DETAILED ACTION
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 7, 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Judkinset al. US 2024/0161713 (hereinafter Judkins).
Regarding claim 1, Judkins teaches: an apparatus to provide a dual-drive redundant output in a control system, the apparatus comprising:
interface circuitry;
machine-readable instructions; and
at least one processor circuit to be programmed by the machine-readable instructions to:
at a first state:
enable a first source electrical current path corresponding to first source electrical current regulator circuitry in circuit with a first terminal to be coupled to a field device (Fig. 6A - - normal operation mode, first I/O module 100% source); and
enable a first sink electrical current path corresponding to first sink electrical current regulator circuitry in circuit with a second terminal to be coupled to the field device (Fig. 6A - - normal operation mode, first I/O module 50% sink);
at a second state, enable a second sink electrical current path corresponding to second sink electrical current regulator circuitry in circuit with the second terminal (Fig. 6A - - normal operation mode, second I/O module 50% sink); and
at a third state, disable the first sink electrical current path (Fig. 6A - - fault detected mode, first I/O module 0% sink).
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 2, Judkins teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Judkins further teaches: one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to enable the second sink electrical current path after detecting a presence of at least one of second source electrical current regulator circuitry or the second sink electrical current regulator circuitry ([0056] - - the I/O controller set up output power on each channel, thus it enables sink path of second I/O module).
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 3, Judkins teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Judkins further teaches: the third state corresponds to an asymmetric drive state in which a first input-output card that includes the first source electrical current regulator circuitry sources electrical current to the field device and a second input-output card that includes the second sink electrical current regulator circuitry sinks the electrical current from the field device (Fig. 6, - - normal operation mode, first I/O module 100% source, second I/O module 50% sink).
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 4, Judkins teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Judkins further teaches: the first source electrical current regulator circuitry and the first sink electrical current regulator circuitry are on a first input-output card, the second sink electrical current regulator circuitry in a second input-output card (Fig.3 - - first I/O module is a first I/O card; second I/O module is a second I/O card).
Regarding claim 5, Judkins teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Judkins further teaches: one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to determine an error has occurred at the field device based on electrical current flow corresponding to at least one of the first terminal or the second terminal ([0057], [0062] - - detecting a fault based on the current at each channel).
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 6, Judkins teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Judkins further teaches: first communication circuitry to provide a signal to the first source electrical current path, the signal to be communicated to the field device ([0042] - - the industrial controller 300 communicates with the industrial control equipment 310 through I/o modules; the industrial control equipment 310 is field device).
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 7, Judkins teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Judkins further teaches: the signal is to include information specifying a type of the field device ([0055] - - user may configure each channel as an Analog Output type).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Judkinset al. US 2024/0161713 (hereinafter Judkins) in view of “WIKIPEDIA, "H-bridge," retrieved from <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-bridge> on May 2, 2024, 5 pages” (hereinafter WIKIPEDIA).
Regarding claim 8, Judkins teaches: an apparatus to provide a dual-drive redundant output in a control system, the apparatus comprising:
source electrical current regulator circuitry having an output (Fig. 6A - - first I/O module source current);
sink electrical current regulator circuitry having an input coupled to a second device interface terminal, and having an output, the second device interface terminal to be coupled to the field device in the control system (Fig. 6A - - first I/O module sink current; Fig. 3 - - industrial control equipment is a field device); and
second switch circuitry having a first terminal coupled to the output of the sink electrical current regulator circuitry, and having a second terminal coupled to ground.
But Judkins does not explicitly teach:
first switch circuitry having a first terminal coupled to the output of the source electrical current regulator circuitry, and having a second terminal coupled to a first device interface terminal, the first device interface terminal to be coupled to a field device in the control system;
second switch circuitry having a first terminal coupled to the output of the sink electrical current regulator circuitry, and having a second terminal coupled to ground.
However, WIKIPEDIA teaches:
first switch circuitry having a first terminal coupled to the output of the source electrical current regulator circuitry, and having a second terminal coupled to a first device interface terminal, the first device interface terminal to be coupled to a field device in the control system;
second switch circuitry having a first terminal coupled to the output of the sink electrical current regulator circuitry, and having a second terminal coupled to ground (Page 1 - - S1 is a first switch , S2 is a second switch).
Judkins and WIKIPEDIA are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to control system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Judkins, and incorporating H-bridge, as taught by WIKIPEDIA.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve feasibility and effectiveness of a controller, as suggested by WIKIPEDIA (Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Judkins and WIKIPEDIA teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Judkins further teaches:
source electrical current measurement circuitry coupled to the source electrical current regulator circuitry; and
sink electrical current measurement circuitry coupled to the sink electrical current regulator circuitry ([0057], [0058] - - “the controller can measure readback current values to detect the transitions of the power level”; this teaches the current values of each I/O module channel is measured; Fig. 6A shows source current and sink current are set, therefore the source current and sink current are measured, they are readback current values).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Judkins and WIKIPEDIA teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Judkins further teaches: the source electrical current measurement circuitry is to measure a first electrical current output by the source electrical current regulator circuitry, the sink electrical current measurement circuitry to measure a second electrical current output by the sink electrical current regulator circuitry ([0057], [0058] - - “the controller can measure readback current values to detect the transitions of the power level”; this teaches the current values of each I/O module channel is measured; Fig. 6A shows source current and sink current are set, therefore the source current and sink current are measured, they are readback current values).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Judkins and WIKIPEDIA teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Judkins further teaches: a microcontroller having an input coupled to the output of the source electrical current measurement circuitry ([0058] - - “the I/O controller 400 can measure readback current values).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Judkins and WIKIPEDIA teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Judkins further teaches: the microcontroller is to determine an error has occurred at the field device based on an electrical current measurement corresponding to at least one of the first device interface terminal or the second device interface terminal ([0058] - - detection of power balance faults based on detected current values).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Judkins and WIKIPEDIA teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Judkins further teaches: the source electrical current regulator circuitry and the sink electrical current regulator circuitry are on a first input-output card (Fig. 3 - - first I/O module is a first input-output card), the apparatus including a second input-output card (Fig. 3 - - second I/O module is a second input-output card), the second input-output card including:
second source electrical current regulator circuitry having an output (Fig. 6A - - normal operation mode, second I/O module 0% source);
second sink electrical current regulator circuitry having an input coupled to the second device interface terminal, and having an output (Fig. 6A - - normal operation mode, second I/O module 50% sink); and
WIKIPEDIA teaches:
third switch circuitry having a first terminal coupled to the output of the second source electrical current regulator circuitry, and having a second terminal coupled to the first device interface terminal;
fourth switch circuitry having a first terminal coupled to the output of the second sink electrical current regulator circuitry, and having a second terminal coupled to ground (Page 1 - - S3 is a third switch , S4 is a fourth switch).
Judkins and WIKIPEDIA are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Judkins and WIKIPEDIA teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Judkins further teaches: the first input-output card and the second input-output card are to operate in an asymmetric drive state in which the source electrical current regulator circuitry of the first input-output card sources electrical current to the field device and the second sink electrical current regulator circuitry of the second input-output card sinks the electrical current from the field device (Fig. 6, - - normal operation mode, first I/O module 100% source, second I/O module 50% sink).
Claims 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Judkinset al. US 2024/0161713 (hereinafter Judkins) in view of “WIKIPEDIA, "H-bridge," retrieved from <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-bridge> on May 2, 2024, 5 pages” (hereinafter WIKIPEDIA) and further in view of KN et al. US 2018/0343763 (hereinafter KN).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Judkins and WIKIPEDIA teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Judkins and WIKIPEDIA does not explicitly teach:
a first current back-feed prevention component having an input and an output, the second terminal of the first switch circuitry coupled to the first device interface terminal via the first current back-feed prevention component based on the input of the first current back-feed prevention component coupled to the second terminal of the first switch circuitry and the output of the first current back-feed prevention component coupled to the first device interface terminal.
However, KN teaches:
a first current back-feed prevention component having an input and an output, the second terminal of the first switch circuitry coupled to the first device interface terminal via the first current back-feed prevention component based on the input of the first current back-feed prevention component coupled to the second terminal of the first switch circuitry and the output of the first current back-feed prevention component coupled to the first device interface terminal (Fig. 3, [0041] - - diodes 308, 314 are back-feed prevention component).
Judkins, WIKIPEDIA and KN are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to control system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Judkins and WIKIPEDIA, and incorporating back-feed prevention component, as taught by KN.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide protection, as suggested by KN ([0041]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights