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 .
Election/Restrictions
The restriction requirement, mailed 6/26/2026 is withdrawn because the argument the applicant’s provided in the 8/24/2026 response is persuasive, claims 32-51 are being examined.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 7/19/2024 are accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 33-34, 39-40 and 43 are method claims that use contingency language “if”, it is noted that MPEP 2111.04 states “II. CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, “[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed” (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.” Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14. See also MPEP § 2143.03.” Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the method claim 33 would be without the steps with contingent limitations (synchronizing internal states of the at least two instances of the control function in a process that is synchronized with the providing, over the output mechanism, of instance output data from at least one of the instances of the control function) because the condition of “a combined instance processing and instance state synchronization time satisfies an operational timing condition” is not required by the claim, the examiner recommend amending claim 33 to recite “determining that a combined instance processing and instance state synchronization time satisfies an operational timing condition” for the contingent limitations to be included as part of the BRI. The BRI of the method claim 34 would be without the steps with contingent limitations (synchronizing internal states of the at least two instances of the control function in a process that is not synchronized with provision, over the output mechanism, of instance output data from at least one of the instances of the control function) because the condition of “a combined instance processing and instance state synchronization time does not satisfy an operational timing condition” is not required by the claim, the examiner recommend amending claim 34 to recite “determining that a combined instance processing and instance state synchronization time does not satisfy an operational timing condition” for the contingent limitations to be included as part of the BRI. It is further noted that claims 35-36 are further narrowing limitations of the contingent limitation in claim 33, because the contingent limitation of claim 33 is not part of the BRI of claim 33, the limitations in claims 35-36 are also not included in the BRI of claims 35-36. The BRI of claim 39 would be without the steps with contingent limitations (causing at least one of the instances to process the received instance input data and generate instance output data comprises causing only the primary instance to process the received instance input data and generate instance output data) because the condition of “a failover time satisfies a failover timing condition” is not required by the claim, the examiner recommend amending claim 39 to recite “determining that a failover time satisfies a failover timing condition” for the contingent limitations to be included as part of the BRI. The BRI of claim 40 would be without the steps with contingent limitations (causing at least one of the instances to process the received instance input data and generate instance output data comprises causing all instances to proc) because the condition of “a failover time does not satisfy a failover timing condition” is not required by the claim, the examiner recommend amending claim 40 to recite “determining that a failover time does not satisfy a failover timing condition” for the contingent limitations to be included as part of the BRI. The BRI of claim 43 would be “each of the at least one instances of the control function receiving at least a part of the node input data from the input mechanism if a combined instance processing and instance state synchronization time does not satisfy an operational timing condition” or “one of the instances receiving the node input data and providing instance input data, generated from the node input data, to the remaining instance or instances if the combined instance processing and instance state synchronization time satisfies the operational timing condition” because these two scenarios are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.
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.
Claims 45-49 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental steps involving causing the system input data to be sequentially processed by the logical control functions to generate system output data, processing the node input data according to the logical control function, and generating node output data, process data a different level of abstraction from an application domain of the control application process data from an application domain of the control application, and process data at an increasing level of abstraction from the application domain, provide output data (Claims, 45-46, 48-49 and 51) see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), these limitation as described in [0058]-[0065] are recited in high level of generality constitutes as a mental process, such as an evaluation or judgement, that can be performed in the human mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of receiving, over an input mechanism and at an input controller node of the system, system input data relating to the physical entity; providing the system output data over an output mechanism, wherein the output mechanism is operably connected to the physical entity, receiving, over an input mechanism and from a preceding controller node in the system, node input data relating to the physical entity; providing the node output data to an output mechanism that is operably connected to the physical entity; wherein the output mechanism is connected to at least one of a succeeding controller node; receive node input data from a plurality of other controller nodes in the system; provide node output data to a plurality of other controller nodes in the system; wherein each controller node in the system is operable to receive node input data from the physical entity, operable to provide data in the physical domain of the physical entity represent insignificant extra solution activity of data collection and transmission (claims 45-49 and 51). The system comprising a plurality of controller nodes, each controller node, individual controller nodes in the system, controller nodes other than the input controller node, the output controller node (claims 45-49 and 51) are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)). Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation “a chain from the input controller node to an output controller node” in claim 49 generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment because it claims field of use.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the insignificant extra-solution activity of data collection/transmission is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, see mpep 2106.05(d), infra applied prior art, references cited. The system comprising a plurality of controller nodes, each controller node, individual controller nodes in the system, controller nodes other than the input controller node, the output controller node (claims 45-49 and 51) are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)). The “field of use” limitation do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP2106.05(d)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 45-46 and 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20160065656 to Patin et al. (hereinafter “Patin”).
As per claim 45, Patin discloses a computer implemented method for controlling a physical entity in accordance with a control application (Patin, see Fig. 5, [0033], [0059]-[0062] and [0073]-[0074]), wherein the method is performed by a system comprising a plurality of controller nodes, each controller node implementing a logical function comprised within the application (Patin, see [0059]-[0065] for a plurality of distributed control nodes and [0013] for the DCNs hosting function blocks), the method comprising:
receiving, over an input mechanism and at an input controller node of the system, system input data relating to the physical entity (Patin, see [0073]-[0074] and [0033]);
causing the system input data to be sequentially processed by the logical control functions of individual controller nodes in the system to generate system output data (Patin, see [0062] “cascaded control loop”, [0073]-[0074] and Fig. 5);
providing the system output data over an output mechanism, wherein the output mechanism is operably connected to the physical entity (Patin, see Fig. 5, [0033], [0059]-[0065] and [0073]-[0074]).
Claim 51 is a system claim corresponds to the method claim 45, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 45.
As per claim 46, the rejection of claim 45 is incorporated, Patin further discloses causing the system input data to be sequentially processed by the logical control functions of individual controller nodes in the system to generate system output data comprises:
for controller nodes other than the input controller node:
receiving, over an input mechanism and from a preceding controller node in the system, node input data relating to the physical entity (Patin, see [0062] “cascaded control loop”, [0073]-[0074] and Fig. 5);
processing the node input data according to the logical control function of the controller node, and generating node output data (Patin, see Fig. 5, [0062] and [0073]-[0074]); and
providing the node output data to an output mechanism that is operably connected to the physical entity (Patin, see Fig. 5, [0033]-[0034], [0062] and [0073]-[0074]); and
wherein the output mechanism is connected to at least one of a succeeding controller node or to at least one actuator operable to carry out the control determined by the controller node on the physical entity (Patin, see Fig. 5, [0033]-[0034], [0062] and [0073]-[0074]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 32-36, 38-40, 44 and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160085642 to Ferranti et al. (hereinafter “Ferranti”), in view of US20090271006 to Jordan et al. (hereinafter “Jordan).
As for claim 32, Ferranti substantially discloses a computer implemented method for controlling a physical entity, wherein the method is performed by a controller node running at least two instances of a logical control function (Ferranti, see [0018]-[0020\, the method comprising:
receiving, over an input mechanism, node input data relating to the physical entity (Ferranti, see [0019]);
causing at least one of the instances to process the received instance input data and generate instance output data (Ferranti, see [0019]);
providing, over an output mechanism, instance output data from at least one of the instances of the control function, wherein the output mechanism is operably connected to the physical entity (Ferranti, see [0019] and [0023]);
synchronizing an internal state of each of the at least two instances of the control function (Ferranti, see [0018]-[0019] and [0022]).
Ferranti does not explicitly disclose providing, to each of the at least two instances of the control function, instance input data generated from the node input data.
However, Jordan in an analogous art discloses providing, to each of the at least two instances of the control function, instance input data generated from the node input data (Jordan, see [0034]-[0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Jordan into the method of Ferranti. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to enable two devices of an automation system to be reliably synchronized in a technically simple manner (Jordan, see [0005]).
Claim 50 is a controller node claim corresponds to the method claim 32, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 32.
As per claim 33, the rejection of claim 32 is incorporated, and the BRI of claim 33 does not include synchronizing internal states of the at least two instances of the control function in a process that is synchronized with the providing, over the output mechanism, of instance output data from at least one of the instances of the control function because the condition of a combined instance processing and instance state synchronization time satisfies an operational timing condition is not required by the claim (see the claim interpretation section above). Therefore, the combination of Ferranti and Jordan discloses the BRI of claim 33.
As per claim 34, the rejection of claim 32 is incorporated, and the BRI of claim 33 does not include synchronizing internal states of the at least two instances of the control function in a process that is not synchronized with provision, over the output mechanism, of instance output data from at least one of the instances of the control function, because the condition of a combined instance processing and instance state synchronization time does not satisfy an operational timing condition is not required by the claim (see the claim interpretation section above). Therefore, the combination of Ferranti and Jordan discloses the BRI of claim 34.
As per claim 35, the rejection of claim 33 is incorporated, the limitations of “wherein synchronizing internal states of the at least two instances of the control function in a process that is synchronized with provision, over the output mechanism, of instance output data from at least one of the instances of the control function comprises synchronizing an internal state of each of the at least two instances of the control function after completion of processing of instance input data by each instance of the control function and before providing, over the output mechanism, instance output data from at least one of the instances of the control function” are further narrowing limitations of the contingent limitations of claim 33, and since the contingent limitations of claim 33 is not part of BRI of claim 33, the narrowing limitations of the contingent limitations would not be part of BRI of claim 35. Therefore, the combination of Ferranti and Jordan discloses the BRI of claim 35.
As per claim 36, the rejection of claim 33 is incorporated, the limitations of “synchronizing internal states of the at least two instances of the control function in a process that is not synchronized with provision, over the output mechanism, of instance output data from at least one of the instances of the control function comprises: providing, over the output mechanism, instance output data from at least one of the instances of the control function as soon as such instance output data is generated; and synchronizing an internal state of each of the at least two instances of the control function after provision of the instance output data” are further narrowing limitations of the contingent limitations of claim 33, and since the contingent limitations of claim 33 is not part of BRI of claim 33, the narrowing limitations of the contingent limitations would not be part of BRI of claim 36. Therefore, the combination of Ferranti and Jordan discloses the BRI of claim 36.
As per claim 38, the rejection of claim 32 is incorporated, Ferranti further discloses the at least two instances of the control function comprise a primary instance and at least one secondary instance, and wherein providing, over an output mechanism, instance output data from at least one of the instances of the control function comprises providing instance output data from the primary instance (Ferranti, see Fig. 2).
As per claim 39, the rejection of claim 38 is incorporated, and the BRI of claim 39 does not include causing at least one of the instances to process the received instance input data and generate instance output data comprises causing only the primary instance to process the received instance input data and generate instance output data, because the condition of a failover time satisfies a failover timing condition is not required by the claim (see the claim interpretation section above). Therefore, the combination of Ferranti and Jordan discloses the BRI of claim 39.
As per claim 40, the rejection of claim 38 is incorporated, and the BRI of claim 39 does not include causing at least one of the instances to process the received instance input data and generate instance output data comprises causing all instances to process the received instance input data and generate instance output data because the condition of a failover time does not satisfy a failover timing condition is not required by the claim (see the claim interpretation section above). Therefore, the combination of Ferranti and Jordan discloses the BRI of claim 40.
As per claim 44, the rejection of claim 32 is incorporated, Jordan further discloses wherein the instance input data provided to any one instance of the control function satisfies a functional similarity criterion with respect to the instance input data provided to all other instances of the control function (Jordan, see [0031]-[0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Jordan into the method of Ferranti. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to enable two devices of an automation system to be reliably synchronized in a technically simple manner (Jordan, see [0005]).
Claim(s) 37 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferranti, in view of Jordan, further in view of US6170044 to McLaughlin et al. (hereinafter “McLaughlin”).
As per claim 37, the rejection of claim 33 is incorporated, the combination of Ferranti and Jordan does not explicitly disclose determining whether the combined instance processing and instance state synchronization time satisfies the timing condition, wherein the timing condition is based upon a timing parameter of a control loop of which the control function is a part. However, McLaughlin in an analogous art discloses determining whether the combined instance processing and instance state synchronization time satisfies the timing condition, wherein the timing condition is based upon a timing parameter of a control loop of which the control function is a part (McLaughlin, see col. 3 lines 2-22 for task being executed during base control cycles having a period T… such that the transfer of changed data does not interfere with execution of the process control tasks (i.e. the combined instance processing and instance state synchronization time satisfies the timing condition)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of McLaughlin into the above combination of Ferranti and Jordan. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to allow the secondary process controller to be updated with process data from the primary controller without interrupting a foreground operation being performed by the primary process controller (McLaughlin, see col. 2 lines 60-65).
As per claim 43, the rejection of claim 32 is incorporated, Jordan further discloses each of the at least one instances of the control function receiving at least a part of the node input data from the input mechanism (Jordan, see [0034]-[0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Jordan into the method of Ferranti. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to enable two devices of an automation system to be reliably synchronized in a technically simple manner (Jordan, see [0005]).
The combination of Ferranti and Jordan does not explicitly disclose receiving input data if a combined instance processing and instance state synchronization time does not satisfy an operational timing condition. However, McLaughlin in an analogous art discloses receiving input data if a combined instance processing and instance state synchronization time does not satisfy an operational timing condition (McLaughlin, see col. 8 lines 16-23 and col. 3 lines 2-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of McLaughlin into the above combination of Ferranti and Jordan. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to allow the secondary process controller to be updated with process data from the primary controller without interrupting a foreground operation being performed by the primary process controller (McLaughlin, see col. 2 lines 60-65).
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferranti, in view of Jordan, further in view of “SIMATIC S7-300/S7-400 Software redundancy for SIMATIC S7” to Siemens.
As per claim 41, the rejection of claim 38 is incorporated, the combination of Ferranti and Jordan does not explicitly disclose the failover time comprises a time taken for: processing of instance input data by the primary instance; detection of a fault at the primary instance; initiation of a secondary instance; and processing of instance input data by the initiated secondary instance. However, Siemens in an analogous art discloses the failover time comprises a time taken for: processing of instance input data by the primary instance; detection of a fault at the primary instance; initiation of a secondary instance; and processing of instance input data by the initiated secondary instance (Siemens, see pages 50-54 and 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Siemens into the above combination of Ferranti and Jordan. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to increase of availability through software redundancy (Siemens, see page 13).
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferranti, in view of Jordan, further in view of US20150261614 to Cape et al. (hereinafter “Cape”).
As per claim 42, the rejection of claim 38 is incorporated, the combination of Ferranti and Jordan does not explicitly disclose determining which of the at least two instances of the control function comprises the primary instance. However, Cape in an analogous art discloses determining which of the at least two instances of the control function comprises the primary instance (Cape, see [0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Cape into the above combination of Ferranti and Jordan. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to permit efficient and error free failover (Cape, see [0018]).
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patin, in view of “Distributed control of plantwide chemical processes” to Xu et al. (hereinafter “Xu”).
As per claim 47, the rejection of claim 45 is incorporated, Patin further discloses each node in the system is operable to: receive node input data from other controller nodes in the system; provide node output data to other controller nodes in the system. Patin does not explicitly disclose receive input data from a plurality of other nodes, provide output data to a plurality of other nodes, each controller node in the system is operable to receive node input data from the physical entity.
However, Xu in an analogous art discloses each node in the system is operable to: receive node input data from other controller nodes in the system; provide node output data to other controller nodes in the system. each controller node in the system is operable to receive node input data from the physical entity (Xu, see pages 4-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Xu into the method of Patin. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to allow the distributed controllers to operate autonomously (Xu, see abstract).
Claim(s) 48-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patin, in view of US20200344293 to Wolter et al. (hereinafter “Wolter”).
As per claim 48, the rejection of claim 45 is incorporated, Patin does not explicitly disclose each controller node is operable to process data a different level of abstraction from an application domain of the control application.
However, Wolter in an analogous art discloses each controller node is operable to process data a different level of abstraction from an application domain of the control application (Wolter, see [0030]-[0034] for different hierarchical levels of controllers (high-level, mid-level and low-level).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wolter into the method of Patin. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to improve performance of the physical entities (Wolter, see [0029]).
As per claim 49, the rejection of claim 48 is incorporated, Patin further discloses wherein the controller nodes of the system comprise a chain from the input controller node to an output controller node, wherein the input controller node is operable to process data from an application domain of the control application, wherein each controller node in the chain is operable to process data (Patin, see Fig. 5, [0033]-[0034], [0062] and [0073]-[0074]). Wolter further discloses process data at an increasing level of abstraction from the application domain, and wherein the output controller node is operable to provide output data in the physical domain of the physical entity (Wolter, see [0030]-[0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wolter into the method of Patin. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to improve performance of the physical entities (Wolter, see [0029]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US20050060605 discloses a safety controller executes a control program in two processing units to detect processor failure by comparison of the execution in each unit. This comparison is made rapid by synchronizing the input variables at the beginning of the task and comparing output variables at a conclusion of the task, avoiding line-by-line comparison of input and output variables. Intermediate variables, that are neither input nor output values, are compared at a less frequent interval.
US6813693 discloses a system and method for analyzing data accesses to determine data accessing patterns is provided. Data address accesses are traced and transformed into Whole Program Data Accesses (WPDAs). WPDAs may then be used to discover higher-level data abstractions, such as hot data blocks. Hot data blocks provide information related to sequences of data addresses that are repeatedly accessed together. Hot data blocks may then be used to improve program performance.
US5712970 discloses a method and apparatus is disclosed for reliably storing data to be written to a peripheral device subsystem. The method disclosed includes the following steps. A first peripheral device controller, which includes a cache memory, receives write data from a central processor, stores it in its cache memory, and transmits a copy of it to a second peripheral device controller via a communications path. The second controller, which also includes a cache memory, stores the copy of the write data transmitted to it in its cache memory. Meanwhile the first controller processes the write data. In the event the first controller fails, the second controller processes the write data stored in its cache memory. The apparatus disclosed includes a central processor which generates write data. A first peripheral device controller, which includes a cache memory, is coupled to the central processor. A second peripheral device controller, which also includes a cache memory, is coupled to the first controller via a communications path. The first controller includes circuitry for storing the write data in its cache memory, transmitting a copy of the write data to the secondary controller via the communications path, and processing the write data. The second controller includes circuitry for storing the copy of the write data in its cache memory. The second controller also includes circuitry for processing the write data stored in its cache memory if the first controller fails.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert E. Fennema can be reached on (571)272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR 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 PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON LIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
