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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP 23307183.6 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawing in a non-provisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. MPEP 1.83 states that conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box), however in this case that rectangular box 13 (first device), box 15 (second device), box 33, 37 (third, fourth device respectively), box 17 (controller), box 23 (scheduling unit), box 19 (target equipment) are essential for a proper understanding of the invention and should be labeled as such. Fig. 2 has boxes 25, 27, 57, 53, 55, 15, 33, 37, 63, 61 that should be labeled as well. Further Fig. 4 is illegible. See 37 CFR 1.83(a). 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 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 1-4 and 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Christensen et al. (US Pub 2003/0014536).
As of claims 1 and 21, Christensen discloses a field bus system for execution of at least one application, in particular for industrial automation (see fig. 1), comprising:
a first device configured to provide and transmit first device data (via device 32; see paragraphs [0030], [0032]),
at least a second device configured to provide and transmit second device data (via device 22, see paragraph [0057]),
a controller configured to compute output data from the device data (via controller 18; see paragraphs [0032] and [0056]),
at least a first target equipment configured to be controlled by the output data (via devices 22, 26; see paragraphs [0032] and [0056]),
a field bus (bus 30; see fig. 1), and
a scheduling unit for scheduling the execution of the application (via linking device 28; see paragraph [0036]), wherein the devices (24, 22), the controller 18 and the first target equipment (22, 26) are connected via the field bus for communication with the scheduling unit (see fig. 2), and wherein the scheduling unit is configured to determine impact parameters which impact an application response time of the bus system, and to schedule the execution considering the impact parameters (the linking device 28 actively schedules and controls communications on the protocol bus 30. The linking device stores and updates a communication schedule containing the times that each function block of each device is scheduled to start periodic communication activity on the bus 30 and the length of time for which this communication activity is to occur; see paragraphs [0036]. Christensen further discloses that the linking device determines the execution times of each function block and times for sending the compel data commands to each of the devices on bus 30; s see fig. 4; also ee paragraphs [0038], -[0042])
As of claim 2, Christensen discloses that the field bus system is for industrial automation (via field bus system for industrial automation; see paragraph [0024]).
As of claim 3, Christensen discloses that the first device is a first sensing device (via a sensing device 24; see paragraphs [0024]).
As of claim 4, Christensen discloses that the at least one second device is a second sensing device (via a sensing device 22; see paragraph [0024]).
As of claim 6, Christensen discloses that the scheduling unit comprises a memory component on which the impact parameters are stored, and/or wherein the scheduling unit is configured such that the impact parameters can be defined during commissioning of the bus system, and/or wherein the scheduling unit is configured to obtain the impact parameters from the first device, the at least second device, the controller, the first target equipment, and/or the field bus, and/or wherein the scheduling unit is configured to derive the impact parameters from a mathematical model of the bus system (see paragraph [0038], “The execution times of each function block are stored in the management information base (MIB) of the device in which the function block resides while, as noted above, the times for sending the compel data commands to each of the devices on the bus 30 are stored in the MIB of the lining device 28. These times are typically stored as offset times because they identify the times at which a function block is to execute or send data as an offset from the beginning of an "absolute link schedule start time," which is known by all of the devices connected to the bus 30”).
As of claim 7, Christensen discloses that the impact parameters comprise information about the first device, the second device, the controller, an output data computation time of the controller, the first target equipment, the field bus, and/or information on travel times and/or transmission speeds of the bus system see paragraph [0038], “The execution times of each function block are stored in the management information base (MIB) of the device in which the function block resides while, as noted above, the times for sending the compel data commands to each of the devices on the bus 30 are stored in the MIB of the lining device 28. These times are typically stored as offset times because they identify the times at which a function block is to execute or send data as an offset from the beginning of an "absolute link schedule start time," which is known by all of the devices connected to the bus 30”).
As of claim 8, Christensen discloses that the first device is configured to provide the first device data ready for transmission after a first device preparation time, wherein the second device is configured to provide the second device data ready for transmission after a second device preparation time, wherein the device preparation times are different, and wherien the scheduling unit is configured to determine the device preparation times (Christensen discloses that the linking device determines the execution times of each function block and the times for sending the compel data commands to each of the devices on 30, it can determine the preparation times after which the first and second devices area ready for transmission of their data; see paragraph [0038]).
As of claim 9, Christensen discloses that the at least one of the devices comprises:
a first module configured to acquire and transmit first input data, at least a second module configured to acquire and transmit at least second input data, an IO bus link, configured to receive and serialize the first input data and/or the second input data transmitted by the first module and/or the second module, and a field bus interface, configured to transmit the device data of the least one of the devices on the field bus, wherein the serialized input data form a part of the device data of the at least one of the devices, wherein the first module is configured to have the first input data ready for transmission after a first module sample time, 25 wherein the second module is configured to have the second input data ready for transmission after a second module sample time, wherein the module sample times are different, and wherein the scheduling unit is configured to determine the module sample times ( via disclosing that the PID function block 46 of the controller 18 is communicatively coupled to the AO function block 40 of the positioner/valve 22 and the AI function block 44 of the transmitter 24. While the function blocks residing within the field devices 22-26 use conventional Fieldbus link objects to communicate with one another over the non-proprietary data bus 30, the PID function block 46 residing in the controller 18 uses a custom link object located within the linking device 28 to communicate with the AI function block 44 and the AO function block 40 via the linking device 28 and the protocol bus 30; see paragraphs [0055], [0031]-[0032]).
As of claim 10, Christensen discloses that the first module comprises a first sensor and the second module comprises a second sensor, wherein the first module is configured to sample a first sensor signal of the first sensor to acquire the first input data, and wherein the second module is configured to sample a second sensor signal of the second sensor to acquire the second input data (via XMTR-1-1 with both AI function blocks; see paragraph [0024] and [0031]-[0032]).
As of claim 11, Christensen discloses that the controller is configured to compute and transmit first output data based on the transmitted first device data and/or second output data based on the transmitted second device data, wherein the controller is configured to have the first output data ready for transmission after a first output data computation time and/or the second output data ready for transmission after a second output data computation time, wherein the output data computation times are different, and wherein the scheduling unit is configured to determine the output data computation times (via disclosing that the linking device 28 is also in communication with the controller 18 and may receive information from the controller 18 to be published on the protocol bus 30. In this manner, the linking device 28 enables control loops to include function blocks in both the controller 18 and in the field devices 22-26. For example, a process control loop within the controller 18 may include several function blocks that are resident in the controller 18 that may interoperate with one or more function blocks that are resident in one or more of the field devices 22-26. Because, as will be discussed in more detail below, the linking device 28 automatically subscribes to all function block information that is published by the field devices 22-26, the linking device 28 may store a variety of information associated with the field devices 22-26 in a memory 106, including function block information associated with the devices 22-26, such as, for example, the information associated with the AI function block 44 (FIG. 2) needed by the controller 18, as well as other function block information, diagnostic information, etc; see paragraphs [0038], [0041]-[0042] and [0054]-[055]).
As of claim 12, Christensen discloses that the first target equipment is configured to be controlled by applying the transmitted first output data and/or the transmitted second output data, wherein the first target equipment is configured to have the first output data applied after a first output data applying time and/or the second output data applied after a second output data applying time, wherein the output data applying times are different, and wherein the scheduling unit is configured to determine the output data applying times (via disclosing that During each macrocycle on the protocol bus 30, each of the function blocks active on the bus 30 executes, usually at a different, but precisely scheduled (synchronous) time and, at another precisely scheduled time, publishes its output data on the bus 30 in response to a compel data command generated by the master LAS, which is the linking device 28; (see paragraph [0038]) and via disclosing that during any particular macrocycle of the bus 30 (FIG. 1), the AI.sub.Loop1 function block executes first for the time period represented by the box 50. Then, during the time period indicated by the vertical bar 52, the output of the AI.sub.LOOP1 function block is published on the bus 30 in response to a compel data command from the LAS. Likewise, the boxes 5462 indicate the execution times of the function blocks PID.sub.LOOP1, AI.sub.LOOP2, AO.sub.LOOP1, AO.sub.LOOP2, and PID.sub.LOOP3, respectively (which are different for each of the different blocks), while the vertical bars 66, 70 and 72 indicate the times that the function blocks AI.sub.LOOP2, AO.sub.LOOP2, and PID.sub.LOOP3, respectively, publish data on the bus 30; see paragraph [0042]).
As of claim 13, Christensen discloses that the scheduling unit is configured to schedule the transmission of the device data in the order of the module sample times, the device preparation times, the output data computation times, and/or the output data applying times, and/or wherein the scheduling unit is configured to schedule the transmission of the input data to the 10 bus link in the order of the module sample times, the device preparation times, the output data computation times, and/or the output data applying times, and/or wherein the scheduling unit is configured to schedule the computation of the output data, and/or the transmission of the output data on the field bus, in the order of the module sample times, the device preparation times, the output data computation times, and/or the output data applying times (via disclosing that during any particular macrocycle of the bus 30 (FIG. 1), the AI.sub.Loop1 function block executes first for the time period represented by the box 50. Then, during the time period indicated by the vertical bar 52, the output of the AI.sub.LOOP1 function block is published on the bus 30 in response to a compel data command from the LAS. Likewise, the boxes 5462 indicate the execution times of the function blocks PID.sub.LOOP1, AI.sub.LOOP2, AO.sub.LOOP1, AO.sub.LOOP2, and PID.sub.LOOP3, respectively (which are different for each of the different blocks), while the vertical bars 66, 70 and 72 indicate the times that the function blocks AI.sub.LOOP2, AO.sub.LOOP2, and PID.sub.LOOP3, respectively, publish data on the bus 30; see paragraph [0042]).
As of claims 14-16, Christensen discloses that the scheduling unit is configured to schedule the transmission of the output data on the field bus upon computation of all output data, or wherein the scheduling unit is configured to schedule the transmission of the first output data on the field bus upon computation of the first output data, and/or wherein the scheduling unit is configured to schedule the computation of the first output data, even if not yet having received the complete second input data (see the rejection of claim 13, also see paragraph [0042]).
As of claim 17, Christensen discloses that the scheduling unit is configured to schedule the execution of the application in a cyclically repetitive manner (via executing in a cyclically repetitive manner; see paragraph [0041]).
As of claim 18, Christensen discloses that the controller comprises the scheduling unit (LAS can by any other device having a link master capability; see paragraph [0036]).
As of claim 19, Christensen discloses that the controller is configured to sequentially compute the output data from the device data (via disclosing that the data publishing times of the different function blocks are scheduled serially; see paragraph [0038]).
As of claim 20, Christensen discloses that the at least a data forwarder, wherein the data forwarder is configured to transmit the beginning of a data block even though it has not yet received the end of the data block (via disclosing that the linking device 28 monitors all the communications on the smart field device protocol bus and processes the monitored communications so that function block information subscribed to by the controller may be conveyed to the controller as needed, identification information (e.g., addresses, tags, etc.) associated with a field device may be conveyed to a user terminal, and diagnostic information (such as timing and linking problems) associated with the field device protocol bus can be generated by detecting a deviation between the actual communications on the bus and the scheduled communications in accordance with a link active schedule that is stored in the linking device 28; see paragraph [0049]).
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 (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 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen et al. (US Pub 2003/0014536).
As of claim 5, Christensen discloses all the limitations of the claimed inventio as mentioned in claim 1 above, however it does not explicitly disclose that the bus 30 is a Sercos bus. The Examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art that the field devices and the computing devices can be connected to one another via the data network, wherein the data network can preferably be a field bus (e.g. Sercos III, EtherCAT, EIP and the like; see Furth (US Pub 2024/0142918).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Enver et al. (US 8005,553) discloses a system that assigns various function blocks of a control module to an input/output card on a Fieldbus segment, and that generates schedules to execute the function blocks of the control module synchronously within the Fieldbus segment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Davetta W Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/NABIL H SYED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights