DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 1, insert “input/output” before “I/O.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 3, insert “input/output” before “I/O.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 1, insert “Advanced Physical Layer input/output” before “APL I/O.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 2, insert “input/output” before “I/O.” On line 7, delete the period “.” and replace with a semi-colon “;”. On line 14, delete period “.” and replace with a semi-colon “;”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to software per se. Claim 12 is directed to a “computer program product comprising computer executable instructions.” The applicant’s specification does not limit the computer program product to non-transitory/non-software embodiments only. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the computer program product can be software. Therefore, since the claim is directed to software per se with no embodying medium, and a computer program or software does not fall within the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “e.g. OPC United Architecture, OPC UA,” which makes the scope of the claim unclear because it is unclear as to whether OPC United Architecture, OPC UA is being claimed or not.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “e.g. an APL I/O module,” which makes the scope of the claim unclear because it is unclear as to whether APL I/O module is being claimed or not. For the purpose of proper examination of the claim, the examiner will interpret this limitation as being a non-APL I/O module or APL I/O module.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the I/O station modules" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " the network " in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the network" in lines 2, 9, and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the network interface" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the payload" in lines 3, 4, 6, 10, and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the network" in lines 3, 5, 9, and 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the network interface" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the I/O module" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the payload" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the payload" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the computer-executable components" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The period “.” On line 14 of the claim makes the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to sentence that follows “when the computer-executable components are run on processing circuitry comprised in the I/O station” is connected to the preceding limitations.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 13-16 are exact replicas of claims 2-6. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Due to the amount of 35 U.S.C 112 rejections, the examiner does not feel like a prior art rejection of claims 10-12 is appropriate at this time. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
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.
(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.
Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rooyakkers US 20170147807.
Regarding claim 1, Rooyakkers discloses an I/O station (100, see fig. 1, [0019]) for signaling between a network (120, see fig. 1) and a plurality of field devices (130, 200, see fig. 1) in an automation system (100, see fig. 1, [0019]), the I/O station comprising:
an I/O network interface (116, see fig. 1, [0022], [0036]); and
a plurality of I/O modules (104, see fig. 1, [0019]), each providing one or more I/O channels (see fig. 1, [0035]) connecting respective one or more field device(s) of the plurality of field devices, whereby each of the field devices is communicatively connected to the network via the I/O module and the network interface (see fig. 1, [0024], [0041]);
wherein at least one of the I/O modules is an APL I/O module connecting Advanced Physical Layer, APL, field device(s) of the plurality of field devices (sensors and actuators (~APL field devices), connected to the I/O, see fig. 1, [0020]-[0021]), and at least one of the I/O modules is a non-APL I/O module connecting non-APL field device(s) of the plurality of field devices (valves, binary or multistate switch, electrical switches listed, solenoids, see fig. 1, [0020]-[0021]); and
wherein the I/O station is configured for tunnelling data between at least one of the I/O modules and the network (establishing an encrypted tunnel between input/output module and the communications/control module and/or other components of the industrial control system, see [0017], [0052], [0058]).
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1, Rooyakkers further discloses wherein each of the at least one of the I/O modules comprises a tunnelling service for encapsulating payloads from the said I/O module and for de-encapsulating payloads to said I/O module (establishing an encrypted tunnel between input/output module and the communications/control module and/or other components of the industrial control system, see [0017], [0052], [0058]).
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1, Rooyakkers further discloses wherein the network interface comprises a tunnelling service for encapsulating payloads to each of the at least one I/O module and for de-encapsulating payloads from said I/O module(s).
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1, Rooyakkers further discloses wherein the tunnelling includes tunnelling through an I/O bus comprised in the I/O station (see [0028], [0030], [0041]-[0043]).
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1, Rooyakkers further discloses wherein the I/O station is configured for sending data between each of the I/O modules and the network via said I/O bus ([0028], [0035]).
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1, Rooyakkers further discloses
wherein the at least one of the I/O modules is each of the at least one APL module (see [0024], [0028], [0033]).
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 1, Rooyakkers further discloses
wherein the tunnelling comprises tunnelling a payload configured in accordance with a fieldbus communication protocol, e.g. OPC Unified Architecture, OPC UA (see [0024], [0028], [0033]).
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1, Rooyakkers further discloses wherein the APL I/O module is configured for connecting Ethernet-based APL field devices (see [0024], [0028], [0033]).
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 1, Rooyakkers further discloses wherein the at least one of the I/O modules is each of the at least one non-APL module (valves, binary or multistate switch, electrical switches listed, solenoids, connected to a I/O module, see fig. 1, [0020]-[0021] see fig. 1, [0020]-[0021]).
Regarding claim 10, Rooyakkers et al discloses an automation system comprising:
a plurality of controllers (106, see fig. 1, [0019]);
a plurality of the I/O station modules (104, see fig. 1, [0019]), each providing one or more I/O channels (see fig. 1, [0035]) connecting respective one or more field device(s) of the plurality of field devices, whereby each of the field devices is communicatively connected to the network via the I/O module and the network interface (see fig. 1, [0024], [0041]);
wherein at least one of the I/O modules is an APL I/O module connecting Advanced Physical Layer, APL, field device(s) of the plurality of field devices (sensors and actuators (~APL field devices), connected to the I/O, see fig. 1, [0020]-[0021]), and at least one of the I/O modules is a non-APL I/O module connecting non-APL field device(s) of the plurality of field devices (valves, binary or multistate switch, electrical switches listed, solenoids, see fig. 1, [0020]-[0021]); and
wherein the I/O station is configured for tunnelling data between at least one of the I/O modules and the network (establishing an encrypted tunnel between input/output module and the communications/control module and/or other components of the industrial control system, see [0017], [0052], [0058]); and
the network via which the I/O stations are communicatively connected to the controllers (see fig. 1, [0019], [0022]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shepard et al US 20090097415 discloses an I/O subsystem including a plurality of I/O ports connected to the various field devices throughout the plant, the field devices including various types of analytical equipment, silicon pressure sensors, capacitive pressure sensors, resistive temperature detectors, thermocouples, strain gauges, limit switches, on/off switches, flow transmitters, pressure transmitters, capacitance level switches, weigh scales, transducers, valve positioners, valve controllers, actuators, solenoids, indicator lights or any other device typically used in process plants.
Bansal et al US 5,146,401 discloses providing a universal interface in a process control system.
Hakemeyer US 20240396763 discloses a device for use in a mobile radio network-based automation system, includes: a mobile radio communication interface, a memory device in which a program is stored which implements an IP-based tunnel protocol.
Schnaare et al US 20240205041 discloses advanced physical layer (APL) adapter for legacy field devices.
Haridas et al US 20230266748 discloses an apparatus is disclosed connected to at least one input/output (I/O) module and to at least one controller of an industrial distributed control system. The apparatus comprises a control component including a processor that executes operating software that implements operating configurations for the apparatus. At least one I/O port is connected to the control component and configurable by the operating software to enable port configurations to connect the at least one I/O module to the apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUMIDE T AJIBADE AKONAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, CHARLES N APPIAH can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/OLUMIDE AJIBADE AKONAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights