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 .
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.
The Information Disclosure Statement, filed 28 June 2024 has been fully considered by the examiner. A signed copy is attached.
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claims 1-17 are rejected, grounds follow.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-17 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.
The term “arranged on” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “arranged on” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular the use of the term gives doubt as to whether the components are connected, physically share a same housing, physically share a same electronics package, or are merely spatially positioned such that one is on top of the other in e.g. a cabinet or rack. Accordingly the scope of the claim is unclear and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim and the claim is indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the selector element” in Claim 8 line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that “a selector element” is recited in Claim 7, however Claim 8 depends on Claim 1 which does not recite such an element.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the configuration element of the adapter module” in Claim 9, lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that “the adapter module comprises a configuration element” is recited in Claim 8, however Claim 9 depends on Claim 6 which does not recite such an element.
Claim 10 recites the limitations “the selector element of the adapter module” and "the selector element of the controller module" and “the configuration elemental of the adapter module” and “the configuration element of the controller module” in Claims 10, lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Examiner notes that three of these elements are recited in Claims 7-9, however, Claim 10 depends upon Claim 5 which does not recite such an element. Further there does not appear to be any prior claim which recites “a selector element” of “the controller module”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the selector element" in Claim 14 line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that “a selector element” is recited in Claim 7, however Claim 8 depends on Claim 1 which does not recite such an element.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the selector element” in Claim 17 line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that the element is described as comprised in the controller module; there does not appear to be any prior claim which recites “a selector element” of “the controller module”.
Further regarding dependent claims 2-17, these claim inherit the deficiencies of their respect parent(s).
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11-13, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Law et al., US Pg-Pub 2020/0103946 (hereafter Law’946).
Regarding Claim 1, Law’946 discloses:
A process control system (figs. 1-5, particularly figs. 2-3), comprising: at least one module termination unit; (figs 2-3, Marshalling Cabinet; see [0100] “which are then wired to a set of terminals 192 in a marshalling cabinet 150.” And [0115] “[0115] The socket into which a CHARM is inserted includes a terminal block that can be wired to an appropriate field device input/output to communicatively connect the field device to the I/O card 256. The CHARMs 293 effectively replace the terminals 192”)
at least one adapter module (fig. 2 I/O cards 156, fig. 3 C-I/O cards 256) arranged on the module termination unit and configured to communicate with a field device; ([0094] “I/O cards 156A-F, which are communicatively connected to a set of field devices 152A-K via a marshalling cabinet 150”; [0115] “wired to an appropriate field device input/output to communicatively connect the field device to the I/O card 256.”)
and at least one controller module (fig. 2, controllers 158A-B; fig. 3, controllers 258) arranged on the module termination unit and configured to process data from the adapter module; (see e.g. [0095] “The I/O network 200 enables the process controller 158 to control a process, or a part of a process, via one or more of the field devices 152.)
wherein the adapter module and the controller module are connected to each other by a peer-to-peer connection through the module termination unit. ([0117] “This many-to-many mapping between C-I/O cards and controllers offers a number of improvements (e.g., flexibility with redesign and rewiring) over traditional controller and I/O card implementations in which each I/O card is assigned to a particular controller” )
Examiner notes, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection supra, that the limitation “arranged on” is not clear, and has interpreted the claim limitation broadly to represent any tangible interconnection until clarity can be provided by applicant. Law’946 discloses that the termination unit (i.e. marshalling cabinet), adapter module (i.e. card) and controller(s) may share physical proximity and/or wired connections such as, shared backplanes, backbone data interconnections, shared assemblies, or wired connections. (see e.g. [0115], [0117]-[0118]). Should applicant intend that all of these features be integrated into a same electronics package, examiner notes that rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a system is still obvious, see MPEP 2144.
Regarding Claim 2, Law’946 discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Law’946 further discloses:
wherein the controller module is connected to multiple adapter modules by peer-to-peer connections. ([0117] “This many-to-many mapping between C-I/O cards and controllers offers a number of improvements (e.g., flexibility with redesign and rewiring) over traditional controller and I/O card implementations in which each I/O card is assigned to a particular controller” )
Regarding Claim 3, Law’946 discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Law’946 further discloses:
wherein the adapter module is connected to multiple controller modules by peer-to-peer connections. ([0117] “This many-to-many mapping between C-I/O cards and controllers offers a number of improvements (e.g., flexibility with redesign and rewiring) over traditional controller and I/O card implementations in which each I/O card is assigned to a particular controller” )
Regarding Claim 4, Law’946 discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 3,
Law’946 further discloses:
wherein at least one controller module of the multiple controller modules is a redundancy controller module. ([0094] “The I/O network 200 includes a process controller 158A, a redundant backup controller 158B (collectively “the controller 158” examiner notes that although not depicted in the figure, Controller 258 is also referred to as e.g. [0109] “Process Controllers 258A-B”)
Regarding Claim 5, Law’946 discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Law’946 further discloses:
wherein the peer-to-peer connection comprises multiple peer-to-peer signal channels. ([0141] “The controller 258 is communicatively connected to other devices in the I/O network 7 via a link 284, as well as to other various devices in the plant 5 via the backbone 10 (shown in FIG. 1A). The link 284 may include any suitable wired (e.g., Ethernet) or wireless channels. The link 284 couples the controller 258 to the I/O card 256, as well as to the field devices 252 and the field module 291.” These links may also be fieldbus connections, such as RS485, Profibus, DeviceNet, etc. see [0063], [0132], [0005], etc.)
Regarding Claim 6, Law’946 discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 5,
Law’946 further discloses:
wherein the multiple peer-to-peer signal channels are two-way channels or one-way channels. ([0142] “During operation, a processor 259B of the controller 258 executes the control routines 259D, which cause the controller 258 to transmit to one of the field devices 252 a control signal over the link 284 to control operation of a process in the plant 5 via control of the field devices 252. The controller 258 may generate a control signal based on one or more signals received via the link 284 (e.g., carrying information transmitted by the field device 252K, the field module 291, the CHARM 293M, and/or the I/O card 256) and logic defined by the control routines 259D.” describing both two-way and one-way communication channels with field devices.)
Regarding Claim 11, Law’946 discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Law further discloses:
wherein the adapter module and the controller module are separate hardware components. (see e.g. [0118] “ the I/O card 256 is not part of a single assembly with a controller.”)
Regarding Claim 12, Law’946 discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Law’946 further discloses:
wherein the peer-to-peer connection is achieved through a wiring in the module termination unit. (see fig. 3, connection 284 is depicted as being a wiring in the ‘module termination unit’ [marshalling cabinet] and [0118] “the I/O card 256 may be remotely located relative to the controller 258 (e.g., within the marshalling cabinet 250 in the field environment).”)
Regarding Claim 13, Law’946 discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 12,
Law’946 further discloses:
wherein the wiring of the peer-to-peer connection in the module termination unit is a passive wiring. ([0117] “the I/O card 256 may be communicatively connected to the controller 258 via a communication link 284, which may be wired (e.g., an ethernet link) or wireless in nature. In some instances, the link 284 is direct;”)
Regarding Claim 15, Law’946 discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Law’946 further discloses:
wherein the adapter module comprises at least one transceiver element (fig. 3, charm 293M) for one or multiple fieldbuses. ([0132] “The link 282 may be established using wiring and connectors conforming to any suitable standard, such as RS-485, RS-422, RS-232, CATS, CAT6, etc. In some cases the channel 282 includes one or more wireless links.”)
Regarding Claim 16, Law’946 discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Law’946 further discloses:
wherein the controller module comprises a fieldbus communication processor for one or multiple fieldbuses. (see e.g. [0059] “controller 11 is also communicatively connected to at least some of the field devices 15-22 and 40-46 using any desired hardware and software associated with, for example, standard 4-20 mA devices, I/O cards 26, 28, and/or any smart communication protocol such as the FOUNDATION® Fieldbus protocol, the HART® protocol, the WirelessHART® protocol, etc.”)
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) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law’946 in view of Hughes et al., US Pg-Pub 2020/0334173.
Regarding Claim 7, Law’946 teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Law’946 differs from the claimed invention in that:
Law’946 does not appear to clearly articulate: wherein the adapter module comprises a selector element, the selector element being configured to select one of a plurality of peer-to-peer connections.
However, Hughes teaches an adapter module (see figs. 4-5) which comprises a selector element (fig. 5, switch controller 521) which is configured to select one of a plurality of peer-to-peer connections (e.g. by controlling switch state of the universal IC, see fig. 5 and [0112] “As noted, the active communicator circuit is selected from one of the circuits 512-518. In operation, the controller 521 actuates one of a set of switches 522-528 to activate the corresponding circuit 512-518 in response to receiving a command from the I/O channel controller 421 indicating a particular circuit to be activated.”)
Hughes is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of industrial control networks.
Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a “base” device (method, or product) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” – the teachings of Law’946, upon which the addition of a selector switch in the adapter module may be viewed as an improvement; 2) the prior art contained a “known technique” that is applicable to the base device – the teachings of Hughes which depict the addition of a selector switch in the adapter module; 3) one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; - at least because Hughes expressly teaches applying the improvement to a ‘prior art’ system which is the same figures disclosed by Law’946 (c.f. Hughes fig. 2 and law fig. 2) and accordingly the improvement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application. (See MPEP 2144.I.D).
Regarding Claim 8, Law’946 teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1, and Hughes teaches the selector element as set forth in claim 7.*
(* see 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 8, supra).
Hughes further teaches:
wherein the adapter module comprises a configuration element, the configuration element being configured to control the selector element. ([0109] “The I/O channel controller 421 is a set of circuits that generates transmits the configuration signal to the signal selector input 427 of the IC 422. The controller 421 also may provide configuration signals to each of the other ICs 424-428.”)
Regarding Claim 9, Law’946 teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 6, and Hughes teaches the configuration element of the adapter module as set forth in claim 8.*
(* see 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 9, supra).
Hughes further teaches:
wherein the controller module comprises a configuration unit ([0109] “The controller 421 generates the configuration signals in response to commands received from the control 358”) that is configured to communicate with the configuration element of the adapter module. ([0106] “The first communication interface 401 of the card 356F includes a set of connectors 411-418. At a high level, the interface 401 couples the card 356F to the controller 358”)
Regarding Claim 10, Law’946 teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 5, and Hughes teaches the selector element of the adapter module, configuration unit of the controller module, and configuration element of the adapter module as set forth in claim 9*
(* see 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 10, supra)
Hughes further teaches:
wherein the selector element of the adapter module comprises a peer-to-peer connection to the selector element of the controller module and the configuration element of the adapter module comprises a service BUS connection to the configuration unit of the controller module. ([0106] “At a high level, the interface 401 couples the card 356F to the controller 358 (also shown in FIG. 3) via the link 431 (which may be a bus on a backplane of an integrated assembly to which the controller 358 and card 356F may be affixed or plugged).”)
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law’946 in view Hughes, further in view of general background knowledge in the art as exemplified by Zohar et al., US Pg-Pub 2022/0239115.
Regarding Claim 14, Law’946 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, and Hughes teaches the selector element, see rejection of claim 7*,
(* see 35 USC 112(b) rejection of Claim 14 supra)
Law and Hughes are silent regarding:
wherein the adapter module contains a galvanic insulation between the signals of the selector element and fieldbus signals.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select for galvanic insulation in a selector assembly based on their general knowledge of the background art should such insulation be desired. (see e.g. Zohar [0005] “In some examples, electrical switching is performed by a switching system with a plurality of switching arrangements. The switching arrangements may be in parallel to one another. The switching arrangements may include one or more electromechanical switches, such as, relay switches. One or more of the switching arrangements may include a switching unit. The switching unit may include non-mechanical switches, such as transistors. An electromechanical switch (e.g., an electromechanical relay) may provide advantages such as galvanic isolation and less power losses compared to a non-mechanical switch such as a transistor.”)
Zohar is analogous art because it is representative of the general level of background knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application.
Accordingly examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components; - the substitution of galvanically isolated components for the undisclosed components of Hughes; 2) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art, as exemplified by Zohar; 3) one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have substituted one known element for the other, and the results would have been predictable because one of ordinary skill in the art would know that galvanic isolation can be achieved by selecting appropriate components, should such a feature be desired, as discussed by e.g. Zohar ([0005]) and accordingly the substitution would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application (see MPEP 2144.I.B).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law’946 in view of Flanders US Pg-Pub 2014/0269744.
Regarding Claim 17, Law’946 teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Law’946 differs from the claimed invention in that:
It does not appear to clearly articulate wherein the controller module comprises a voting unit connected to the selector element and the fieldbus communication processor.
However, Flanders teaches voting redundancy ([0046] “smart valves protecting a flowline are controlled by an FVCG which monitors them using one out of three voting logic. If a fault is detected in one of the smart valves, the FVCG will recognize the fault and transmit an alarm signal to an operator in the control room. The FVCG will either command the other smart valves protecting that flowline to trip, or await a second failure of a smart valve on that flowline, e.g., two out of three voting logic, before initiating a trip of the flowline. The configuration of the FVCG can be accomplished in the field, including the ability to determine whether to act upon one out of three logic, two out of three logic, or the like.”) in controller modules (FVCGs, see [0006] “The FVCG/SJB provides a complete control function in the field of monitoring critical inputs, checking parameters against allowable limits and executing required actions to provide for safe and reliable oil/gas wellsite operations.”) which are fieldbus connected ([0045] “ input/output cards in the FVCG are able to receive the diagnostics from the smart field instruments and make decisions in the field based upon the diagnostics. This is a chip level/software-based feature build into the input/output cards and commercially available through protocols such as HART and Fieldbus Foundation.”)
Flanders is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of industrial control systems.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Law’946 to include voting logic in field bus connected controllers, as suggested by Flanders.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide crucial redundancy and improved safety as suggested by Flanders ([0039] “The FVCG receives signals from both hardwired and wireless instruments and multiplexes them so that many signals can pass over a single high-speed digital communication output. This allows the process control and safety data of increased numbers of field mounted devices to be routed within the plant environment “)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Law et al., US Pg-Pub 2023/0111740 – reciting many of the same features as the related Law’946 application
Brunner et al., US Pg-Pub 2017/0199231 – discussing galvanic isolation in field devices connected over fieldbus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5591. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday through Friday.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/J.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights