DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communication filed on 9/6/2024.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/6/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 4, “recognizing whether the second sensor an old sensor” should be --recognizing whether the second sensor is an old sensor--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3, “updating target configuration” should be -- updating the target configuration--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 15 is a single means claim (i.e., the device comprises only one “means” element without additional structural elements). Such claims are rejected for lack of enablement because they encompass every conceivable means for achieving the result, while the specification enables only specific embodiments (e.g., the FDCC integrated in a switch or control panel). The specification does not enable the full scope without undue experimentation, as it discloses software/hardware for Ethernet-based system but not all possible implementations (e.g., alternative protocols or hardware).
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 15 is 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.
Claim 15 limitation “A network device comprising means for implementing a method for exchanging” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The limitation “means for implementing a method” lacks structural modifiers and recites a function (implementing the specific method). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-4, 7, 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 2010/0076604) in view of Poomalai et al. (US 2017/0093912) in view of Bugwadia et al. (US 2010/0180016).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses a method for exchanging a first sensor with a second sensor at a measuring point in a network-based measuring system, the method comprising:
wherein steps a) to g) are performed once when the first sensor is put into operation:
a) connecting the first sensor to the network-based measuring system (Johnson discloses connecting the first sensor (field device/actuator) to the network-based measuring system by coupling field devices to the IP network for control and communication; [0036] “the networked control devices include actuators, such as the valves depicted as controlling inlets and outlets 24-28 and 34. A further actuator is shown controlling paddle 30. These and other actuators utilized by the control system are constructed and operated in the conventional manner, as modified in accord with the teachings hereof. The actuators operate under control of respective field device controllers, labeled CTL, that are also constructed and operated in the conventional manner to provide initialization, signal conditioning and communications functions”);
b) requesting a network address from the first sensor (Johnson discloses requesting a network address from the first sensor because the field device (sensor) supplies an identifier to request an IP address upon startup; [0024] “on power-up or coupling to the network, the field device can supply an identifier (e.g., attained from a letterbug, assigned by a hub, or otherwise) to a DHCP or other server on the network”);
f) configuring the first sensor (Johnson discloses configuring the first sensor because network devices send configuration information to the field device upon entry into the network; [0024] “Other network devices monitoring or notified via such a bulletin board can send configuration information to the field device or otherwise”);
i) requesting a network address from the second sensor (Johnson discloses requesting a network address from the second sensor because the replacement field device requests an IP upon startup; [0024] “on power-up or coupling to the network, the field device can supply an identifier (e.g., attained from a letterbug, assigned by a hub, or otherwise) to a DHCP or other server on the network. Once provided with an IP address, the field device can formally enter into the control network, e.g., by posting its characteristics to a network bulletin board, e.g., using a network enabler such as a Jini and/or JavaSpace server, or the like”).
However, the prior art does not explicitly disclose the following:
c) recognizing a specific location of the first sensor;
d) identifying the first sensor;
e) assigning a network address to the first sensor;
j) recognizing a specific location of the second sensor;
k) identifying the second sensor;
Poomalai in the field of the same endeavor discloses techniques for layer security for industrial automation networks by having switches snoop discovery and configuration messages on trusted interfaces to learn and bind device names, IP addresses, and MAC addresses to specific interfaces. In particular, Poomalai teaches the following:
c) recognizing a specific location of the first sensor (Poomalai discloses recognizing the specific location of the first sensor because the switch learns and associates the interface (port/location) on which the device (sensor) is reachable during naming; [0024] “a switch in a computer network listens to a device naming exchange (e.g., a DCP SET Packet Request) on one or more trusted interfaces of the switch to learn device names of devices reachable on interfaces of the switch. The switch then listens to the device naming exchange (e.g., a DCP SET OK Response) to learn a corresponding interface of the switch on which each particular device, with a learned device name, is reachable, and associates each learned device name to the learned corresponding interface for that particular device, accordingly”);
d) identifying the first sensor (Poomalai discloses identifying the first sensor because the switch learns the device name (identify) during the exchange; [0024] “a switch in a computer network listens to a device naming exchange (e.g., a DCP SET Packet Request) on one or more trusted interfaces of the switch to learn device names of devices reachable on interfaces of the switch”);
e) assigning a network address to the first sensor (Poomalai discloses assigning a network address to the first sensor because the system assigns and learns the IP address for the device during the exchange; [0025] “listens to an Internet Protocol (IP) address assigning exchange (e.g., a DCP SET Request frame) on the one or more trusted interfaces of the switch to learn IP addresses assigned to each particular device, and associates each learned IP address with a corresponding learned device name and its corresponding interface”);
j) recognizing a specific location of the second sensor (Poomalai discloses recognizing the specific location of the second sensor because the switch recognizes the interface for the replacement device; [0024] “listens to the device naming exchange (e.g., a DCP SET OK Response) to learn a corresponding interface of the switch on which each particular device, with a learned device name, is reachable, and associates each learned device name to the learned corresponding interface for that particular device, accordingly”);
k) identifying the second sensor (Poomalai discloses identifying the second sensor because the switch learns the name of the replacement device; [0024] “a switch in a computer network listens to a device naming exchange (e.g., a DCP SET Packet Request) on one or more trusted interfaces of the switch to learn device names of devices reachable on interfaces of the switch”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the prior art with Poomalai. One would have been motivated because Poomalai teachings would improve device authentication and configuration management in industrial automation systems.
However, the prior art does not explicitly disclose the following:
g) storing a configuration of the first sensor;
h) exchanging the first sensor with the second sensor;
l) sending the stored configuration of the first sensor to the second sensor if the second sensor is to replace the first sensor; or sending the stored configuration of the first sensor to the second sensor if the second sensor is the same as the first sensor and a current configuration of the second sensor differs from the stored configuration of the first sensor; and
m) assigning the network address of the first sensor to the second sensor.
Bugwadia in the field of the same endeavor discloses techniques for automated configuration and deployment of network devices by discovering device and network information, determining appropriate configuration based on that information and predefined policies, and deploying the configuration to enable seamless network operation. In particular, Bugwadia teaches the following:
g) storing a configuration of the first sensor (Bugwadia discloses storing device configuration files in a database for future replacement; [0074] “the management side procedure 401 includes the step of preparing and storing a database, which may be a lookup table database, that identifies the configuration information for each physical network device ID (step 401)”);
h) exchanging the first sensor with the second sensor (Bugwadia discloses exchanging the first sensor with the second sensor in a replacement scenario; [0042] “Under this replacement scenario, it would be possible to have a network device vendor or manufacturer pull a box containing the replacement device off of their inventory shelf, and without opening the box or performing any configuration of the device, drop ship a replacement network device using for example an express delivery service, directly from the manufacturer or vendor to the replacement site”);
l) sending the stored configuration of the first sensor to the second sensor if the second sensor is to replace the first sensor; or sending the stored configuration of the first sensor to the second sensor if the second sensor is the same as the first sensor and a current configuration of the second sensor differs from the stored configuration of the first sensor (Bugwadia discloses sending stored configuration of the replacement device; [0042] “the manufacturer or vendor may inform the buyer as to the device identifier so that an entry may be made into the configuration information database ready for configuration information retrieval when it receives a request”); and
m) assigning the network address of the first sensor to the second sensor (Bugwadia discloses assigning the same network address of the previous device to the replacement device; [0055] “when such failure occurs, it may be preferable that the replacement device be set up exactly the same”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the prior art with the teaching of Bugwadia. One would have been motivated because Bugwadia’ s would automate the discovery of device and network information along with policy-based configuration determination, thereby simplifying integration and operation in industrial environments.
Regarding claim 2, Johnson-Poomalai-Bugwadia discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the identifying of the first and of the second sensor includes identification of information about a type, manufacturer, firmware version, and/or serial number or identification of a unique identifier (Bugwadia [0023] “The request can include, by way of example but not limitation, a device Internet protocol (IP) address, a device class, a device site, a device location, a network mask (netmask), a network identifier, a device type to be configured, a software version identifier, a firmware version identifier, a data of manufacture, a DHCP source indicator, a pre-configuration fixed address indicator, a serial identifier (SID), and any combination of these”).
Regarding claim 3, Johnson-Poomalai-Bugwadia discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the configuration of the first sensor includes parameters and settings (Johnson [0020] “the field device can be an "intelligent" transmitter or actuator that includes a low power processor, along with a random access memory, a read-only memory, FlashRAM, and a sensor interface. The processor can execute a real-time operating system, as well as a Java virtual machine (JVM). Java byte code executes in the JVM to configure the field device to perform typical process control functions, e.g., for proportional integral derivative (PID) control and signal conditioning”).
Regarding claim 4, Johnson-Poomalai-Bugwadia discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein private data of the first sensor are stored as part of the configuration (Bugwadia [0069] “the configuration information itself as well as the protocols used on the network contain or may contain secret information such as keys and the like that if intercepted and known by others would subject the network to attack and compromise”).
Regarding claim 7, Johnson-Poomalai-Bugwadia discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the second sensor is a new sensor or a sensor with factory settings (Bugwadia [0088] “It will be apparent that such automated configuration provides for much quicker and cost efficient installation of not only a single network device (and possibly the secondary network devices that may be attached to that primary network device), but has particular advantages and efficiencies that scale to large numbers of new or replacement devices”).
Regarding claim 9, Johnson-Poomalai-Bugwadia discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: replacing a media access control (MAC) address of the second sensor with a MAC address of the first sensor (Poomalai [0040] “A MAC address changes if the device is replaced. An IP address is a form of dynamic addressing. Because there was a need for a fixed address a device name is used”).
Regarding claim 10, Johnson-Poomalai-Bugwadia discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein in step g) “storing a configuration of the first sensor” this configuration is stored as a target configuration and after a sensor replacement the target configuration is loaded into the second sensor (Bugwadia [0055] “when such failure occurs, it may be preferable that the replacement device be set up exactly the same (or substantially the same when some hardware, firmware, or software version variation requires or benefits from some incremental change to that set up) as a failed device it replaces. In one implementation, there may be a set of network configuration policies that are used in whole or part to set-up, configure, and operate network devices. These policies may also take into account a particular device identifier or may utilize device type or other characteristics”).
Regarding claim 11, Johnson-Poomalai-Bugwadia discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein the first sensor sends a change in its configuration and, if necessary, the target configuration is updated (Johnson [0125] “Once the configuration is complete, the device records its new configuration in its local non-volatile RAM. Optionally, it updates a remote configuration database or just set a "changed configuration" status indicator much like conventional intelligent transmitters”).
Regarding claim 12, Johnson-Poomalai-Bugwadia discloses the method according to claim 10, further comprising:
querying the first sensor after a change in the configuration (Johnson [0123] “Once the changes are complete, the engineer tells the new objects to begin execution in "open loop" mode, i.e., their outputs are not allowed to go to the field or to any other display station other than the one used to configure them. (For examples, their names are not registered with the native name service)”); and
updating target configuration (Johnson [0124] “In the open loop mode, the engineer can "Verify and Validate" his new control scheme by viewing the detail displays for the new and the old objects "in parallel". The set of available detail displays may include special displays for evaluation of parallel composites”).
Regarding claim 13, Johnson-Poomalai-Bugwadia discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein the configuration is stored continuously and historically (Johnson [0125] “Once the configuration is complete, the device records its new configuration in its local non-volatile RAM. Optionally, it updates a remote configuration database or just set a "changed configuration" status indicator much like conventional intelligent transmitters”).
Regarding claim 4, Johnson-Poomalai-Bugwadia discloses the method according to claim 13, further comprising: performing a differential data backup (Johnson [0095] “The native historian provides the fundamental data collection, reduction, and archival services. The data collected includes process values and messages from various applications within the illustrated control system 10. In addition, it provides historical data in support of several other common applications--typically known as plant information management system (PIMS) programs and trend window support. The historian is capable of exporting its data to user-selected databases”).
Regarding claim(s) 15-16, do(es) not teach or further define over the limitation in claim(s) 1 respectively. Therefore claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim(s) 1 respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
For the reason above, claims 1-16 have been rejected and remain pending.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY H TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Chris Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
JIMMY H TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2451
/JIMMY H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451