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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to the application filed on January 22, 2025. Claims 1-11 were presented and are pending examination.
Drawings
The drawings filed on January 22, 2025, are accepted.
Examiner’s Note about the Format of 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejections
Generally, limitations of a claim are reproduced identically and followed by examiner’s explanation with citation from prior art in Italic enclosed by a parenthesis, (), for each limitation. In examiner’s explanation, the mapping of the key elements of a limitation to the disclosed elements of prior art is shown by stating the disclosed element immediately followed by the claimed element inside a parenthesis. Specific quotation from prior art is delineated with quotation mark, ““. If primary art fails to teach a limitation or part of the limitation, the limitation or the part of the limitation is placed inside double square brackets, [[ ]], for better understandability, and appropriate secondary art(s) is/are applied later addressing the deficiency of the primary art.
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 1-5, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adragna et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20200244518 A1), hereinafter, Adragna.
Regarding claim 1:
Adragna teaches:
A diagnostics method, comprising (see Fig. 4):
providing a process control system, the process control system configured to communicate with at least one network device via a network, wherein the process control system comprises a first component and a second component (Fig. 3 shows control system to communicate with field devices 323, 324 (network device) wherein the control system comprises PLC A 321 (first component) and PLC B 322 (second component) as explained in paragraph 0020); and
running diagnostics on the network to determine whether a network fault renders the first component essential for the second component to connect to the at least one network device (paragraph failure diagnostic process using heartbeat signal as stated, “Detection of failure may include the use of e.g. a heartbeat signal or other know means for monitoring operation”. Paragraph 0026 discloses in case of failure the primary PLC 321, connection the field devices is established using the secondary PLC b 322. Also see paragraph 0028 stating “As will be understood, once the failover process is finished and the secondary PLC standing by has taken over the function and tasks, the secondary PLC will operate as the primary PLC. And once the failure of the formerly primary PLC is remedied, the formerly primary PLC may start to operate as the secondary PLC.”. Fig. 3 shows a daisy chain network topology and determining it is safe to take out primary PLC in case of failure since the field device can be monitored through the secondary PLC as explained in paragprhe 0020).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Adragna teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Adragna further teaches wherein the diagnostics are operable to classify each of the first and second components as having the status "primary", "active backup", or "inactive backup" (paragraph 0028 discloses primary PLC and secondary PLC as backup).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Adragna teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Adragna further teaches wherein the diagnostics are operable to make said determination by executing a rule-based algorithm which depends on a network topology and/or a redundancy protocol used (paragraph 0021 discloses determining failure using heartbeat mechanism).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Adragna teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as shown above.
Adragna further teaches wherein the rule-based algorithm evaluates network topology as affected by the network fault with respect to one or more predefined topology rules for a redundancy protocol being implemented (paragraph 0021 discloses determining failure using heartbeat mechanism. Fig. 3 shows a daisy chain network topology and determining it is safe to take out primary PLC in case of failure since the field device can be monitored through the secondary PLC as explained in paragraph 0020).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Adragna teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as shown above.
Adragna further teaches further comprising first determining the presence of the network fault (paragraph 0021 discloses determining failure using heartbeat).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Adragna teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as shown above.
Adragna further teaches wherein a rule states that, in the case of a redundant network with a first network connected to a first controller and a second network connected to a second controller, with connectivity issues to any network device on one or both of the first and second controllers, only the controller which has connectivity issues can safely be taken out of operation (Fig. 3 shows Field devices are connected to the primary PLC A (first controller) and secondary PLC B (second controller). Paragraph 0028 discloses in case of any failure of primary PLC, it is taken out of action. Paragraph 0026 discloses disable ethernet port corresponding to the primary PLC).
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 is directed towards a computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform the method of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
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.
Claims 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adragna in view of Fang et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20240073093 A1), hereinafter Fang.
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Adragna teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as shown above.
Adragna teaches wherein when the network has a ring topology with more than one controller, and a network fault is present, [[a rule states that it is not safe to take any controller out of operation]] (Fig. 3 shows a ring topology).
Adragna does not teach a rule states that it is not safe to take any controller out of operation.
Fang teaches a rule states that it is not safe to take any controller out of operation (paragraph 0111 discloses not disabling a controller connected to other controllers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adragna to incorporate the teaching of Fang. One would be motivated to do that to avoid single point failure (see paragraph 0111 of Fang).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Adragna teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as shown above.
Adragna does not teach wherein a rule states that, for line topologies, when the neighboring network element is a controller and more than one port is used, that controller is unsafe to take out of operation.
Fang teaches wherein a rule states that, for line topologies, when the neighboring network element is a controller and more than one port is used, that controller is unsafe to take out of operation (paragraph 0111 discloses not disabling a controller in star network connected to other controllers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adragna to incorporate the teaching of Fang. One would be motivated to do that to avoid single point failure (see paragraph 0111 of Fang).
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Adragna teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Adragna further teaches further comprising outputting a notification following a determination that the first component has been rendered essential and therefore cannot safely be taken out of operation.
Fang teaches further comprising outputting a notification following a determination that the first component has been rendered essential and therefore cannot safely be taken out of operation (paragraph 0111 discloses not disabling a controller connected to other controllers. Paragraph 0245 discloses event notification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adragna to incorporate the teaching of Fang. One would be motivated to do that to enable user intervention (see paragraph 0245 of Fang).
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Adragna teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as shown above.
Adragna does not teach further comprising displaying the notification on a user interface.
Fang further teaches further comprising displaying the notification on a user interface (paragraph 0245 discloses notification in user interface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adragna to incorporate the teaching of Fang. One would be motivated to do that to enable user intervention (see paragraph 0245 of Fang).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL M HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3070. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
September 22, 2026
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights