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 .
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 Information Disclosure Statements, filed 30 September 2024, 23 January 2025, and 20 March 2026 have been fully considered by the examiner. Signed copies are attached.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim 8 is objected to for reciting allowable subject matter in improper dependent form.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected, grounds follow.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trikha et al., US Pg-Pub 2018/0119972.
Regarding Claim 1, Trikha discloses:
A method, comprising; providing, to a chiller (fig. 5 [0072] “the BMS device 504 is an HVAC device, such as a chiller”) prior to delivery of the chiller to a building, a communications board (fig. 5, [0073] “The network interface controller 500”)
such that the communications board is electronically communicable with a main control board of the chiller; (fig. 5 [0077] “The UART interface 532 can be configured to communicate with a corresponding host UART interface 534 of the host controller 502 using a UART protocol.”)
configuring, prior to the delivery of the chiller to the building, remote connectivity of the communications board; ([0088] “the Wi-Fi driver 712 may be configured to allow the network interface controller 500 to communicate via Wi-Fi using the wireless radio 546. For example, the network interface controller 500 may connect to a wireless devices via the wireless radio 546 using the Wi-Fi driver. Example wireless devices may include routers, wireless BMS devices, user devices, etc. Further, the Wi-Fi driver 712 may be configured to communication using a variety of Wi-Fi modes, such as station, access point, Wi-Fi direct, etc.”)
and automatically using the remote connectivity of the communications board to establish a connection between the chiller and a remote server in response to installation of the chiller at the building. (fig. 5, [0087] “The Wi-Fi protocol module 548 includes a cryptography engine 700, a UDP/TCP protocol stack 702, an IP protocol stack 1026, a supplicant 1028, a 802.11 MAC stack 708, an 802.11 baseband stack 710, and a Wi-Fi driver 712. In one embodiment, the cryptography engine 700 is configured to support secure and encrypted communication links between the network interface controller 500 and one or more other devices or networks, such as network 512.”)
Regarding Claim 2, Trikha discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Trikha further discloses:
wherein configuring the remote connectivity of the communications board comprises configuring a secure overlay network leveraging security programming natively running on the communications board. (fig. 5, [0087] “The Wi-Fi protocol module 548 includes a cryptography engine 700… In one embodiment, the cryptography engine 700 is configured to support secure and encrypted communication links between the network interface controller 500 and one or more other devices or networks, such as network 512.”)
Regarding Claim 10, Trikha discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Trikha further discloses:
associating a subscriber identity module of the communications board with an account associated with the building. ([0083] “In one embodiment, the Ethernet/MSTP layer 544 may be configured to facilitate communications using the MSTP master protocol. For example, the Ethernet/MSTP layer 544 can be configured to transmit and receive segmented messages. In some embodiments, the Ethernet/MSTP layer 544 may only transmit segmented messages to devices that subscribe to the BMS device 504 via a BACnet Subscription Service.”)
Regarding Claim 11, Trikha discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Trikha further discloses:
providing, to a technician application (i.e., client device 518, remote systems and applications 520, etc.”) executing on the remote server, ([0085] “The cloud-based server may allow for devices to access the network 512 via a connection to the internet. For example, one or more of the controller 514, the enterprise control applications 516, the client devices 518, the remote systems and applications 520, and the monitoring and reporting applications 520 may access the network 512 via an internet connection”) data relating to the chiller via the remote connectivity; ([0084] “the Ethernet/MSTP layer 544 reads the data objects 540, and transmits the values associated with the data objects 540 to the network 512”)
altering, via the remote connectivity and the communications board, operations of the main control board in response to a user input to the technician application. (see generally fig. 11 [0110]; and [0122] “In some embodiments, a network interface controller, such as network interface controller 500, may be configured to persist values, such that the values can be modified via an external network for the host controller 502. In one example, the external network is a BACnet network. … If the network interface controller 500 is configured to persist the written values, the network interface controller must flag all of the values that are persisted as having changed during a startup process, and send the changed persisted values to the host controller 502.”)
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) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trikha in view of Miller et al., US Pg-Pub 2018/0173205.
Regarding Claim 3, Trikha teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Trikha further teaches:
wherein the communications board comprises a common data bus, (at least the bus connecting ‘a group of processing components’ and memory, see Trikha [0073] “The processing circuit 506 can include a processor 508 and a memory 510. The processor 508 may be a general purpose or specific purpose processor, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), one or more field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), a group of processing components, or other suitable processing components. The processor 508 is configured to execute computer code or instructions stored in the memory 510”)
Trikha differs from the claimed invention in that:
Trikha does not clearly articulate: wherein the communications board is programmed to provide containerized applications configured to exchange data with the common data bus.
However, Miller teaches a local embedded controller design which provides containerized applications ([0098] “The multi-core hypervised platform 500 facilitates the real-time controller 112 (also referred to as a “real-time control engine”) which runs in parallel with the local field agent 110. The real-time controller 112 is responsible for controlling the asset while the local field agent 110 provides connectivity to the cloud, asset management, store and forward data to the cloud, and containerized environment to host local applications developed for the asset.”) which communicate over a common data bus ([0082] “the local field agent 110 executes a local network interface 314 to exchange data with the real-time controller 112. In some embodiments, the local network interface 314 exchange data, with the real-time controller 112”)
Miller is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of control automation.
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Trikha to operate the various software functions of the communication card of Trikha in containerized applications sharing a common data bus, as suggested by Miller.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate simultaneously providing cloud control and real time closed loop control processes in the same device, as suggested by Miller ([0004] “facilitate a local embedded control device that can host in near-real-time, closed-loop processes with a cloud control infrastructure, while also controlling real-time processes for a plant asset under control.”)
Regarding Claim 4, Trikha in view of Miller teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 3,
Miller further teaches:
wherein the containerized applications comprise an edge-adapted artificial intelligence agent. ([0005] “a local field agent (e.g., a standalone field agent) that securely executes thereon to serve as a gateway to the cloud control infrastructure for the near-real-time closed-loop processes. … The local field agent provides connectivity to the cloud control infrastructure, e.g., to store and forward data to the cloud, and to receive control data from the cloud.” [0006] “both the local field agent and the real-time controller are executed in containerized environment”)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Trikha to include the field agent suggested by Miller as one of the processes executed by the communications card of Trikha.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure that the network interface was cyber-hardened by an agent, as suggested by Miller ([0005] “The local field agent further provides secure update and secure upgrade to the near-real-time closed-loop processes and the deterministic real-time embedded control processes. In some embodiments, the local field agent is cyber-hardened”)
Regarding Claim 5, Trikha in view of Miller teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 3,
Trikha further teaches:
providing, to the chiller prior to the delivery of the chiller to the building, a plurality of modular communication interfaces adapted for a plurality of types of electronic communication and connected to the communications board; ([0075] “The network interface controller 500 can utilize a wired or wireless communication link and may use any of a variety of disparate communications protocols (e.g., BACnet, LON, WiFi, Bluetooth, TCP/IP, etc.) to communicate with the network 512 and/or directly to other external systems or devices.”)
and connecting, at the building, the communications board to a plurality of sensors using the plurality of types of electronic communication via the plurality of modular communication interfaces. ([0080] “the network and control interface 526 may read…” [0080] “the data objects 540 are BACnet objects. Example BACnet objects may include: file data objects, including read and/or write file services; device data objects (i.e. BACnet device object data); binary value data objects (e.g. relay output states, switch positions, on/off device status); analog value data objects (e.g. speed, temperature, flow, pressure, etc.)”)
Regarding Claim 6, Trikha in view of Miller teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 5,
Trikha further teaches:
wherein the plurality of types of electronic communication comprise Bluetooth and Modbus or BACNet communications. ([0075] “The network interface controller 500 can utilize a wired or wireless communication link and may use any of a variety of disparate communications protocols (e.g., BACnet, LON, WiFi, Bluetooth, TCP/IP, etc.) to communicate with the network 512 and/or directly to other external systems or devices.”)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trikha in view of Miller, further in view of Galchenko et al., US Pg-Pub 2020/0177409.
Regarding Claim 7, Trikha in view of Miller teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 5,
Trikha differs from the claimed invention in that:
Trikha does not appear to clearly articulate: automatically detecting, by the communications board, other equipment installed at the building; and changing, by the communications board, a setting for the main control board based on the other equipment installed at the building.
However, Galchenko teaches an HVAC system where a device automatically detects other equipment installed in the building ([0115] “The autoconfiguration manager can use a plurality of autoconfiguration objects (ACOS) stored within controller 502 to perform the autoconfiguration scan. Each ACO can be configured to test for a particular protocol.” [0016] “controller 502 can identify the equipment or device connected to that port or interface. Controller 502 can use the ACO that successfully identified the correct protocol to perform the equipment identification.”) to change a setting for the controller according to the detected equipment ([0118] “Controller 502 can be configured to select an equipment model based on the identity of the connected equipment 540. For example, controller 502 can access an equipment model database and retrieve an equipment model corresponding to the model, name, and/or device ID of the connected equipment. Controller 502 can use the selected equipment model and the detected communications protocol to generate protocol-specific control signals for the connected equipment 540.”)
Galchenko is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of control automation.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Trikha to include automatic detection of connected equipment by the communication module in order to determine the necessary protocol specific control signals which should be generated by the controller for the connected equipment, as suggested by Galchenko.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the likelihood of erroneous configuration as suggested by Galchenko ([0040] “Advantageously, the automatic communications protocol and datalink detection process reduces the likelihood of erroneously configured field controllers which may occur if the field controllers are manually configured, according to some embodiments.”)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trikha in view of Grabowski et al., US Pg-Pub 2016/0327293.
Regarding Claim 9, Trikha teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Trikha differs from the claimed invention in that:
Trikha does not appear to clearly articulate: detecting, by the communications board, a location of the chiller; and providing the location of the chiller to a computing system via the remote connectivity.
However, Grabowski teaches an HVAC system (see figs. 1-7) which detects a location of a chiller based on wireless signal strength (see fig. 7 and [0084]-[0085] “A BMS device 710 may detect the wireless signals emitted by the wireless emitter/receivers 702, 704.” [0085] “the BMS device 710 determines its own three-dimensional location based on the detected emitter identifier(s) 706, 708”) and reports that location to a remote system ([0085] “…and reports the three-dimensional location” e.g. Locations Database, see fig. 12)
Grabowski is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of control automation.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Trikha to include using Wireless access point signals detected by the wireless antenna of the communications module to identify the location of the associated chiller, as suggested by Grabowski.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have made this modification to support technicians in locating the position of the chiller in the building after installation, as suggested by Grabowski ([0072] “a service technician may arrive at a customer site for the purpose of repairing a faulty article of building equipment. Before the equipment can be serviced, the technician must locate the building equipment. Locating building equipment can be difficult when the service technician is unfamiliar with the building and/or if the building equipment is hidden or obstructed (e.g., behind a wall, above a ceiling tile, etc.).” [0073] “System 500 may be used to identify the locations of BMS devices (i.e., building equipment) in a building”)
Claim(s) 12-13, 15-16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trikha in view of Kobraei et al., US Pg-pub 2012/0173857.
Regarding Claim 12, Trikha teaches:
A method, comprising; establishing, upon installation of a chiller (fig. 5 [0072] “the BMS device 504 is an HVAC device, such as a chiller”) at a building, connectivity between a communications board(fig. 5, [0073] “The network interface controller 500”) of the chiller and a remote server (fig. 5 network 512, [0085] “The cloud-based server may allow for devices to access the network 512 via a connection to the internet.”) using communications settings established prior to installation of the chiller at the building; ([0088] “the Wi-Fi driver 712 may be configured to allow the network interface controller 500 to communicate via Wi-Fi using the wireless radio 546.)
receiving, at the chiller from the remote server via the connectivity, a software update ([0094] “For example, a firmware update may be able to be pushed to the network interface circuit 500 over the internet using the internet communication module 556.”
and operating, by the main control board executing in accordance with the software update, the chiller to chill a fluid for cooling the building. ([0029] “Waterside system 120 may use boiler 104 and chiller 102 to heat or cool a working fluid (e.g., water, glycol, etc.) and may circulate the working fluid to AHU 106.”)
Trikha differs from the claimed invention in that:
Trikha does not clearly articulate [the update is] for a main control board of the chiller separate from the communications board;
Nor providing, by the communications board, the software update onto the main control board;
However, Kobraei teaches a method for over-the-air updates for appliances including HVAC ([0021] “appliances, hvac, water heaters, etc.”) where updates are provided to an appliance communication module ([0027] “These updates are then passed to the appliance communication modules 120-128 over the home appliance network 170 (206).”) which provides the update to the appliance ([0027] “In turn, each appliance communication module initiates the bootloader and passes the appliance 110-118 the new software (208).”) then restarts the appliance so that the appliance will resume operation in accordance with the update ([0029] “typically upon a re-start, the appliance is then operating on the next version of the software.”)
Kobraei is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of control automation.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Trikha to include transmitting OTA updates for the main control board of the HVAC appliance, as suggested by Kobraei.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a way to update the appliance software without having to physically be present ([0029] “This offers a way to update the appliance software without entering the home.”)
Regarding Claim 13, Trikha in view of Kobraei teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 12,
Trikha further teaches:
establishing communications in a plurality of communication protocols between the communications board and a plurality of sensors and devices such that the plurality of sensors and devices provide data onto a common data bus of the communications board. ([0075] “The network interface controller 500 can utilize a wired or wireless communication link and may use any of a variety of disparate communications protocols (e.g., BACnet, LON, WiFi, Bluetooth, TCP/IP, etc.) to communicate with the network 512 and/or directly to other external systems or devices.”)
Regarding Claim 15, Trikha in view of Kobraei teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 13,
Trikha further teaches:
wherein establishing the connectivity comprises establishing as secure overlay network interacting natively with the common data bus. (fig. 5, [0087] “The Wi-Fi protocol module 548 includes a cryptography engine 700… In one embodiment, the cryptography engine 700 is configured to support secure and encrypted communication links between the network interface controller 500 and one or more other devices or networks, such as network 512.”)
Regarding Claim 16, Trikha in view of Kobraei teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 13,
Trikha further teaches:
wherein the plurality of communication protocols comprise Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. ([0075] “The network interface controller 500 can utilize a wired or wireless communication link and may use any of a variety of disparate communications protocols (e.g., BACnet, LON, WiFi, Bluetooth, TCP/IP, etc.) to communicate with the network 512 and/or directly to other external systems or devices.”)
Regarding Claim 19, Trikha in view of Kobraei teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 12,
Trikha further teaches:
establishing the communications settings by creating an association between a subscriber identity module of the chiller and an account associated with the building prior to delivery of the chiller to the building. ([0083] “In one embodiment, the Ethernet/MSTP layer 544 may be configured to facilitate communications using the MSTP master protocol. For example, the Ethernet/MSTP layer 544 can be configured to transmit and receive segmented messages. In some embodiments, the Ethernet/MSTP layer 544 may only transmit segmented messages to devices that subscribe to the BMS device 504 via a BACnet Subscription Service.”)
Regarding Claim 20, Trikha in view of Kobraei teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 12,
Trikha further teaches:
comprising executing a program on the communications board ([0092] “the control logic module 554” (nb. In the network controller 500, see fig. 5) may be capable of executing MATLAB or similar simulation software code…”) to determine a setting for use by the main control board, (ibid. [0092] “…The control logic module 554 may, after performing the needed control algorithms, write new values to associated attributes of the equipment object 528 for communication to host controller 502.” Nb. New values such as [0092] “data values required to maintain the variable at a desired setpoint”) wherein the main control board has insufficient processing power for executing the program. ([0092] “the control functionality of the host controller may be implemented entirely by the network interface circuit 500, without requiring additional processing or control components.”)
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trikha in view of Kobraei, further in view of Miller.
Regarding Claim 14, Trikha in view of Kobraei teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 13,
Trikha differs from the claimed invention in that:
Trikha does not appear to clearly articulate: providing the communications board with a plurality of modular applications exchanging data with the common data bus and comprising an artificial intelligence engine.
However, Miller teaches a local embedded controller design which provides containerized applications ([0098] “The multi-core hypervised platform 500 facilitates the real-time controller 112 (also referred to as a “real-time control engine”) which runs in parallel with the local field agent 110. The real-time controller 112 is responsible for controlling the asset while the local field agent 110 provides connectivity to the cloud, asset management, store and forward data to the cloud, and containerized environment to host local applications developed for the asset.”) which communicate over a common data bus ([0082] “the local field agent 110 executes a local network interface 314 to exchange data with the real-time controller 112. In some embodiments, the local network interface 314 exchange data, with the real-time controller 112”) including an artificial intelligence engine ([0005] “a local field agent (e.g., a standalone field agent) that securely executes thereon to serve as a gateway to the cloud control infrastructure for the near-real-time closed-loop processes. … The local field agent provides connectivity to the cloud control infrastructure, e.g., to store and forward data to the cloud, and to receive control data from the cloud.” [0006] “both the local field agent and the real-time controller are executed in containerized environment”)
Miller is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of control automation.
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Trikha to operate the various software functions of the communication card of Trikha in containerized applications sharing a common data bus, as suggested by Miller.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate simultaneously providing cloud control and real time closed loop control processes in the same device, as suggested by Miller ([0004] “facilitate a local embedded control device that can host in near-real-time, closed-loop processes with a cloud control infrastructure, while also controlling real-time processes for a plant asset under control.”) and in order to ensure that the network interface was cyber-hardened by an agent, as suggested by Miller ([0005] “The local field agent further provides secure update and secure upgrade to the near-real-time closed-loop processes and the deterministic real-time embedded control processes. In some embodiments, the local field agent is cyber-hardened”)
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trikha in view of Kobraei, further in view of Stanciu et al., US Pg-Pub 2019/0356550.
Regarding Claim 17, Trikha in view of Kobraei teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 13,
Trikha differs from the claimed invention in that:
Trikha does not appear to clearly articulate: wherein the plurality of communication protocols comprise OPC Unified Architecture.
However, Stanciu teaches a building automation control network where the network connection protocols may include, inter alia, OPC Unified Architecture ([0002] “Network connections may include, but are not limited to, connections via wired or wireless Ethernet, wireless mesh networks, cellular connections, or even computer to computer connections through serial, parallel, USB, or other connections via a wide variety of protocols (such as, but not limited to, MQTT, AMQP, http, Bluetooth, OPC-UA, SCADA, CoAP, BACnet, Modbus, KNX, LonTalk, Zigbee, Zwave, Sigfox, LoRa, etc.),”)
Stanciu is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of control automation.
Accordingly, Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components – the teachings of Trikha, which differ by the substitution of OPC-UA as the protocol for at least one of the plurality of protocols including Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, BacNet, etc. 2) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art – as exemplified by Stanciu which teaches the use of OPC-UA as a communication protocol in building automation systems; 3) one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable at least because Stanciu expressly teaches using UPC-UA protocol as a networking protocol in a building automation system for the purpose of enhancing the connectivity of the system with other networks (Stanciu [0002] “industry or domain specific. The connections allow a computing system to access services at other computing systems and to quickly and efficiently receive data from other computing systems.”) and therefore the substitution would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application. (See MPEP 2143.I.B).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trikha in view of Kobraei, further in view of Lauer et al., US Pg-Pub 2015/0131513.
Regarding Claim 18, Trikha in view of Kobraei teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 12,
Kobraei further teaches
wherein providing, by the communications board, the software update onto the main control board ([0027] “In turn, each appliance communication module initiates the bootloader and passes the appliance 110-118 the new software (208).”) uses a first communication channel between the communications board and the main control board, ([0020] “each module is configured to communicate (wired or wirelessly) with a respective appliance as represented by reference numerals 130.”)
The combination differs from the claimed invention in that:
Neither reference clearly articulates: the method further comprising exchanging data between the communications board and the main control board using a second communication channel,
Nor the first communication channel being higher bandwidth than the second communication channel.
However, Lauer teaches an OTA update procedure ([0086] “a critical software update… the software update may be multicast, using a high-speed forward link”) where a second communication channel ([0088] “second communication link”) is used for exchanging data ([0088] “ the method 250 may include using the second communication link as a reverse link, corresponding to the forward link, over which feedback or second data is able to be transmitted … For example, acknowledged of a receipt of the received data may be signaled via the reverse link” ) during a software update process where the first communication channel is a higher bandwidth than the second channel ([0088] “the bandwidth or speed of the first communication link may be two times greater than that of the second communication link, three times greater, four times greater, five times greater, six times greater, seven times greater, or greater by a factor larger than seven.”)
Lauer is analogous art because it is pertinent to the same problem confronted by applicant of how to ensure accurate transmission of a software update.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the teachings of Trikha and Kobraei to include a lower bandwidth reverse-channel for bidirectional communication of acknowledgement data during a software update procedure, as suggested by Lauer.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate handling of software updates transmitted by multi-cast to multiple target devices, as suggested by Lauer. ([0039] “At least because forward link and reverse links are supported by different frequency bands, a different messaging protocol and/or delivery scheme (e.g., broadcast, multicast, unicast) may be used for sending information” [0039] “For instance, a broadband protocol may be utilized to deliver data over a selected forward link 108b, and a point-to-point protocol may be utilized to deliver data over a reverse link 108a. Additionally or alternatively, the hybrid communications distributor 104 may cause transmissions to be multicast over a forward link 108b, and may receive feedback information over a reverse link 108a in a unicast format” )
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While Trikha, Miller, Galchenko, Kobraei, Grabowski, Stanciu, and Lauer teach many of the features of the claimed invention as outlined above; none of the references, alone or in reasonable combination, teach or fairly suggest all of the limitations of the claimed invention, particularly:
(Claim 8)
wiring a serial port of the communications board to the main control board and connecting an ethernet port of the communications board to the main control board;
fastening an antenna mount to mounting points of the communications board; and
providing a cable from the antenna mount to an antenna coupled to an exterior of a housing of the chiller.
(Excerpted)
…when considered in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim, the base claim, and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 is 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Harrod et al., US Pg-Pub 2010/0076605 – automatic detection of connected equipment configuration in a controller.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5591. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday through Friday.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/J.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights