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 .
Herein after “it would have been obvious” should be read as “it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said control instructions” and “said terminal block” in line 3 and 6 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes current claim 1 is a copy of withdrawn original claim 1 from grandparent application 17/030086 excluding the original limitation of “at least one power supply connected to a terminal block;”. The same art applied in that case will therefore be applied here. The examiner is also treating “receive control” from line 2 of claim 1 as reading “receive control instructions”.
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) 1-2, 11-12, 14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law et al PN 2011/0131455 in view of Bornhorst PN 4,392,187.
In regards to claim 1: Law et al teaches a system comprising: an I/O system configured to receive control instructions ([0036] “FIG. 3 illustrates a new I/O communication network configuration 70 for use in providing bus or protocol control and power on the bus powered I/O communication network 64” “FIG. 3 includes integrated bus controller and power supply devices 72A and 72B, each of which includes power supply and bus controller functionality (such as that provided by the I/O device 32 of FIG. 1) integrated therein, and at least one of which is connected to the Fieldbus segment 64 directly through the terminal block 74”); a control block (80 figure 4) connected to said I/O system wherein said control instructions provided to said I/O system are provided as serial output ([0050] “The design of the power supply system also allows providing a discrete output using a serial interface on the device 72 (not shown). This feature can be implemented on the device 72 to allow a supervisory system to access the detailed diagnostic information (e.g. total output current) from the device 72 at any desired time”); and an application (68 or any of 20-27) connected to said serial output and configured to receive power from said terminal block, and to process said serial output. Law et al teaches the control is sent over a serial output (over 64) however Law also teaches the backplane bus (figure 6) over which the controller receives control instructions is also serial and does not state whether or not the controller 80 operates in parallel thus Law does not expressly teach the control instructions are “converted” to serial in that they may already be serial. Bornhorst teaches (column 7 line 63 et seq. “Transmitter 164 translates the parallel data into a 40 bit serial format for transmission along a two conductor twisted signal cable 18”). It would have been obvious to have the controller convert the control instructions to serial because this would have allowed the controller to operate in parallel which is faster for processing the control data.
In regards to claim 2: Law et al teaches at least one power supply (primary power supply 82A and secondary power supply 82B) connected to a terminal block (74 Para [0036] Figure 1, 3, 5). Law et al also teaches plural power supplies are combined at the terminal block.
In regards to claim 11: Bornhorst teaches a computer system (12) connected to the I/O.
In regards to claim 12: Bornhorst teaches ethernet [0028].
In regards to claims 14, 20: Law et al teaches a system comprising: an I/O system configured to receive control instructions ([0036] “FIG. 3 illustrates a new I/O communication network configuration 70 for use in providing bus or protocol control and power on the bus powered I/O communication network 64” “FIG. 3 includes integrated bus controller and power supply devices 72A and 72B, each of which includes power supply and bus controller functionality (such as that provided by the I/O device 32 of FIG. 1) integrated therein, and at least one of which is connected to the Fieldbus segment 64 directly through the terminal block 74”); a control block (80 figure 4) connected to said I/O system wherein said control instructions provided to said I/O system are provided as serial output ([0050] “The design of the power supply system also allows providing a discrete output using a serial interface on the device 72 (not shown). This feature can be implemented on the device 72 to allow a supervisory system to access the detailed diagnostic information (e.g. total output current) from the device 72 at any desired time”); and an application (68 or any of 20-27) connected to said serial output and configured to receive power from said terminal block, and to process said serial output. Law et al teaches the control is sent over a serial output (over 64) however law also teaches the backplane bus (figure 6) over which the controller receives control instructions is also serial and does not state whether or not the controller 80 operates in parallel thus Law does not expressly teach the control instructions are “converted” to serial in that they may already be serial. Bornhorst teaches (column 7 line 63 et seq. “Transmitter 164 translates the parallel data into a 40 bit serial format for transmission along a two conductor twisted signal cable 18”). It would have been obvious to have the controller convert the control instructions to serial because this would have allowed the controller to operate in parallel which is faster for processing the control data. Bornhorst teaches a computer system (12) including a memory (“The control processor 358 includes a central processing unit 544, an operating program memory 546 and a scretch pad memory 548”), including a user interface (illustrated in figure 1 on computer system 12.
Claim(s) 3, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law et al PN 2011/0131455 in view of Bornhorst PN 4,392,187 applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al PN 2013/0232432.
In regards to claims 3, 15: Law et al teaches the I/O modules termination is “user selectable” thus there needs to be a user interface for selecting the termination however the claim language states “providing input to and receiving information from the I/O system”. Law et al only clearly indicates a user interface for sending input to the I/O system. Bornhorst shows a user interface and user inputs but does not mention returned data to the user interface. Liu et al teaches ([0032] “Though it is not shown, one skilled in the art would appreciate that the portable console may further comprise an input/output device, such as buttons, keyboards, display screen and so on. These input/output devices corporate with the user interface representing module 13 to enable input of user requests and display of the returned results”). It would have been obvious to include responses from the I/O system because this would have allowed a user to “display of the returned results”.
Claim(s) 4, 16,-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law et al PN 2011/0131455 in view of Bornhorst PN 4,392,187 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barker PN 2013/0085615.
In regards to claims 4, 16, 17: Law teaches using the fieldbus protocol to transfer the serial control data. Law also teaches the controlled applications may be lighting but does not teach communicating using BACnet/IP or DALI protocols. Barker teaches communicating to controlled lighting using standard ([0044] “protocols such as DALI, BACnet, LON, KNX and any other know or later developed standards and protocols”) and specifically teaches DACnet/IP (Para [0028]) It would have been obvious to use any standard serial communication because these protocols are a standard.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law et al PN 2011/0131455 in view of Bornhorst PN 4,392,187 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walters et al PN 2009/0323802
In regards to claim 5: Law teaches the controller 80 but never states how controller 80 is powered. Law et al does teach the power supply is in the same enclosure as the controller 80. And that the enclosure is remote from the controller units. Law et al does not expressly state the power supply powers the controller. Walters et al [0014] In some embodiments, the remote controller includes its own user interface for enabling a user to interact with the remote controller, its own power supply, and its own control unit. It would have been obvious to have a power supply to as “independent power” to said I/O system and control block. Because this would have maintained power to the controller if power is removed from the controlled devices.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law et al PN 2011/0131455 in view of Bornhorst PN 4,392,187 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mielnik et al PN 2016/0278230.
In regards to claim 6: Law teaches a housing (86) but does not teach a rail to hold the modules. Mielnik et al teaches a control system for providing power including a rail to hold the modules (Abstract) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to mount the components to a rail because this would have provided a physically secure hold.
Claim(s) 7-8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law et al PN 2011/0131455 in view of Bornhorst PN 4,392,187 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Speegle et al PN 2011/0248835.
In regards to claims 7, 18: Law teaches sending power and control over lines 64 Law also shows two separate wires but does not state one is for power and one for return. Speegle et al discloses a system comprising an output cable said output cable further comprising: a power line; a power return line; ([0048] "controlling light fixtures using incandescent lights or LEDs, a microcontroller may be programmed to generate pulse width modulated output signals, on selected output terminals, that may be used directly or indirectly (e.g., via power control transistors, SCRs, or TRIACs) to control a duty cycle and, thus, average or perceived intensity of light output. Although a return path from a controlled device 300 through controller 210 is implied in the example illustrated in FIG. 1, it is to be understood that alternate return paths (e.g., via chassis ground common in automotive wiring) may also be used, and that in some embodiments, switching and other control functions may be implemented via power return paths from a load rather than via a conductive path for supplying power to a load,”). It would have been obvious to include a return line because this would have allowed for a complete circuit.
In regards to claim 8: Bornhorst teaches a two wire serial bus.
Claim(s) 9, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law et al PN 2011/0131455 in view of Bornhorst PN 4,392,187 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haskins WO 2013/126966.
In regards to claims 9, 19: Law et al teaches a segment protector to receive the power but does not expressly state this segment protector is configured to process the commands. Haskins teaches a system of wherein said application further comprises a puck (note - per applicant's para. [0067] a puck is a device which provides control commands [which may be DALI] and power to lighting devices), said puck being connected to said serial output and configured to receive power from said terminal block, to process said serial output, and to output a current; and a luminaire connected to said puck ([0020] "A schematic representation of DALI EM lamp system 100 is shown in Figure 1. The system 100 comprises a PC (personal computer) 10 for commissioning and optionally controlling or supervising the system, a network 20 (typically Ethernet), and DALI interfaces 30 providing an interface between the network 20 and DALI lines 40 which have a number of DALI devices 50 attached,”; [0021] "DALI system will allow up to 100 DALI interface devices 30 to be networked together,”). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include a puck arrangement as taught by Haskins in the system of Law to provide an interface between the network and lighting devices which operate on the DALI standard (see Haskins Para [0020]).
In regards to claim 10: Law et al teaches plural controlled devices.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law et al PN 2011/0131455 in view of Bornhorst PN 4,392,187 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peshkin et al PN 2002/0112016.
In regards to claim 13: Law et al does not teach the I/O contact being a phoenix contact I/O. Peshkin et al teaches ([0100] “In the exemplary embodiment, the electrical connector 1501 is of a two-part design, one part being permanently connected to the printed circuit board of computational node 106, while the other is easily removed for attachment of wiring. In an exemplary embodiment, the connector is a Phoenix Contact terminal block”). It would have been obvious to have the I/O be a phoenix contact because this is a known form of connection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
References citing the WAGO and Phoenix contact systems are cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL R MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3639. The examiner can normally be reached telework M-F start 7-8 leave 4-5.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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.
/Paul R. MYERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176