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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 7-9,21-23 are objected to because of the following informalities: Grammatical errors in Claims 7-9, 21-23
7. The method of claim 1, the at least one controller protocol conversion rule comprising at least one rule for converting data formatting differences for a data type between the first and second encoder protocols.
Is suggested to read:
7. The method of claim 1, where at least one controller protocol conversion rule comprises at least one rule for converting data formatting differences for a data type between the first and second encoder protocols.
8. The method of claim 1, the at least one controller protocol conversion rule comprising at least one rule for converting data rate differences for a data type between the first and second encoder protocols.
Is suggested to read:
8. The method of claim 1, where at least one controller protocol conversion rule comprises at least one rule for converting data rate differences for a data type between the first and second encoder protocols.
9. The method of claim 1, the at least one controller protocol conversion rule comprising at least one rule for inferring data corresponding to a data type supported by the second encoder protocol but not the first encoder protocol.
Is suggested to read:
9. The method of claim 1, where at least one controller protocol conversion rule comprises at least one rule for inferring data corresponding to a data type supported by the second encoder protocol but not the first encoder protocol.
21. The protocol logic module of claim 14, the at least one controller protocol conversion rule comprising at least one rule for converting data formatting differences for a data type between the first and second encoder protocols.
Is suggested to read:
21. The protocol logic module of claim 14, the at least one controller protocol conversion rule comprising at least one rule for converting data formatting differences for a data type between the first and second encoder protocols.
22. The protocol logic module of claim 14, where at least one controller protocol conversion rule comprises at least one rule for converting data rate differences for a data type between the first and second encoder protocols.
Is suggested to read:
22. The protocol logic module of claim 14, where at least one controller protocol conversion rule comprises at least one rule for converting data rate differences for a data type between the first and second encoder protocols.
23. The protocol logic module of claim 14, the at least one controller protocol conversion rule comprising at least one rule for inferring data corresponding to a data type supported by the second encoder protocol but not the first encoder protocol.
Is suggested to read:
23. The protocol logic module of claim 14, where at least one controller protocol conversion rule comprises at least one rule for inferring data corresponding to a data type supported by the second encoder protocol but not the first encoder protocol.
. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13 and 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 13 and 25 each recite the limitation "the data controller" in line 1 of claim 13 and line 2 of claim 25 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims. There is only reference to a device controller in the claims for which these depend, but it is unclear whether this is the same device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 outlines the following limitation(s):
1. A method for data transmission by a device driver in a system comprising:
a. a device controlled by the device driver and monitored by a first encoder in communication with the device driver
b. wherein the first encoder provides encoder data according to a first encoder protocol
c. capable of being converted to an associated first controller protocol,
d. and wherein the device driver comprises a device controller for driving operation of the device,
e. the device driver: receiving, from the first encoder, the encoder data conforming to the first encoder protocol,
f. wherein the first encoder protocol is not the same as a second encoder protocol,
g. wherein the second encoder protocol is capable of being converted to an associated second controller protocol that is not the same as the first controller protocol,
h. and wherein the device controller is configured according to the second controller protocol;
i. converting the encoder data into converted controller data conforming to the second controller protocol according to at least one controller protocol conversion rule;
j. and providing the converted controller data to the device controller.
Claim 1 Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a method for data transmission by a device driver, the method comprising: a series of steps, and is therefore directed to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 1 Step 2A, Prong One:
Of the above, limitation(s) 1i can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and is/are therefore reciting a mental process.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Claim 1 Step 2A, Prong Two:
Of the above, limitation(s) 1a and 1d is/are mere instructions to implement the limitations which can be performed in the human mind, i.e., the judicial exception, on a computer, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.0S(f).
The remaining limitations 1b,1c,1e,1f,1g,1h, and 1j, amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of necessary data outputting, as it is merely outputting the result of the judicial exception, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.0S(g).
Furthermore, the combination of additional elements results in mere instructions to implement the exception on a computer and outputting the result of the exception, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. This combination of additional elements fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 1Step 2B:
Regarding limitation 1a and 1d: the limitation(s) is/are reciting generic computing components perform the steps which can be performed in the human mind, which is mere instructions to apply the exception. The courts have found adding mere instructions to apply the exception is not enough to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.0S(a) and 2106.0S(f).
Regarding the remaining limitations 1b,1c,1e,1f,1g,1h, and 1j, the limitation(s) recited is/are insignificant extra-solution activity which amounts to necessary data outputting. Further, the remaining limitations is/are transmitting data over a network, which has been identified by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.0S(d). The courts have found adding insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine and conventional activity is not enough to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.0S(a) and 2106.0S(g).
The combination of these additional elements amounts to a method comprising steps which can be performed mentally implemented by generic computing components, and comprising a step of insignificant extra-solution and well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Therefore, the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to add an inventive concept to the claim. Consequently, claim 1 as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions and the claim is not eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
Claim 2 outlines the following limitation(s):
The method of claim 1, further comprising
driving, by the device controller based on the converted controller data, the device.
The only additional element recited in claim 2 amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional element(s) is/are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 2 is not eligible.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
Claim 3 outlines the following limitation(s):
3. The method of claim 1,
a. wherein the first encoder protocol is defined by a first encoder manufacturer and the second encoder protocol is defined by a second encoder manufacturer.
An integration into a practical application is not substantiated from the above. Thus, claim 3 is not eligible.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 3, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
Claim 4 outlines the following limitation(s):
4. The method of claim 3,
wherein the first encoder protocol is SCS OPEN LINK
and the second encoder protocol is HIPERFACE DSL.
Claim 4 recites the additional elements which amount to mere data gathering and outputting, and is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. This additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements comprise mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Thus, claim 4 is not eligible.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 3, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
Claim 5 outlines the following limitation(s):
5.The method of claim 3,
wherein the first encoder protocol is SCS OPEN LINK
and the second encoder protocol is Endat.
Claim 5 recites the additional elements which amount to mere data gathering and outputting, and is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. This additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements comprise mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Thus, claim 5 is not eligible.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 3, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
Claim 6 outlines the following limitation(s):
The method of claim 3,
wherein the first encoder protocol and the second encoder protocol are both defined by a first encoder manufacturer and are different versions of each other.
An integration into a practical application is not substantiated from the above. Thus, claim 6 is not eligible.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
Claim 7 outlines the following limitation(s):
7. The method of claim 1,
a. at least one controller protocol conversion rule comprising at least one rule for converting data formatting differences for a data type between the first and second encoder protocols.
The above can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 7 is not eligible.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
Claim 8 outlines the following limitation(s):
8. The method of claim 1,
a. at least one controller protocol conversion rule comprising at least one rule for converting data rate differences for a data type between the first and second encoder protocols.
The above can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 8 is not eligible.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
Claim 9. Claim 9 outlines the following limitation(s):
9. The method of claim 1,
a. at least one controller protocol conversion rule comprising at least one rule for inferring data corresponding to a data type supported by the second encoder protocol
but not the first encoder protocol
The above can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 9 is not eligible.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
Claim 10 outlines the following limitation(s):
10. The method of claim 1,
a. wherein the at least one controller protocol conversion rule is added to the device driver in response to input received via a user interface of the device driver.
Claim 10 recites the additional elements which amount to mere data gathering and outputting, and is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. This additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements comprise mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Thus, claim 10 is not eligible.
Claim 11 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
Claim 11 outlines the following limitation(s):
The method of claim 1,
wherein the at least one controller protocol conversion rule is added to the device driver in response to detection by the device driver of an encoder type of the first
The above can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Furthermore, the above amounts to mere data gathering and outputting, and is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. This additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements comprise mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Thus, claim 11 is not eligible.
Claim 12 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
Claim 12 outlines the following limitation(s):
12. The method of claim 1,
a. wherein the device driver comprises a safety evaluation module, the method further comprising: receiving, from the first encoder, encoder safety data conforming to the first encoder protocol; converting the encoder safety data into converted controller safety data conforming to the second controller protocol according to at least one controller safety protocol conversion rule; and providing the converted controller safety data to the safety evaluation module.
This limitation only substantially reiterates the same limitations as those recited in claim 1 with the only distinction being that the data being transmitted is safety data. Still, an integration into a practical application is not substantiated. Thus, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is not eligible.
Claim 13 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
Claim 13 outlines the following limitation(s):
13. The method of claim 1,
a. receiving, from the data controller, additional controller data conforming to the second controller protocol; converting the additional controller data into converted encoder data conforming to the first encoder protocol according to the at least one controller protocol conversion rule; and providing the converted encoder data to the first encoder.
This limitation 13 only substantially reiterates the same limitations as those recited in claim 1 with the only distinction being that the direction of the data transmission is reversed. Still, an integration into a practical application is not substantiated. Thus, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is not eligible.
The reasoning cited for the 101 rejections of the limitations belonging to claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13 extend to claim 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25. Here the respective limitations are analogous.
Claim 15 is dependent on claim 14, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1, as it extends to claim 14.
Claim 15 outlines the following limitation(s):
15. The protocol logic module of claim 14
a. wherein the programmable logic circuits are implemented using a field programmable gate array.
The additional element recited in claim 15 amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional element(s) is/are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 15 is not eligible.
Claim 16 is dependent on claim 14, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1, as it extends to claim 14.
Claim 16 outlines the following limitation(s):
16. The protocol logic module of claim 14
a. wherein the executable instructions, memory and processor are implemented by a microcontroller.
The additional element recited in claim 16 amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional element(s) is/are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 16 is not eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110908942A - WUHAN HUAZHIYANG TECH CO 03/04/2020 (WUHAN hereafter) in view of A Guide to Communication Protocols for Absolute Encoders, Kelly, 03/03/2021 (Kelly Hereafter) .
WUHAN teaches the following:
1. A method for data transmission by a device driver in a system comprising:
a device controlled by the device driver and monitored by a first encoder in communication with the device driver
Regarding limitation 1a: WUHAN background page 3, paragraph 1, lines 1-2: “The invention aims to overcome the defects of the background technology, provides the IP core and the method for freely converting the multiple encoder protocols based on the FPGA,”. Page 3, background paragraph 3, lines 3-6: “the self-defined IP core module is connected with an external encoder and at least one destination machine, is used for carrying out encoder data acquisition and protocol conversion and outputting data to the corresponding destination machine, and the data acquisition and data output processes are realized in a mode of generating a time sequence of a required interface protocol under the control of a corresponding state machine.”. Page 11, paragraph 5, lines 3: “The destination machine includes a driver” . The reference provides a destination machine, which is said to include a driver, used to facilitate encoder data acquisition and protocol conversion and outputting realized under the control of a corresponding state machine. In the context of this analogous system, this means controlling the device. The reference likewise provides an (external) encoder shown to be in communication with the driver by way of the driver’s acquisition of the encoder data.
wherein the first encoder provides encoder data according to a first encoder protocol
Regarding limitation 1b: WUHAN background page 3, paragraph 1, lines 1-2: “The invention aims to overcome the defects of the background technology, provides the IP core and the method for freely converting the multiple encoder protocols based on the FPGA,”. Page 3, background paragraph 3, lines 3-6: “the self-defined IP core module is connected with an external encoder and at least one destination machine, is used for carrying out encoder data acquisition and protocol conversion and outputting data to the corresponding destination machine, and the data acquisition and data output processes are realized in a mode of generating a time sequence of a required interface protocol under the control of a corresponding state machine.”. Page 11, paragraph 5, lines 3: “The destination machine includes a driver” . WUHAN shows protocol conversion performed on encoder data received from the encoder , meaning it is implicit that that the encoder data would necessarily be specific to the encoder.
and wherein the device driver comprises a device controller for driving operation of the device,
Regarding limitation 1d: WUHAN Page 3, Background Paragraph 4, lines 5-6: “the data acquisition and data output processes are realized in a mode of generating a time sequence of a required interface protocol under the control of a corresponding state machine” The corresponding state machine is described to facilitate control over the acquisition and data output processes. In the context of this analogous system, this describes a controller.
the device driver: receiving, from the first encoder, the encoder data conforming to the first encoder protocol,
Regarding limitation 1e: Regarding limitation 1a: WUHAN background page 3, paragraph 1, lines 1-2: “The invention aims to overcome the defects of the background technology, provides the IP core and the method for freely converting the multiple encoder protocols based on the FPGA,”. Page 3, background paragraph 3, lines 3-6: “the self-defined IP core module is connected with an external encoder and at least one destination machine, is used for carrying out encoder data acquisition and protocol conversion and outputting data to the corresponding destination machine, and the data acquisition and data output processes are realized in a mode of generating a time sequence of a required interface protocol under the control of a corresponding state machine.”. Page 11, paragraph 5, lines 3: “The destination machine includes a driver” . The reference demonstrates this limitation via the driver’s described acquisition of the encoder data.
wherein the first encoder protocol is not the same as a second encoder protocol,
Regarding limitation 1f: WUHAN Page 9, Detailed description paragraph 3, lines 1-3 “The invention customizes the IP core capable of controlling the absolute position encoder data acquisition of the switching communication protocol through a digital logic language in the part of the self-defining IP core module, so that the self-defining IP core module can support the acquisition of encoder data of various encoder protocols, and simultaneously carries out selectable protocol conversion output on data information (such as position information), and the output mode can also support various encoder protocols” The reference describes two distinct protocol layers.
wherein the second encoder protocol is capable of being converted to an associated second controller protocol that is not the same as the first controller protocol,
Regarding limitation 1g: WUHAN Page 9, Detailed description paragraph 3, lines 1-3 “The invention customizes the IP core capable of controlling the absolute position encoder data acquisition of the switching communication protocol through a digital logic language in the part of the self-defining IP core module, so that the self-defining IP core module can support the acquisition of encoder data of various encoder protocols, and simultaneously carries out selectable protocol conversion output on data information (such as position information), and the output mode can also support various encoder protocols”. The reference identifies the ability for an analogous system to be able to support multiple output mode protocols following protocol conversion. This shows that these output protocols are distinct from those of the initial layer.
and wherein the device controller is configured according to the second controller protocol;
Regarding limitation 1h: WUHAN Page 6, disclosure of invention, paragraph 3, lines 1-3 “the peripheral IP core module is used for acquiring control words written by an upper computer; the basic IP core module is used for configuring a control register of the self-defined IP core module according to the control word to realize the selection of input and output protocols so as to enable a corresponding state machine; “ This reference demonstrates the capacity for a state machine, interpretable by one of ordinary skill in the art to be analogous to a controller, to recognize multiple output protocols. Here an output protocol is analogous to said second controller protocol.
converting the encoder data into converted controller data conforming to the second controller protocol according to at least one controller protocol conversion rule;
Regarding limitation 1i: WUHAN Page 13, Paragraph 11, “1. the peripheral IP core module acquires control words written by the upper computer through the PIO parallel port; the control word comprises protocol selection, baud rate selection and the like; and the basic IP core module configures a control register of the user-defined IP core module according to the acquired control word to realize the selection of the input and output protocols. “ . This reference demonstrates protocol conversion facilitated by the selection of a control word analogous to a rule.
and providing the converted controller data to the device controller.
Regarding limitation 1j: WUHAN Page 1, Abstract lines 2-4 “the basic IP core module is used for configuring a control register of the self-defined IP core module according to the control word to realize the selection of input and output protocols so as to enable a corresponding state machine; “. This reference demonstrates that a state machine , analogous to a controller, is configured to realize an output protocol.
WUHAN does not explicitly state limitation 1c:
capable of being converted to an associated first controller protocol,
Kelly demonstrates that this limitation is understood within the art. Kelly, paragraphs 1 and 2: “Whatever method is used to capture the physical motion, the information then needs to be passed to a controller. This is achieved by another level of encoding, which takes the raw pulses and translates them into a protocol for transmission.
The physical connection influences the choice of protocol and how it operates. In general, the protocol will either be synchronous, meaning it uses a clock signal, or asynchronous (no clock signal). In addition, the physical connection can be single-ended, or, to provide extra robustness, differential. This combination results in four possible alternatives and the most popular protocols covering these are the Serial Peripheral Interface, or SPI (single-ended, synchronous), RS-485, also known as TIA/EIA-485 (differential, asynchronous), and the Synchronous Serial Interface, or SSI (differential, synchronous).”. A variety of protocols allowing for this function known. Furthermore, the function of a first encoder protocol capable of being converted to an associated first controller protocol is intrinsic to the protocols at hand. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the protocols utilized in WUHAN’s design already account for this function.
The reasoning cited for the obviousness rejection of Claim 1’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 2.
Claim 2 outlines the following limitation(s):
The method of claim 1, further comprising
driving, by the device controller based on the converted controller data, the device.
Regarding limitation 2a: WUHAN Page 3, Background lines 2-4 “the basic IP core module is used for configuring a control register of the self-defined IP core module according to the control word to realize the selection of input and output protocols so as to enable a corresponding state machine; This reference demonstrates that in an analogous system, the control mechanism is configured to realize an output protocol.
The reasoning cited for the obviousness rejection of Claim 1’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 11.
Claim 11 outlines the following limitation(s):
11. The method of claim 1,
wherein the at least one controller protocol conversion rule is added to the device driver in response to detection by the device driver of an encoder type of the first
Regarding limitation 11a: WUHAN Page 7, Disclosure of Invention, Paragraph 4, Line 1 “On the basis of the technical scheme, the user defined IP core module performs encoder data acquisition”. The reference describes a substantially analogous function.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110908942A - WUHAN HUAZHIYANG TECH CO 03/04/2020 in view of A Guide to Communication Protocols for Absolute Encoders, Kelly, 03/03/2021 as well as in further view of Top 10 Encoders Manufacturers of the World, Saxena, 03/19/2021 (Saxena hereafter) .
The reasoning cited for the obviousness rejection of Claim 1’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 3.
Claim 3 outlines the following limitation(s):
3. The method of claim 1,
wherein the first encoder protocol is defined by a first encoder manufacturer and the second encoder protocol is defined by a second encoder manufacturer.
Regarding limitation 3a: Although WUHAN HUAZHIYANG implies limitation 3a; it does not state it explicitly within its contents. Saxena however identifies a number of prominent manufacturers for encoders. The Title “Top 10 Encoders Manufacturers of the World” demonstrates a multiplicity of manufactures for encoders. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow for multiple encoders from different manufactures to work alongside WUHAN HUAZHIYANG TECH CO’s design as it would allow potential customers to select their preferred protocols from a competitive marketplace with the conferred advantage of lower prices.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110908942A - WUHAN HUAZHIYANG TECH CO 03-/04/2020 in view of A Guide to Communication Protocols for Absolute Encoders, Kelly, 03/03/2021, in view of Top 10 Encoders Manufacturers of the World, Saxena, 03/19/2021, and in further view of Multi-Protocol Position Encoder Interface IP for Safety-Related Automation Drives, Krah et all. 08, 2021 (Krad hereafter).
The reasoning cited for the obviousness rejection of Claim 3’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 4.
Claim 4 outlines the following limitation(s):
4. The method of claim 3,
a. wherein the first encoder protocol is SCS OPEN LINK
Regarding limitation 4a: WUHAN does not state limitations 4a explicitly within its contents. Krad does however. Krad, Page 6, SCS open link Paragraph 1, “SCS open link is an open and standardized interface for motor feedback systems from Hengstler. SCS open link 2.0 is the successor of version 1.0, which was formally called the Acuro link interface. The SCS implementation can be realized with 2- and 4-wire connections, which are compatible with both EnDat 3 interfaces mentioned above and use RS-485 transceivers for data transmission. In addition to the original versions implemented with FPGAs, the SCS open link protocol can also be implemented as master and slave using standard µC devices equipped with 10 Mbit/s UARTs [5]. The relatively low transmission frequency of 10 Mbits/s as well as additional start and stop bits at by te level and the 8b/10b coding results in a higher level of interference immunity. The effective data rate is 6.4 Mbit/s. The safety-related transmission relies on black channel technology and is certified up to SIL3. The exchange of data and information is controlled by commands. Like EnDat 3, SCS open link has a single-cycle architecture and therefore enables the exchange of all data (e.g. position, safety telegram, OEM-RD / -WR, or other process and condition monitoring data) within a single cycle.” This reference identifies the function and utility of the SCS Open Link protocol. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to introduce this into WUHAN HUAZHIYANG TECH CO’s design’s initial protocol layer to make use of one of the relative advantages of the protocol, such as it’s relatively low transmission frequency of 10 Mbits/s as well as additional start and stop bits at by te level and the 8b/10b coding which result in a higher level of interference immunity.
b. and the second encoder protocol is HIPERFACE DSL.
Regarding limitation 4b: WUHAN does not state limitations 4b explicitly within its contents. Krad does however. Krad, Page 7, HIPERFACE DSL Paragraph 1, Line 4 “Optional safety-related transmission is certified up to SIL 3”. This reference identifies the function and utility of the HIPERFACE DSL protocol. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to introduce this into WUHAN HUAZHIYANG TECH CO’s design’s secondary protocol layer to make use of one of the relative advantages of the protocol, such as its optional safety-related transmission being certified up to SIL 3.
The reasoning cited for the obviousness rejection of Claim 3’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 5.
Claim 5 outlines the following limitation(s):
5. The method of claim 3,
wherein the first encoder protocol is SCS OPEN LINK
and the second encoder protocol is Endat.
Regarding limitation 5a: reasoning for an identical limitation 4a has already been described above.
Regarding limitation 4b: WUHAN does not state limitations 5b explicitly within its contents. Krad does however. Krad, Page 4, EnDat 3 paragraphs 1 and 2, “The EnDat 3 interface from HEIDENHAIN works with fixed transmission rates of 12.5 or 25 Mbit/s (effective) and Manchester code is used to generate an implicit clock with no DC offset. The RS-485 transceiver must be capable of handling 25 or 50 Mbits/s respectively. The EnDat 3 Master IP core requires a clock frequency of at least 100 MHz, resulting in an 8X sample rate for Manchester-encoded bits at 12.5 Mbit/s [4]. EnDat 3 is certified up to SIL3 and the communication link including the master IP core is part of the black channel. The physical interface uses four or two wires, depending on whether the power supply and the data for the encoder are transmitted separately or is modulated onto the power lines. EnDat 3 offers the advantage that real-time process data can be pre-configured for multiplexing with send lists – an EnDat 3 specific process data multiplex setup – to off-load the interrupt service routine for control in the drive”. This reference identifies the function and utility of the ENDAT protocol. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to introduce this into WUHAN design’s secondary protocol layer to make use of one of the relative advantages of the protocol, for instance real-time process data can be pre-configured for multiplexing with send lists – an EnDat 3 specific process data multiplex setup – to off-load the interrupt service routine for control in the drive.
The reasoning cited for the obviousness rejection of Claim 3’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 6.
Claim 6 outlines the following limitation(s):
The method of claim 3,
wherein the first encoder protocol and the second encoder protocol are both defined by a first encoder manufacturer and are different versions of each other.
Regarding limitation 6a: WUHAN does not state limitations 5a and 5b explicitly within its contents. Krad does however. Page 6, SCS open link paragraph 1, lines 2 – 3 “SCS open link 2.0 is the successor of version 1.0”, This reference identifies a number of different versions for a particular protocol. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow for multiple encoders versions to work alongside WUHAN HUAZHIYANG TECH CO’s design as it would negate for the burden of needing to adopt the newest releases if undesired by potential customers.
Claim(s) 7-9, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110908942A - WUHAN HUAZHIYANG TECH CO 03/04/2020 in view of A Guide to Communication Protocols and in further view of BiSS and SSI – An Overview ,Celera Motion, 05/08/2019 (Celera hereafter).
The reasoning cited for the obviousness rejection of Claim 1’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 7.
Claim 7 outlines the following limitation(s):
7. The method of claim 1,
a. at least one controller protocol conversion rule comprising at least one rule for converting data formatting differences for a data type between the first and second encoder protocols.
Regarding limitation 7a: While WUHAN implies limitation 7a, it does not state it explicitly within its contents. Celera helps to better demonstrate. Celera, Page 2, SSI paragraph2, lines 1-2, “Many SSI devices implement double transmissions to improve communication integrity. The master compares the transmissions to detect errors. Parity checking (Appendix) further improves error detection.” Page 3, BiSS-C paragraph 1 lines 3-5,“Sensor data can comprise multiple “channels” so both position information and status can be transmitted in one frame. BiSS-C uses the more powerful CRC (Appendix) for detection of transmission errors.”. Celera demonstrates that the above two protocols format data differently as it relates to error detection. WUHAN describes the ability for both its input and output protocols to support these SSI and a Biss c protocols. Wuhan, Page 4, paragraph 5, lines 1 -3: “Further, as an optional implementation manner, referring to fig. 2, in this implementation manner, the custom IP core module may support acquisition of encoder data of an SSI protocol, a Biss _ c protocol, an endat2.2 protocol, and a custom serial port protocol, and may perform conversion and output according to any of the protocols.” Because WUHAN’s design demonstrates this ability to translate between these protocols with data formatting differences, the suggested rule is therefore shown.
The reasoning cited for the obviousness rejection of Claim 1’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 8. Claim 8 outlines the following limitation(s):
8. The method of claim 1,
a. at least one controller protocol conversion rule comprising at least one rule for converting data rate differences for a data type between the first and second encoder protocols.
Regarding limitation 8a: While WUHAN implies limitation 8a, it does not state it explicitly within its contents. Celera helps to better demonstrate. Celera, Page 2, SSI paragraph 1, line 3,“ Communication speeds are limited to 2 Mbits/sec.” Page 3, BiSS-C paragraph 1, line 2-3, “BiSS-C is hardware compatible with standard SSI but within each data cycle the master learns and compensates for line delays enabling 10 Mbit/s data rates and cable lengths up to 100 meters. ” As described above, WUHAN HUAZHIYANG TECH CO’s design demonstrates the ability for both its input and output protocol to support SSI and a Biss c protocols. BiSS. And SSI – An Overview ,Celera Motion demonstrates that the two protocols process data at differing rates. Because WUHAN HUAZHIYANG TECH CO’s design demonstrates this ability to translate between protocols with data rate differences the suggested rule is therefore shown.
The reasoning cited for the obviousness rejection of Claim 1’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 9. Claim 9 outlines the following limitation(s):
9. The method of claim 1,
a. at least one controller protocol conversion rule comprising at least one rule for inferring data corresponding to a data type supported by the second encoder protocol but not the first encoder protocol
Regarding limitation 9a: While WUHAN implies limitation 9a, it does not state it explicitly within its contents. Celera helps to better demonstrate. Celera, Page 2, SSI paragraph 2, lines 1-2 “Many SSI devices implement double transmissions to improve communication integrity. The master compares the transmissions to detect errors. Parity checking (Appendix) further improves error detection.”BiSS paragraph 1, lines 4-5,“BiSS-C uses the more powerful CRC (Appendix) for detection of transmission errors.”Page 4, Appendix Paragraph 1 lines 1-4“There are two versions of parity checking: even and odd. In the case of even parity, the sensor counts the bits in the position data with a value of 1. If that count is odd, the parity bit value is set to 1, making the total count of occurrences of 1s in the whole set (including the parity bit) an even number. If the count of 1s is already even, the parity bit is set to 0. The master performs a similar check to ensure a data bit was not corrupted in the transmission.” Page 4, Appendix Paragraph 2, lines 1 - 3” Cyclic Redundancy Check is a more powerful technique than parity checking which can fail to detect the corruption of multiple bits. The sensor applies a 16 or 32 bit polynomial to the position data that is to be transmitted and appends the result. ” As described above, WUHAN HUAZHIYANG TECH CO’s design demonstrates the ability for both its input and output protocol to support SSI and a Biss c protocols. BiSS. And SSI – An Overview ,Celera Motion demonstrates that the two protocols each handle distinct data types. Because WUHAN HUAZHIYANG TECH CO’s design demonstrates this ability to translate between protocols that handle distinct data types the suggested rule is therefore shown.
The reasoning cited for the obviousness rejection of Claim 1’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 13.
Claim 13 outlines the following limitation(s):
13. The method of claim 1,
a. receiving, from the data controller, additional controller data conforming to the second controller protocol, converting the additional controller data into converted encoder data conforming to the first encoder protocol according to the at least one controller protocol conversion rule; and providing the converted encoder data to the first encoder.
Regarding limitation 13a: While WUHAN implies limitation 12a, it does not state it explicitly within its contents. Celera helps to better demonstrate. Celera, Page 3, BISS paragraph 1, line 1, “BiSS-C also supports bidirectional communication” As described above: WUHAN HUAZHIYANG TECH CO’s design demonstrates the ability for both its input and output protocol to support Biss c protocols. BiSS and SSI – An Overview, Celera Motion demonstrates that the BiSS C protocol is capable of bidirectional communication. Because WUHAN HUAZHIYANG TECH CO’s design demonstrates this ability to utilize a protocol at both layers that can handle bidirectional communication this limitation is not novel.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110908942A - WUHAN HUAZHIYANG TECH CO 03/04/2020 in view of A Guide to Communication Protocols for Absolute Encoders, Kelly, 03/03/2021 as well as in further view of US20040028392- Foster, Ward S, 02/14/2004 . (Foster hereafter)
The reasoning cited for the obviousness rejection of Claim 1’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 10.
Claim 10 outlines the following limitation(s):
10. The method of claim 1,
a. wherein the at least one controller protocol conversion rule is added to the device driver in response to input received via a user interface of the device driver.
Regarding limitation 10a: WUHAN HUAZHIYANG TECH CO does not provide limitation 10a, Foster does however. Foster, Page 1, Abstract lines 1-3 “User input to a device driver to affect device driver settings is handled by a method according to various aspects of the present invention. The device driver has settings which include a plurality of values. The method includes the steps of (a) in response to user input, replacing the value of a setting with a new value; and then (b) reviewing all settings for consistency.” Page 3, Detailed Description, paragraph 6 lines 9-12 “Input/output devices may include conventional audio, video, and data communications devices, network interface equipment, telephone equipment, and information appliances. “ This reference describes a method for altering driver settings via user input along with an interface for doing so. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify WUHAN’s design to accommodate this feature to allow for the manual selection of preferred protocols, giving users discretion to store a variety of protocols without having to worry about one being implemented due to an automatic process.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110908942A - WUHAN HUAZHIYANG TECH CO 03/04/2020 in view of A Guide to Communication Protocols for Absolute Encoders, Kelly, 03/03/2021 as well as in further view of Multi-Protocol Position Encoder Interface IP for Safety-Related Automation Drives, Krah et all. 08, 2021. (Krah hereafter)
The reasoning cited for the obviousness rejection of Claim 1’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 12.
Claim 12 outlines the following limitation(s):
12. The method of claim 1,
a. wherein the device driver comprises a safety evaluation module, the method further comprising: receiving, from the first encoder, encoder safety data conforming to the first encoder protocol; converting the encoder safety data into converted controller safety data conforming to the second controller protocol according to at least one controller safety protocol conversion rule; and providing the converted controller safety data to the safety evaluation module.
Regarding Claim 12a: WUHAN does not provide limitation 12a, Krah does however. Page 1, Multi-Protocol Position Encoder Interface IP for Safety-Related Automation Drives paragraph 3, line 1 ”A safety communication layer (SCL) uses additional measures to ensure safe transmission of data 1-2 ”. The reference identifies a safety communication layer, this is described to serve an analogous function to the presented limitation. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify WUHAN HUAZHIYANG TECH CO’s design to accommodate this feature to allow for more focused monitoring to better ascertain metrics specific to safety functions.
Claim(s) 14,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110908942A - WUHAN HUAZHIYANG TEC.CO in view of A Guide to Communication Protocols for Absolute Encoders, Kelly, 03/03/2021.
The reasoning cited for the obviousness rejection of Claim 1’s limitations extends to claim 14, where here each respective limitation is analogous.
The reasoning cited for the obviousness rejection of Claim 14’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 15.
Claim 15 outlines the following limitation(s):
15. The protocol logic module of claim 14
a. wherein the programmable logic circuits are implemented using a field programmable gate array.
Regarding limitation 15a: WUHAN, Page 6, Disclosure of invention, lines 1, “The invention aims to overcome the defects of the background technology, provides the IP core and the method for freely converting the multiple encoder protocols based on the FPGA, (Field Programmable Gate Array) “. This reference demonstrates a Field Programmable Gate Array, described to provide the basis for the allowance of the protocol conversion. E.I logic.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110908942A - WUHAN HUAZHIYANG TECH CO in view of A Guide to Communication Protocols for Absolute Encoders, Kelly, 03/03/2021 as well as in further view of US20190004987,Western Digital Technologies, Inc, 01/03/2019. (Western Digital herafter)
The reasoning cited for the obviousness rejection of Claim 14’s limitations extends to its child, Claim 16.
Claim 16 outlines the following limitation(s):
16. The protocol logic module of claim 14
a. wherein the executable instructions, memory and processor are implemented by a microcontroller.
Regarding limitation 16a: WUHAN does not provide limitation 16a, Western Digital , does however. Western Digital, Page 9, Paragraphs 3-5, “ [0003] In general, the present disclosure describes an interface adapter that includes a programmable microcontroller surrounded by bus protocol interface logic. The microcontroller is specifically designed to control the interaction between interface modules using a microsequencercontrolled machine cycle. The interface adapter is capable of autonomously adapting the low-speed interface of a peripheral device to the high-speed interface of a network on-chip device.
[0004] The operations look-up-table of the microsequencer is used to implement the proprietary instruction operation (OP) code. An assembly language compiler is used to generate the contents of the instruction memory. The assembler outputs a source file ( e.g., Verilog) containing the contents of the instruction read-only memory (ROM), which can be used both for simulation and synthesis of the logic. Consequently, the interface adapter's logic and the microcontroller provide a much smaller and much lower power solution for adapting an interface controller to a networkon-chip environment as compared to a general purpose, embedded microcontroller plus custom interface logic. In some implementations, the interface adapter adapts a highspeed network on-chip interface to a low-speed interface peripheral.
[0005] Aspects of the present disclosure relate generally to digital logic found in integrated circuits (IC) and Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA), and more particularly to systems and methods for adapting a relatively low-speed interface of a microprocessor-based peripheral device to the relatively high-speed interface of a larger network. The present disclosure further relates to the autonomous operation of such digital logic whereby the larger network of devices operate independent of the peripheral and its connection to the greater network.” This reference identifies the use of a micro controller to facilitate the executables instructions of protocol conversion as well as tasking for memory and processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a microcontroller in place of WUHAN HUAZHIYANG TECH CO’s described FPGA (field programmable gate array) -based IP (Internet protocol) core as microcontroller could offer the advantage of being a more cost-effective solution.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110908942A - WUHAN HUAZHIYANG TECH CO 03/04/2020 in view of A Guide to Communication Protocols for Absolute Encoders, Kelly, 03/03/2021 as well as in further view of Top 10 Encoders Manufacturers of the World, Saxena, 03/19/2021.
The reasoning cited for the obviousness rejection of Claim 3’s limitation extends to claim 17, where here the respective limitation is analogous.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110908942A - WUHAN HUAZHIYANG TECH CO 03-/04/2020 in view of A Guide to Communication Protocols for Absolute Encoders, Kelly, 03/03/2021, in view of Top 10 Encoders Manufacturers of the World, Saxena, 03/19/2021, and in further view of Multi-Protocol Position Encoder Interface IP for Safety-Related Automation Drives, Krah et all. 08, 2021.
The reasoning cited for the obviousness rejection of the limitations belonging to claims 4,5 and 6 extend to claim 18, 19, and 20 Respectively. Here the respective limitations are analogous.
Claim(s) 21-23, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110908942A - WUHAN HUAZHIYANG TECH CO 03-/04/2020 in view of A Guide to Communication Protocols for Absolute Encoders, Kelly, 03/03/2021, in view of Top 10 Encoders Manufacturers of the World, Saxena, 03/19/2021, and in further view of BiSS and SSI – An Overview ,Celera Motion, 05/08/2019.
The reasoning cited for the obviousness rejection of the limitations belonging to claims 7,8 9, and 13 extend to claim 21, 22, 23, and 25 Respectively. Here the respective limitations are analogous.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110908942A - WUHAN HUAZHIYANG TECH CO 03/04/2020 in view of A Guide to Communication Protocols for Absolute Encoders, Kelly, 03/03/2021 as well as in further view of Multi-Protocol Position Encoder Interface IP for Safety-Related Automation Drives, Krah et all. 08, 2021.
The reasoning cited for the obviousness rejection of the limitations belonging to claim 12 extends to 24 . Here the respective limitations are analogous.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke Absher whose telephone number is (571) 270-1057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a
USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use
the US PTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http:/ /www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor,
Kevin Young can be reached at 571-270-3180.
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.
/LUCAS DONALD ABSHER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2194
/KEVIN L YOUNG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights