DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1 – 19 are pending.
Claim 19 is amended. This rejection is FINAL.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in the amendments, filed 06/12/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reasons set forth below.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bennett (US 10003525 / Applicant IDS).
As per claim 1, a method for investigating, in an automation system, the performance of a wireless communication network, the automation system comprising an automation function environment in contact with a first automation equipment environment via the wireless communication network (The process controllers receive signals indicative of process measurements made by the field devices and then process this information to generate control signals to implement control routines, to make other process control decisions, and to initiate process control system alarms, See Col. 1, Lines 13 - 27 … By monitoring the network connections in substantially real-time, network failures are detected quickly, See Col. 4, Line 64 - Col. 5, Line 10), where a first automation function in the automation function environment controls an automation device in the first automation equipment environment using hardware in the automation function environment that has been assigned to the first automation function by a hardware assigning function (FIG. 1 includes process controllers 102 communicatively coupled to a plurality of smart and/or non-smart field devices 104 using any desired communication media (e.g., wireless, hardwired, etc.) and protocols (e.g., Foundation Fieldbus, Profibus, HART, etc.), See Col. 8, Lines 13 - 35), the method comprising:
inspecting, in the automation function environment, the performance of the wireless communication network (By monitoring the network connections in substantially real-time, network failures are detected quickly, See Col. 4, Line 64 - Col. 5, Line 10), and
performing a first performance failure handling activity in the automation function environment in case the performance fails to meet a corresponding performance criterion (Once a network failure is detected in one of the networks, the associated network host, in accordance with the teachings disclosed herein, uses Internet Protocol (IP) routing standards to automatically establish an alternate communication path that bypasses the failed network. More particularly, the network host re-routes transmissions from one of the network interfaces (connected to the failed network) through the other network interface (connected with the operational network), See Col. 4, Line 64 - Col. 5, Line 10).
As per claim 2, the method according to claim 1, wherein the performance inspection is an inspection of the performance of the wireless communication network and the hardware assigned to the first automation function (The substantially real-time detection of network failures as described herein to enable fast recovery from such failures is achieved by the continuous monitoring of the connectivity between networks hosts over each of two networks connecting the hosts, See Col. 5, Lines 26 - 56).
As per claim 3, the method according to claim 1, wherein the performance inspection concerns latency and/or reliability (The detection of a network failure and the establishment of an alternate communication path takes less than five seconds. In some examples, shorter times are possible (e.g., 500 milliseconds or less). Thus, the examples disclosed herein provide recovery times within the requirements needed for process control system environments to ensure reliable and up-to-date data is available to operators and other end users, See Col. 5. Lines 11 - 25).
As per claim 4, the method according to claim 1, wherein the performance inspection comprises inspecting time critical messages exchanged between the first automation equipment environment and the automation function environment (The periodic integrity messages transmitted from each host to every other host over each network serves as a check or test of the connection between each network host via each network, See Col. 6, Lines 16 - 33).
As per claim 5, the method according to claim 4, wherein the performance inspection comprises inspection of single trip time, round trip time and/or message delivery rate of the time critical messages (The integrity messages are transmitted periodically on a known time interval such that if no message is received from a particular network interface of a particular network host over a period longer than the known time interval a network failure may be assumed, See Col. 6, Lines 4 - 15).
As per claim 6, the method according to claim 4, wherein
the first automation equipment environment comprises at least one sensor sensing at least one physical property in the first automation equipment environment (The field devices, which may be, for example, valves, valve positioners, switches and transmitters (e.g., temperature, pressure and flow rate sensors), perform process control functions within the process such as opening or closing valves and measuring process control parameters, See Col. 1, Lines 13 - 27) and
the time critical messages include sensors messages from the at least one sensor, to the first automation function and control messages from the first automation function to the automation device (As each network host 402, 404, 406 receives the integrity messages periodically transmitted from the first network interfaces 302 (over the primary network 408) of each of the other network hosts, the integrity message analyzer 306 confirms that the communication status over the primary network 408 between the receiving network host and the transmitting network host is good because an integrity message was successfully received, See Col. 12, Lines 1 - 23).
As per claim 7, the method according to claim 6, wherein the performance inspection comprises inspecting the time of sending of a first message and the time of reception of a second associated message, where one of said messages is a sensor measurement and the other is a control command affecting a physical property reflected in the sensor measurement (Host A transmits a first integrity message over the primary network 408 (at time T1) followed by a second integrity message over the secondary network 410 (at time T2) before Host B transmits any integrity messages (beginning at time T3). The resulting integrity information in successive integrity messages as each of the network hosts are discovered is shown in the example table 900 of FIG. 9, See Col. 20, lines 35 - 56).
As per claim 8, the method according to claim 1, wherein the first performance failure handling activity is an error handling activity in or for the first automation function (If each of the network interfaces 302, 304 of each network host 402, 404, 406 maintains a working connection, the integrity information transmitted as part of each subsequent integrity message remains the same with all communication statuses being good as shown at times T7, T8, and T9. However, if a network failure occurs, the subsequent integrity messages of the affected network hosts will eventually be updated to reflect the change in communication status between the affected network hosts, See Col. 18, lines 22 - 30).
As per claim 9, the method according to claim 1, wherein the first performance failure activity includes a change of assigned hardware to the first automation function (As soon as the network failure 1102 is detected, the communication path determiner 312 of the first network host 1002 defines a new communication path in which the second network interface 1012 is defined as a gateway for purposes of communications form the first network interface 1010 of the first network host 1002. As a result, communications originating from the first network interface 1010 of the first network host 1002 are routed (e.g., via internal routing 1104) to the second network interface 1012 and transmitted over the secondary network 1008, See Col. 23, Lines 31 - 64).
As per claim 10, the method according to claim 1, further comprising
inspecting in the first automation equipment environment, the performance of the wireless communication network (The substantially real-time detection of network failures as described herein to enable fast recovery from such failures is achieved by the continuous monitoring of the connectivity between networks hosts over each of two networks connecting the hosts, See Col. 5, Lines 26 - 56), and
performing a second performance failure handling activity in the first automation equipment environment in case the performance fails to meet the corresponding performance criterion (The integrity information in each subsequent integrity message from each host will continue to be the same until another change is detected (e.g., the network failure 602 is repaired and/or another network failure between at least two of the network hosts occurs), See Col. 20, Lines 1 - 24).
As per claim 11, the method according to claim 10, wherein the second performance failure handling activity is a safety activity in the first automation equipment environment (Once the network failure is repaired, the next integrity message will be successfully delivered such that the network hosts receiving the message can confirm that the connection has been restored. In some examples, once a network host determines that a network failure is repaired (i.e., the communication status changes from bad to good), the communication path determiner 312 may adjust the IP routing table for the associated network interface to again transmit process control data over the direct path of the now repaired primary network 1006, See Col. 24, Lines 9 - 29).
As per claim 12, the method according claim 1, further comprising
obtaining, in the automation function environment, a unique identifier from the first automation equipment environment, which unique identifier is associated with the automation device or the first automation equipment environment (An integrity message includes host information that serves to identify the source or origin of the integrity message (e.g., the network host from which the integrity message was transmitted), See Col. 15, Lines 26 - 39),
comparing the obtained identifier with an identifier provided for the automation device or the first automation equipment environment in an authentication system (The example table 800 of FIG. 8 also indicates the content of each integrity message sent at each point in time. In particular, the fourth column 808 indicates the identifying information sent with each integrity message. As described above, each integrity message includes host information that identifies the network host sending the message including an indication of the IP addresses of each of the network interfaces 302, 304 of the network host, See Col. 17, Lines 13 - 25) and
allowing the first automation function to operate in the first automation equipment environment if the identifiers match (Accordingly, as shown in FIG. 8, at time T1 the Host A transmits an integrity message that includes the host information for Host A but does not include any integrity information. Because Host B received the integrity message transmitted at time T1 from Host A, the integrity message analyzer 306 of Host B is enabled to identify Host A (based on the transmitted host information) and, thus, create a new entry for Host A (and the corresponding network interfaces 302, 304) in an IP routing table, See Col. 17, Lines 26 - 53).
As per claim 13, an automation system comprising:
an automation function environment comprising at least one automation function, a first performance inspecting function as well as a hardware assigning function and hardware for the at least one automation function and first performance inspecting function network (The process controllers receive signals indicative of process measurements made by the field devices and then process this information to generate control signals to implement control routines, to make other process control decisions, and to initiate process control system alarms, See Col. 1, Lines 13 - 27), where a first automation function in the automation function environment controls an automation device in a first automation equipment environment via a wireless communication network using hardware in the automation function environment that has been assigned to the first automation function by the hardware assigning function (FIG. 1 includes process controllers 102 communicatively coupled to a plurality of smart and/or non-smart field devices 104 using any desired communication media (e.g., wireless, hardwired, etc.) and protocols (e.g., Foundation Fieldbus, Profibus, HART, etc.), See Col. 8, Lines 13 - 35); and
the first automation equipment environment including the automation device,
wherein the first performance inspecting function is configured to inspect the performance of the wireless communication network (By monitoring the network connections in substantially real-time, network failures are detected quickly, See Col. 4, Line 64 - Col. 5, Line 10) and
perform a first performance failure handling activity in the automation function environment in case the performance fails to meet a corresponding performance criterion (Once a network failure is detected in one of the networks, the associated network host, in accordance with the teachings disclosed herein, uses Internet Protocol (IP) routing standards to automatically establish an alternate communication path that bypasses the failed network. More particularly, the network host re-routes transmissions from one of the network interfaces (connected to the failed network) through the other network interface (connected with the operational network), See Col. 4, Line 64 - Col. 5, Line 10).
As per claim 14, the automation system according to claim 13, wherein the automation function environment is a virtual cloud-based automation function environment where the first automation function is a virtual controller and the hardware assigning function is a virtualization layer, while the first automation equipment environment is a real automation environment where the automation device is a real automation device (The controllers 102 are communicatively coupled to an example virtual process control environment 106. The example virtual process control environment 106 of FIG. 1 includes an example domain controller 108, an example first host server 110, an example second host server 112, an example third host server 114, and an example storage area network (SAN) 116. In the illustrated example, the virtual process control environment 106 implements virtual machines corresponding to a plurality of virtual workstations 117 listed in a table 118, See Col. 8, Lines 36 - 50).
As per claim 15, the automation system according to claim 13, wherein the automation function environment and the first automation function are provided in an edge node (The virtual process control environment 106 (e.g., the domain controller 108, the host servers 110, 112, 114, and the SAN 116) is communicatively coupled to thin clients 126 that can remotely access the virtual workstations 117 implemented within the virtual process control environment 106, See Col. 9, Lines 41 - 52).
As per claim 16, the method according to claim 2, wherein the performance inspection concerns latency and/or reliability (The detection of a network failure and the establishment of an alternate communication path takes less than five seconds. In some examples, shorter times are possible (e.g., 500 milliseconds or less). Thus, the examples disclosed herein provide recovery times within the requirements needed for process control system environments to ensure reliable and up-to-date data is available to operators and other end users, See Col. 5. Lines 11 - 25).
As per claim 17, the method according to claim 2, wherein the performance inspection comprises inspecting time critical messages exchanged between the first automation equipment environment and the automation function environment (The periodic integrity messages transmitted from each host to every other host over each network serves as a check or test of the connection between each network host via each network, See Col. 6, Lines 16 - 33).
As per claim 18, the method according to claim 2, wherein the first performance failure handling activity is an error handling activity in or for the first automation function (If each of the network interfaces 302, 304 of each network host 402, 404, 406 maintains a working connection, the integrity information transmitted as part of each subsequent integrity message remains the same with all communication statuses being good as shown at times T7, T8, and T9. However, if a network failure occurs, the subsequent integrity messages of the affected network hosts will eventually be updated to reflect the change in communication status between the affected network hosts, See Col. 18, lines 22 - 30).
As per claim 19, the method according to claim 2, wherein the first performance failure activity includes a change of assigned hardware to the first automation function (As soon as the network failure 1102 is detected, the communication path determiner 312 of the first network host 1002 defines a new communication path in which the second network interface 1012 is defined as a gateway for purposes of communications form the first network interface 1010 of the first network host 1002. As a result, communications originating from the first network interface 1010 of the first network host 1002 are routed (e.g., via internal routing 1104) to the second network interface 1012 and transmitted over the secondary network 1008, See Col. 23, Lines 31 - 64).
Remarks
Applicant s arguments, with regards to independent claim 1 and dependent claims 5, 14, and 15, filed on 06/12/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The current arguments are based on independent claim 1 and dependent claims 5, 14, and 15 which are present in the remarks by the applicant.
With respect independent claim 1, Applicant argues that Bennett does not disclose “where a first automation function in the automation function environment controls an automation device in the first automation equipment environment using hardware in the automation function environment that has been assigned to the first automation function by a hardware assigning function.” Examiner responds that Bennett discloses the claimed limitation by teaching process controllers which includes the hardware assigned to the automation function, such as the Delta V hardware, in an automation function environment that control automation devices such as the field devices 104 (Col. 8, lines 13 – 35). Therefore, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, Bennett discloses the claim limitation as required.
Applicant also argues that Bennett does not disclose “inspecting, in the automation function environment, the performance of the wireless communication network.” Examiner responds that Benett discloses the claimed limitation by teaching that network connections can be monitored or inspected for performance to detect if failures occur (Col. 4, Line 64 – Col. 5, Line 10). Monitoring network connections for failure by using integrity messages is a way of checking network performance since it allows for detection of a bad connection in the network (Col. 18, Lines 31 – 55). Hence, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, Bennett discloses the claim limitation as required.
Applicant further argues that Bennett does not disclose “performing a first performance failure handling activity in the automation function environment in case the performance fails to meet a corresponding performance criterion.” Examiner responds that Benett discloses the claimed limitation by teaching that a failed network can be bypassed using an alternate path which is performed as a first performance failure handling activity when the failure to meet a corresponding performance criterion occurs such a network failure within the system (Col. 4, Line 64 – Col. 5, Line 10). Therefore, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, Bennett discloses the claim limitation as required.
With respect to dependent claim 5, Applicant argues that Bennett does not disclose “wherein the performance inspection comprises inspection of single trip time, round trip time and/or message delivery rate of the time critical messages.” Examiner responds that Benett discloses the claimed limitation by teaching that integrity messages transmitted periodically within a time interval tests the network connection in a similar manner to how a trip time or message delivery rate would be used for performance inspection (Col. 6, Lines 4 – 15). Therefore, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, Bennett discloses the claim limitation as required.
With respect to dependent claim 14, Applicant argues that Bennett does not disclose “wherein the automation function environment is a virtual cloud-based automation function environment where the first automation function is a virtual controller and the hardware assigning function is a virtualization layer, while the first automation equipment environment is a real automation environment where the automation device is a real automation device.” Examiner responds that Benett discloses the claimed limitation by teaching that the controllers 102 are coupled to a virtual process control environment just as the automation function environment resides in a virtual cloud based environment and the hardware assigning function of the controllers is part of the virtualization layer implemented in the virtual machines of the workstations (Col. 8, Lines 36 - 59). Hence, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, Bennett discloses the claim limitation as required.
With respect to dependent claim 15, Applicant argues that Benett does not disclose “wherein the automation function environment and the first automation function are provided in an edge node.” Examiner responds that Benett discloses the claimed limitation by teaching that the virtual process control environment is coupled to thin clients that access virtual workstations just as the automation function environment are provided in an edge node (Col.9, Lines 41 – 52). Therefore, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, Bennett discloses the claim limitation as required.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZIA NAOREEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7282. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 - 6:00.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/NAZIA NAOREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights