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 .
Claim Objections - Formality
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1, “A” should be “--An--“.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 2nd
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 17 and 18 recites the limitation "the secondary device" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 17 and 18 recites the limitation "the apparatus" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 17 amd 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buttner et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0236712), hereinafter Buttner in view of Rompacy (U.S. Patent 5,870,588), hereinafter Rompacy.
Referring to claim 17 similar to claims 9 and 18, Buttner teaches, as claimed, a data processing apparatus, comprising computing instructions, that when executed by a computer, cause the computer to:
- Receive data from the secondary devices (field devices, see Paragraph 3) via at least master port (master-slave mode, see Paragraph 4) of the apparatus, the at least master port being configured to connect to the secondary devices,
- Process the received data for a point-to-point communication (point-to-point connection, see Paragraph 5) of the apparatus with the master device,
- Provide modified data (data into telegram, see Paragraph 5) based on the processing (process, see Paragraph 5), the modified data being specific for the data received from each of the secondary devices, and
- Send the modified data to (return the telegram to the master, see Paragraph 5) the master device via a device port (slave port, see Paragraph 10) of the apparatus the device port being configured to connect to the one port of the master device.
Buttner does not disclose expressly at least two master ports.
Rompacy does disclose at least two master ports (channel connecting two master ports, see Column 13, line 55).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate additional master port into Buttner.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to extend the capability existing master/slave system (see Column 13, Lines 53 to 59).
Regarding claim 20, the method of claim 9, characterized in that at least one of: the device port is configured to connect to the one port of the master device by wire (wired, see Buttner Paragraph 3), and/or the at least two master ports are configured to connect to the secondary devices by wire.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 19 are allowed.
Claims 10-15 are 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hyun Nam whose telephone number is (571) 270-1725 and fax number is (571) 270-2725. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dr. Henry Tsai can be reached on (571) 272-4176. 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.
/HYUN NAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Prosecution Insights