiver 64 and the transmitter 65 have windows within which they expect to receive the PDUs 50 and transmit the PDUs 50, respectively. The receiver 64 has a receiving window 61 that is delimited by two state variables: VR(R) 62, and VR(MR) 63. VR(R) 62 marks the beginning of the receiving window 61, and VR(MR) 63 marks the end of the receiving window 61.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for allthat it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed wereinstead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1 009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
6. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed Kidest Worku whose telephone number is 571-272-3737. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ali Mohammad can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application information Retrieval IPAIRI system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PMR 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 PAG system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217- 9197.
/KIDEST WORKU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights