DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/5/24 and 12/4/25 were considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fiege et al. (Fiege), US publication no. 2021/0165650 A1.
As per claim 1, Fiege teaches a method of on process loop-by-loop control migration from a legacy control system to a modern control system for control of an industrial process [para 14], the method comprising:
controlling, via a first process of a process controller, the industrial process, wherein the process controller is coupled, via a communication path, to an input/output
(I/O) link execution environment manager (IOL EE) [input 102], the process controller comprising a microprocessor configured to host a first control execution environment to support a first set of l/O functions [services 103, 104…] and corresponding control execution functions to control the industrial process [para 64];
migrating a subset of the first set of I/O functions and corresponding control execution functions to a second process of the process controller to form a second set of I/0 functions and corresponding control functions [, wherein the microprocessor is configured to host a second control execution environment to support the second set of I/0 functions and the corresponding control execution functions to control the industrial process [control actuators 110] ; and controlling, via second process, the industrial process based on the second set of I/0 functions and the corresponding control execution functions [para 65, 67]. In summary, Fiege teaches an updated version of the "first set of I/O functions" is "migrated"; this results in "corresponding control execution functions to a second process"; and microprocessor hosts such "second control execution environment and the corresponding control functions" and controls the actuators accordingly.
Fiege teaches:
[0064] FIG. 1 shows a system 100 (e.g. a control system) that receives input 102 (e.g. values of parameters received from sensors) which may be outputted by devices like
sensors 101 or other systems providing an output. The system 100 processes this input 102 via the services 103, 104, 105 (aka micro services) being performed on the system 100. Each of the services 103, 104, 105 has a modular structure and performs an individual task and provides respective outputs 106, 107, 108 contributing to the common output 109 of the system 100. The services 103, 104, 105 may also provide the common output 109 directly. The output 109 can serve to control an actuator 110 or the output 109 may be used by another system as input.
[0065] FIG. 2 shows the system 200 after the employment of an updated version of a service 211 for the service 204. At this stage of the disclosed method, the output 212 of the updated version of the service 211 is prevented from controlling or influencing the action of the actuator, but does already receive the input 202 that the other services 203, 204, 205 of the system 200 receive. A first version (previous version) and a second version (updated version) of a service essentially perform the same function within a system, but contain modifications of the service that may affect their efficiency within the system.
[0067] As it is illustrated in FIG. 4, after it was determined that the updated service 211, 311a, 411 successfully passes the test, the previous version of the service 404 can be
disabled from contributing to the common output 409 and thus the control of the outputs 409 of the previous service for the at least one actuator is disabled. At the same time the updated service 211, 311a, 411 can be enabled to contribute to the common output 409, e.g. via functionally coupling the individual output 412 to the common output 9. Thus, the switch between the previous version of the service 404 and the updated version of the service 411 is performed seamlessly.
As per claim 2, Fiege teaches migrating the subset of the first set of I/0 functions during normal operation of the industrial process [para 14, 67].
As per claim 3, Fiege teaches the first control execution environment is hosted by the process controller in parallel with the second control execution environment [para 65].
As per claim 4, Fiege teaches the method is performed in an absence of altering hardware of the process controller [figures 1-3; para 64-66].
As per claim 5, Fiege teaches the subset of the first set of I/O functions and corresponding control execution functions correspond to an individual control loop for controlling the industrial process [services 203-205; para 64-65].
As per claim 6, Fiege teaches migrating additional I/0 functions of the first set of I/0 functions and corresponding control execution functions for each individual
control loop of a plurality of control loops in a control loop group until each individual control loops is migrated from the first process to the second process [para 64-65, 67].
As per claim 7, Fiege teaches maintaining supervisory control of one or more control loops for the industrial process with the first process until all of the individual control loops have been migrated from the first process to the second process [para 64-65, 67].
As per claim 8, Fiege teaches changing supervisory control of the industrial process to the second process subsequent to migrating all of the plurality of control loops over [para 64-65, 67].
As per claim 9, Fiege teaches migrating at least the subset of the first set of I/0 functions and corresponding control execution functions to the second process
during a failover event [para 64-65, 67].
As per claim 10, Fiege teaches generate a graphical user interface with information associated with the process controller; initiate presentation, in the graphical user interface, of at least a portion of the information associated with a first set of I/O modules and control execution functions for controlling the industrial process [para 64];
receive, from a user via the graphical user interface, a selection of one or more of the first set of I/O modules and control execution functions for migration; and migrating the selected I/O modules and control execution functions from the first process to the second process [para 64-65, 67].
As pe claim 11, Fiege teaches migrating a remaining subset of the first set of l/O modules and control execution functions automatically [para 64-65, 67].
As to claims 12-13, basically are the corresponding elements that are carried out the method of operating step in claims 1-10. Accordingly, claims 12-13 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claims 1-10.
As per claim 14, Fiege teaches the microprocessor is an individual microprocessor [para 62].
6. Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bicik et al. (Bicik), US publication no. 2024/0192948 A11.
As per claim 15, Bicik teaches a process controller for an industrial process [para 11], the process controller comprising:
an input/output (I/O) link execution environment manager (IOL EE) [3, figure 1];
a first controller coupled, via a first communication path, to IOL EE, the first controller comprising a microprocessor configured to host a first control execution environment to support a first set of I/O modules and control execution functions for controlling the industrial process [para 6, 7, 11]; and
a second controller coupled, via a second communication path, to the IOL EE, the second controller comprising a microprocessor being configured to host a second
control execution environment to support a second set of I/O functions and control execution functions for controlling the industrial process [figure 1; para 12].
As per claim 16, Bicik discloses the first controller and the second controller are a redundant pair of controllers [figure 1; para 11].
As per claim 17, Bicik discloses the first controller and the second controller each have the same access level to a process manager input/output component (PMIO) [figure 1; para 11, 12, 23].
As per claim 18, Bicik discloses an IO request transfer (IOXfer) component [para 12, 14].
As per claim 19, Bicik discloses the first communication path extends through the IOXfer component to the IOL EE [figure 1; para 11, 12, 23].
As per claim 20, Bicik discloses the first communication path does not extend through the second controller, and wherein the second communication path does
not extend through the first controller [figure 1; para 12, 23].
7. Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. MPEP 2141.02 VI: “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS."
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Prall et al, US publication no. 2016/0062350, discloses an apparatus comprising:
a first network controller configured to communicate over a higher-level industrial process control network; a second network controller configured to communicate
over a first lower-level industrial process control network; and a third network controller configured to communicate over a second lower-level industrial process control network; wherein the first network controller is configured to provide first data messages from the higher-level industrial process control network to the second and third network
controllers for transmission over the lower-level industrial process control networks;
wherein the second and third network controllers are configured to provide second data messages from the lower level industrial process control networks to the first network
controller for transmission over the higher-level industrial process control network; and
wherein each of the second and third network controllers is configured to provide third data messages from one of the lower-level industrial process control networks to
another of the second and third network controllers for transmission over another of the lower-level industrial process control networks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN CAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3664. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-9. 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).
/CHUN CAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 Bicik is cited by applicant.
Prosecution Insights