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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on September 12, 2024. Claims 1-15 are pending and presented for examination.
Authorization for Internet Communication
To expedite prosecution, filing a written authorization for internet communication is recommended. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate using email to schedule interviews and/or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to email communications. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Examiner's note: It is recommended to amend the abstract to briefly describe the claimed invention according to the above guidelines.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is recommended to remove the parentheses () on line 3 of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“a diagnostic unit for.” in claims 7 and 14
“a process configured to…” in claim 7
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koh, US-PGPub. No. 20160216704.
As per claims 1, 7 and 14, Koh teaches an output device configured to receive a telegram for the output of a process value (Paragraph(s) [0040-0041], [0046]; the I/O module 118 transmits the analog output control signals to the output devices 114 and receives the analog input status signals from the input devices 116), an automation controller and a method for monitoring a communication connection (Paragraph(s) [0034]; the monitoring processor is set to be interrupted after the controlling processor is set to be interrupted, and the second processing unit disables communications to one or more associated remote devices if the CST time is not within a predetermined range of values) between a first subscriber and a second subscriber (Fig. 1, Paragraph(s) [0032-0033], [0040]; the industrial automation controller has also been interpreted as “first subscriber” and input devices have been interpreted to “second subscriber(s)”. According to the present application disclosure Paragraph [0011], the first subscriber corresponds to an automation controller and the second device corresponds to an input device), a first processing program with a first cycle time being executed cyclically in the first subscriber, a first diagnostic unit with a first time counter being operated in the first subscriber to monitor the communication connection (Paragraph(s) [0015], [0034]; after one cycle of the second safety loop, i.e., after the safety reaction time has elapsed as calculated by the clock source of the second processor, the second processor verifies its safety critical functions have been completed. If not, the second processor faults. If they have been completed, the second processor sends a rendezvous signal to the first processor which then determines if the safety reaction time, as determined by the second processor using its clock source, is within a pre-set range. The two processors continue swapping roles while the diagnostic is running. In addition, Koh discloses instead of loading the timer compare register 266a to interrupt after the safety reaction time has elapsed, CPU 252a could repeatedly poll a timer or counter to determine when the time has elapsed (Paragraph(s) [0058])), such that an arrival of a first telegram from the second subscriber starts the first time counter, and an arrival of a second telegram from the second subscriber being monitored within a predefinable first monitoring time via the first time counter (Paragraph(s) [0048], [0061]; CPU 252a further includes a flag 264a and a timer interrupt function implemented with a compare register 266a wherein the compare register 266a is loaded with a preset time value “predefinable first monitoring time”. When the system clock 253a reaches the value stored in the compare register 266a, CPU 252a will interrupt the execution of the executive image 258a. In addition, Koh discloses the integrated circuit configured to receive as inputs the first fault indicator signal “first telegram” and the second fault indicator signal “second telegram” (Paragraph(s) [0032])), the method comprising:
forming a residual period from a difference between the first monitoring time and the first time counter in the first diagnostic unit (Paragraph(s) [0054], [0058]; watchdog communication channel includes indications of CPU 312 status, e.g., reset status, fault, providing redundant communication channels between PSC CPU 302 and SPC CPU 312. In the event of primary CPUs cross communication through communication medium or interface 314 is corrupted, redundant watchdog communication channel provides status information of CPU 312 to disable safety communication link through communication port 308, 310. In addition, Koh discloses determining whether or not the elapsed safety reaction time, as calculated by CPU 252 b using clock source 254 b, is within the allowable range or cushion (Paragraph(s) [0066]). It is further noted that a residual period is an inherent feature of watchdog timer);
performing a check to determine whether the residual period is less than or equal to the first cycle time (Paragraph(s) [0007], [ 0048]; if the safety task reaction time exceeds the safety watchdog timer, the safety device will fault and the outputs will automatically transition to a safe state); and
generating a monitoring signal if the residual period is less than or equal to the first cycle time (Paragraph(s) [0032], [0062]; if the safety reaction time of processing unit 250 a is not within an acceptable range, the processing unit 250 b will fault, shown as block 432 and generate a shutdown safety message 456).
As per claims 2 and 8, Koh teaches wherein the communication connection between the first subscriber and the second subscriber is operated in a safety-related system, wherein the first processing program in the first subscriber is switched from received process values to substitute values when the monitoring signal is present (Paragraph(s) [0002], [0032], [0062]); and wherein the switch is executed in the cycle in which the check indicated the residual period is less than or equal to the first cycle time (Paragraph(s) [0015], [0054]).
As per claims 3, 4, 9 and 10, Koh teaches wherein the method is implemented in a communication operation from the second subscriber as an input device to a third subscriber as an output device via the first subscriber as an automation controller, such that a maximum response time for an error in the communication is minimized and a safe response is assigned to the error (Fig. 1, Paragraph(s) [0032], [0040]).
As per claims 5 and 11-13, Koh teaches wherein the method is implemented in a standard for a communication protocol for transmission of safety-related data in automation applications with functional safety (Paragraph(s) [0032], [0047-0048]).
As per claim 6, Koh teaches wherein the method is implemented to reduce an operational distance of an operator from a triggering device during operation of a dangerous machine (Paragraph(s) [0001-0002], [0008], [0048]).
As per claim 15, Koh teaches wherein output device forms an integrative part of an actuator in automation technology Paragraph(s) [0002], [0005], [0007]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892 (Notice of Reference Cited) for a list of relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A WASEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2669. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (8:00 am – 4:30 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Glenton Burgess can be reached on (571)272-3949. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)? If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED A. WASEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights