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 .
This office action is a response to an application filed on 11/22/2024, in which claims 1-14 are pending and ready for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted was filed before the mailing date of the Office Action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: (1) “detection unit configured to …” in claims 1 and 13.
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof: Para. [0114].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over GWY-500 (“Profibus Gateway User’s Manual”, 12/12/2011, Renu Electronics Pvt. Ltd.).
Regarding claim 1, GWY-500 discloses, in a first embodiment, a control system comprising (GWY-500; Pg. 8. A control system is used.):
a first controller including an interface for connection to a first transmission path (GWY-500; Pg. 8. A master PLC includes a connection/interface to a first transmission path.);
a second controller including an interface for connection to a second transmission path (GWY-500; Pg. 8. A secondary PLC includes a connection/interface to a second transmission path.); and
a relay unit including a first interface for connection to the first transmission path, and a second interface for connection to the second transmission path (GWY-500; Pg. 8. A gateway/relay includes a first interface connected to a first transmission path and a second interface connected to a second transmission path.).
But it does not specifically disclose, in a first embodiment, wherein the relay unit includes a detection unit configured to detect a communication state of the first transmission path, and the relay unit is configured to, in accordance with a transfer setting, transmit, to the second controller output data transmitted from the first controller, and transmit, to the second controller, first state data indicating the detected communication state of the first transmission path.
However, GWY-500 teaches, in other embodiments, wherein the relay unit includes a detection unit configured to detect a communication state of the first transmission path (GWY-500; Pg. 34, “4.4 Error Indication Bit”, “4.5 Communication Parameters”. A gateway/relay includes a detection portion for detecting a communication state/indication of a first transmission path.), and
the relay unit is configured to, in accordance with a transfer setting, transmit, to the second controller output data transmitted from the first controller (GWY-500; Pg. 30, “4.1.2 Master-Slave Configuration”. A gateway/relay is used to transfer output data, according to a setting, to a second PLC from a first PLC.), and transmit, to the second controller, first state data indicating the detected communication state of the first transmission path (GWY-500; Pg. 34, “4.4 Error Indication Bit”. A gateway/relay is used to transfer state data indicating a detected communication state of a first transmission.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system of GWY-500 in a first embodiment to adapt an signal transmission approach, by incorporating GWY-500’s teaching in other embodiments wherein an error indication bit/communicate state is used for transferring state information, for the motivation to allow communication between PLCs via a gateway device (GQY-500; Pg. 7, “1.2 Introduction to Gateway”.).
Regarding claim 2, modified GWY-500 further teaches the relay unit is configured to transmit, to the second controller by cyclic communication, output data transmitted from the first controller by cyclic communication, and transmit the first state data to the second controller by cyclic communication (GWY-500; Pg. 22, “3.1.3.5 Network States”. A gateway/relay is used to transfer output data and state data/error bit indication to a second PLC cyclically.).
Regarding claim 3, modified GWY-500 further teaches the relay unit is configured to detect a recovery of the communication state indicated by the first state data (GWY-500; Pg. 22, “3.1.3.5 Network States”. A gateway DPM/relay is used to detect a recovery of a communication state, e.g. Auto_Clear/Clear, indicated by first state data regarding one of forward/backward path.).
Regarding claim 4, modified GWY-500 further teaches the relay unit is configured to stop transmitting the first state data after detecting the recovery (GWY-500; Pg. 22, “3.1.3.5 Network States”. A gateway DPM/relay is used to stop transfer state data after detecting a recovery of a communication state, e.g. Auto_Clear/Clear.).
Regarding claim 5, modified GWY-500 further teaches the first state data indicates an importance of an action against the detected communication state of the first transmission path, and the relay unit is configured to transmit, to the second controller by message communication, information indicating details of the detected communication state of the first transmission path (GWY-500; Pg. 21, “3.1.3.4 Protection Mechanism”, Pg. 22, “3.1.3.5 Network States”. First state data indicates action about the communication state, e.g. Auto_Clear/Clear of different paths, e.g. one of forward/backward, wherein a gateway DPM/relay is used to transfer to a second PLC information/parameters about the communicated state of paths, e.g. one of both forward and backward.).
Regarding claim 6, modified GWY-500 further teaches the detection unit is further configured to detect a communication state of the second transmission path, and the relay unit is further configured to, in accordance with the transfer setting, transmit, to the first controller, output data transmitted from the second controller, and transmit, to the first controller, second state data indicating the detected communication state of the second transmission path (GWY-500; Pg. 21, “3.1.3.4 Protection Mechanism”, Pg. 22, “3.1.3.5 Network States”. First state data indicates action about the communication state, e.g. Auto_Clear/Clear of different paths, e.g. both forward and backward, wherein a gateway/relay is used to transfer to a second PLC information/parameters about the communicated state of transfer paths, e.g. both forward and backward.).
Regarding claim 7, modified GWY-500 further teaches the relay unit is configured to transmit, to the first controller by cyclic communication, output data transmitted from the second controller by cyclic communication, and transmit the second state data to the first controller by cyclic communication (GWY-500; Pg. 22, “3.1.3.5 Network States”. A gateway/relay is used to transfer output data and state data/error bit indication to a first PLC cyclically.).
Regarding claim 8, modified GWY-500 further teaches the relay unit is configured to detect a recovery of the communication state indicated by the second state data (GWY-500; Pg. 22, “3.1.3.5 Network States”. A gateway DPM/relay is used to detect a recovery of a communication state, e.g. Auto_Clear/Clear, indicated by second state data regarding another one of forward/backward path.).
Regarding claim 9, modified GWY-500 further teaches the relay unit is configured to stop transmitting the second state data after detecting the recovery of the communication state indicated by the second state data (GWY-500; Pg. 22, “3.1.3.5 Network States”. A gateway DPM/relay is used to stop transfer state data after detecting a recovery of a communication state, e.g. Auto_Clear/Clear, by second state data regarding another one of forward/backward path.).
Regarding claim 10, modified GWY-500 further teaches the second state data indicates an importance of an action against the detected communication state of the second transmission path, and the relay unit is configured to transmit, to the first controller by message communication, information indicating details of the detected communication state of the second transmission path (GWY-500; Pg. 21, “3.1.3.4 Protection Mechanism”, Pg. 22, “3.1.3.5 Network States”. Second state data indicates action about the communication state, e.g. Auto_Clear/Clear of different paths, e.g. another one of forward/backward paths, wherein a gateway DPM/relay is used to transfer to a first PLC information/parameters about the communicated state of paths, e.g. another one of both forward and backward.).
Regarding claim 11, modified GWY-500 further teaches the control system provides a user interface configured to output the first state data and the second state data (GWY-500; Pg. 35, “4.6 Default Communication Register”. A control system of a user interface is used to provide state data including a first state data and a second state data.).
Regarding claim 12, modified GWY-500 further teaches the relay unit is configured to communicate with a communication master connected to the first transmission path via the first transmission path (GWY-500; Pg. 40, “5.1 Note On Communication Drivers”. A gateway DPM/relay is used to communicate with a master connected to a first path via a first transmission path, also see Pg. 82.), and communicate with the second controller serving as a communication master via the second transmission path (GWY-500; Pg. 40, “5.1 Note On Communication Drivers”. A gateway DPM/relay is used to communicate with a second controller as a master via a second transmission path, also see Pg. 82.).
Claim 13 is directed to a relay device connected to a first controller via a first transmission path and connected to a second controller via a second transmission path, the relay device comprising components performing a sequence of steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claim 1, and is non-patentable over the prior art for the same reason as previously indicated.
Claim 14 is directed to a communication method performed by a control system including a first controller including an interface for connection to a first transmission path and a second controller including an interface for connection to a second transmission path, the communication method comprising performing a sequence of steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claim 1, and is non-patentable over the prior art for the same reason as previously indicated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adler (US Pub. 20220148117 A1) teaches a system for distributing warehouse task from a management hub to different PLCs in a distributed warehouse system.
Haug (US Pat. 9525462 B1) teaches a system that performs data recovery of data symbols for PLCs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT KIR whose telephone number is (571)272-6245. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2988. 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.
/ALBERT KIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights