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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 11/06/2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "T2" used in Figs 1 and 2 is designated for second data frame through the second data bus 9, while as the specification designates characters "TR2" for the second data frame. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1- 14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 8 recite the limitation “the second bidirectional data bus connecting two control nodes of the master control node.” The claims introduce the master has one control node; however, later on the claims introduce the master has two control nodes. The limitation “one control node…two control nodes” recited in claims 1 and 8 renders the claims indefinite, because the claims includes elements and functions not actually disclosed (those encompassed by the control nodes of the master), thereby rendering the claims confusing, vague, and indefinite.
Claims 2- 7 and 9- 14 are rejected by virtue of its dependency on claims 1 and 8, thereby containing all the limitations of the claims on which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1- 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smirnov et al. (US 20230213061 A1) in view of Huck et al. (US 20130258906 A1).
Re. claims 1 and 8, Smirnov discloses a method for controlling a magnetic bearing (¶. [0025]),
the method comprising:
providing a control loop (Fig. 1) comprising
a first bidirectional data bus (see Bus 103 coupling 107 and 102),
a second bidirectional data bus (see Bus 103 coupling 102s), a master control node (106), and at least two slave control nodes (102 and 105),
the first bidirectional data bus connecting the master control node (106) and the at least two slave control nodes (102 and 105) in series,
the second bidirectional data bus connecting two control nodes of the master control node (node the two coupling 106 to 105 and 102 through 107) and the at least two slave control nodes situated at each end of the control loop to one another (see 102), each slave control node controlling a different servocontrol axis of the magnetic bearing (¶. [0035];)
the master control node transmitting a first data frame through the first data bus (digital data transmitted from 106 to 105 to 102); and
Smirnov does not teach the master control node transmitting a second data frame through the second data bus, the first frame and the second frame being identical.
Huck discloses in figure 2 a master control node (201) transmitting a first data frame through the first data bus (213) and a second data frame through the second data bus (213), the first frame and the second frame being identical.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Smirnov with the teaching of Huck to design master control node with the possibility of transmitting two identical message through different busses in order to provide redundancy in the functions of the communication system with the goal of increasing reliability of the system, usually in the form of a backup or fail-safe, or to improve actual system performance.
Re. claims 2, 3 and 9, the combination of Smirnov and Huck discloses wherein each data frame comprises as many predetermined locations as slave and master control nodes, each predetermined location being associated with a slave or master control node so that each slave or master control node knows the address of the predetermined location associated with said node, each frame comprising a sequence of bits, transmitting the first frame comprising sequentially transmitting the bits of said frame and transmitting the second frame comprising sequentially transmitting the bits of said frame (Huck, ¶. [0032]- [0036]).
Re. claims 4- 5 and 11- 12, the combination of Smirnov and Huck discloses wherein each data frame comprises servocontrol data of the slave control nodes (a rotating shafts in Smirnov) and the first data bus and the second data bus are synchronous buses (Huck, ¶. [0026]- [0028]).
Re. claims 6- 7 and 13- 14, the combination of Smirnov and Huck discloses wherein each data frame comprises servocontrol data of the slave control nodes (a rotating shafts in Smirnov) and the first data bus and the second data bus are synchronous buses (Huck, ¶. [0026]- [0028]).
Re. claim 10, the combination of Smirnov and Huck discloses wherein each slave and master control node comprises writing means configured to write data of said node to the bits associated with the predetermined location of said node in the first frame and the second frame (Huck, ¶. [0032] and [0040]).
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAID BOUZIANE whose telephone number is (571)272-7592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-15:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at Colon-Santana. 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.
/SAID BOUZIANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights