DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been examined.
There are no new, nor canceled claims.
Applicant’s amendments necessitate new grounds of rejection. Accordingly, this Office action is made FINAL.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to the specification, filed 3/10/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been fully considered and is persuasive. The rejection of Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments with arguments, see page 6, filed 3/10/2026, with respect to the objection to Claim 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to Claim 4 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments with arguments, see pages 6-10, filed 3/10/2026, with respect to the prior-art rejections of Claims 1-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of the combination of Chandhoke et al. and Adkins, necessitated by amendment.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the above-mentioned input and output configured for implementing an HMI type interface" in the first limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant struck-through the word “type” in Claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being unpatentable over US 2018/0217954 A1 (Chandhoke et al.), in view of US 2004/0099111 A1 (Adkins).
As to Claim 1, Chandhoke et al. disclose a multifunction control apparatus, comprising:
a main card, provided with a first processing unit, and a plurality of expansion slots (Chandhoke et al. disclose the Master Devices 306 comprising a master/slave configuration with slave devices 308 inserted into expansion slots – Fig 3 and ¶¶ [0091, 0094, 0100]; wherein the master may be installed on a card in the chassis - ¶ [0141]);
a plurality of accessory cards, with each being configured to be insertable into a respective one of the expansion slots, (Chandhoke et al. disclose the chassis-installed {expansion slot installed} slave I/O cards 308 used to receive inputs and send outputs to various industrial devices including lamps, switched, motor controllers {second processing unit}, known in the art to have onboard processors to control signals such as overtempt, overtravel, current control, position control (in some cases), etc. – Fig. 3 and ¶¶ [0004-0005, 0089-0091, 0094, 0100]).
Chandhoke et al. disclose the chassis-installed slave motor controllers as cited above, but do not expressly disclose the motor controller having at least one of said accessory cards being a management card having a slave configuration with respect to the main card, said management card comprising: a second processing unit; and at least one communication interface. However, Adkins, also in the field of machine control, discloses
a management card having a slave configuration with respect to the main card (Adkins discloses the I/O Rack populated with at least 24VDC Input and Output cards; and the servo module as accessory cards to the PLC. The servo module {second management card} is used to control servo drives which control servo motors. The servo module has its own processor {second processing unit} to manage the motion of the servo motor as directed by the PLC commands to the servo module. The Servo module and PLC exchange information via the I/O rack backplane {communication interface} - ¶ [0087]), said management card comprising:
a second processing unit (Adkins discloses the I/O Rack populated with at least 24VDC Input and Output cards; and the servo module as accessory cards to the PLC. The servo module {second management card} is used to control servo drives which control servo motors. The servo module has its own processor {second processing unit} to manage the motion of the servo motor as directed by the PLC commands to the servo module. The Servo module and PLC exchange information via the I/O rack backplane {communication interface} - ¶ [0087]); and a
at least one communication interface (Adkins discloses the I/O Rack populated with at least 24VDC Input and Output cards; and the servo module as accessory cards to the PLC. The servo module {second management card} is used to control servo drives which control servo motors. The servo module has its own processor {second processing unit} to manage the motion of the servo motor as directed by the PLC commands to the servo module. The Servo module and PLC exchange information via the I/O rack backplane {communication interface} - ¶ [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a management card having a slave configuration with respect to the main card, said management card comprising: a second processing unit; and at least one communication interface, taught by Adkins, with the motor controller card, taught by Chandhoke et al., in order to achieve better control over the motor’s protection, longevity, positioning, feedback, and environmental (e.g. temperature) control.
As to Claim 2, the combination of Chandhoke et al. and Adkins discloses the multifunction control apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the second processing unit comprises at least one FPGA type electronic device (Chandhoke et al. disclose the FPGA hardware embodiments - ¶ [0044]).
As to Claim 3, the combination of Chandhoke et al. and Adkins discloses the multifunction control apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the second processing unit comprises at least one ARM type electronic device (Chandhoke et al. disclose the RISC embodiments - ¶ [0142]).
As to Claim 4, the combination of Chandhoke et al. and Adkins discloses the multifunction control apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the main card comprises at least one input and/or output configured to implement a serial communication standard having a low voltage differential signaling configuration (Chandhoke et al. disclose the PLC’s serial interface - ¶ [0134]).
As to Claim 6, the combination of Chandhoke et al. and Adkins discloses the multifunction control apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the management card comprises at least one input and/or output configured to implement an electrical cable communication (Chandhoke et al. disclose the chassis-installed slave I/O cards 308 with interfaces back to the master and to the industrial equipment being controlled or monitored – Fig. 3 and ¶¶ [0089-0091, 0094, 0100]).
As to Claim 7, the combination of Chandhoke et al. and Adkins discloses the multifunction control apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the management card comprises at least one Ethernet type input and/or output (Chandhoke et al. disclose the Ethernet embodiments - ¶¶ [0010, 0092]).
As to Claim 8, the combination of Chandhoke et al. and Adkins discloses the multifunction control apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the management card comprises at least one input for a timer (Chandhoke et al. disclose the chassis-installed slave I/O cards 308 used to receive inputs and send outputs to various industrial devices including lamps, switched, motor controllers {second processing unit}, known in the art to have onboard processors to control signals such as overtempt, overtravel, current control, position control (in some cases), etc. – Fig. 3 and ¶¶ [0004-0005, 0089-0091, 0094, 0100]).
As to Claim 10, the combination of Chandhoke et al. and Adkins discloses the multifunction control apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the management card comprises at least one input and output configured to implement an HMI interface (Chandhoke et al. - ¶ [0065]).
As to Claim 11, the combination of Chandhoke et al. and Adkins discloses the multifunction control apparatus according to claim 10,
wherein the above-mentioned input and output configured for implementing an HMI type interface comprises an Ethernet interface (Chandhoke et al. disclose the Ethernet HMI embodiment - ¶¶ [0010, 0065, 0092]).
As to Claim 12, the combination of Chandhoke et al. and Adkins discloses the multifunction control apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the management card comprises at least one high speed control input and/or output, configured for releasing or receiving control signals (Chandhoke et al. - ¶¶ [0002-0003]).
As to Claim 14, the combination of Chandhoke et al. and Adkins discloses the multifunction control apparatus according to claim 12,
wherein said mentioned at least one high speed control input and/or output has a speed greater than 100 Mbit/s (Chandhoke et al. - ¶¶ [0002-0003]).
As to Claim 15, the combination of Chandhoke et al. and Adkins discloses the multifunction control apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the management card comprises at least one fast monitoring control output (Chandhoke et al. disclose the chassis-installed slave I/O cards 308 used to receive inputs and send outputs to various industrial devices including lamps, switched, motor controllers {second processing unit}, known in the art to have onboard processors to control signals such as overtempt, overtravel, current control, position control (in some cases), etc. – Fig. 3 and ¶¶ [0004-0005, 0089-0091, 0094, 0100]. The amount of logic and speed of the PLC determines the speed of monitoring. “Fast” is a relative term, but most industrial PLC’s scan loops are on the order of milliseconds).
Claims 5, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chandhoke et al. and Adkins, and further in view of CN 202583861 U (Jiang).
As to Claim 5, the combination of Chandhoke et al. and Adkins discloses the multifunction control apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the management card comprises at least one input and/or output configured to implement communication (as cited above).
The combination of Chandhoke et al. and Adkins does not disclose fiber optic I/O. However, Jiang discloses
input and/or output configured to implement an optical fiber communication (Jiang discloses a PLC system with Ethernet communicating over fiber optic cables - Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine fiber optic I/O, taught by Jiang, with wherein the management card comprises at least one input and/or output configured to implement communication taught by the combination of Chandhoke et al. and Adkins, in order to allow Chandhoke et al.’s multifunction control apparatus to communicate with peripheral devices equipped with fiber optic interfaces to benefit by having faster speed and more bandwidth, especially when it comes to emergency elevator braking situations.
As to Claim 9, the combination of Chandhoke et al. and Adkins discloses the multifunction control apparatus according to claim 8,
Including the input for the timer (as cited above).
The combination of Chandhoke et al. and Adkins discloses does not disclose fiber optic I/O. However, Jiang discloses
input and/or output configured to implement an optical fiber communication (Jiang discloses a PLC system with Ethernet communicating over fiber optic cables - Abstract).
The motivation and obviousness arguments are the same as in Claim 5.
As to Claim 13, the combination of Chandhoke et al. and Adkins discloses the multifunction control apparatus according to claim 12,
including the above-mentioned at least one high speed control input and/or output (as cited above).
The combination of Chandhoke et al. and Adkins does not disclose fiber optic I/O. However, Jiang discloses
input and/or output configured to implement an optical fiber communication (Jiang discloses a PLC system with Ethernet communicating over fiber optic cables - Abstract).
The motivation and obviousness arguments are the same as in Claim 5.
Interview Practice
USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR)
The USPTO AIR is a new optional online interview scheduling tool that allows Applicants to request an interview with an Examiner for their pending patent application.
The USPTO AIR form is available on our website at: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
By submitting this type of interview request, the pending patent application will be in compliance with the written authorization requirement for Internet communication in accordance with MPEP §502.03. This authorization will be in effect until the Applicant provides a written withdrawal of authorization to the Examiner of record.
If you have questions or need assistance with the USPTO AIR form or with interview practice at the USPTO, please contact an Interview Specialist at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice/interview-specialist or send an email to ExaminerInterviewPractice@USPTO.GOV.
Examiner Notes:
A) Prior to conducting any interview (whether using AIR or not), Applicant(s) must submit an agenda including the proposed date and time, all arguments in writing, and proposed claim amendments (if applicable). Any proposed amendments or arguments not presented in the agenda will only be heard by the Examiner, but because the Examiner will not have heard them in advance and been given an equitable opportunity to consider them, no decision will be rendered, nor agreement made. ALL AGENDAS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE EXAMINER AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THE START OF THE INTERVIEW, OR THE PREVIOUS BUSINESS DAY, WHICHEVER IS LONGER, or the interview may have to be rescheduled.
B) After-final interviews may be granted, but the agenda must be in compliance with MPEP 713.09 which limits the interview only to discussions of proposed amendments, or clarification for appeal. After-final interviews are not to be conducted for the purpose of rehashing previously made arguments. After seeing the agenda, Examiner will decide whether to grant or deny the interview.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD G KEEHN whose telephone number is (571)270-5007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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, John A Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/RICHARD G KEEHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights