CTNF 19/056,973 CTNF 81278 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1 – 15 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims could be interpreted to be directed to a form of energy. Claim 11 is rejected because applicant has provided evidence that the applicant intends the term " computer program product ” to include non-statutory matter. Applicant defines a “computer program product” as the combination of a computer readable means and software (Paragraph [0023]). The applicant describes the computer program product as including open ended language and thus it is reasonable to interpret it to include all possible computer readable means, including non-statutory means (Paragraph [0023]). The words "storage" and/or "recording" are insufficient to convey only statutory embodiments to one of ordinary skill in the art absent an explicit and deliberate limiting definition or clear differentiation between storage media and transitory media in the disclosure. As such, the claim(s) is/are drawn to a form of energy. Energy is not one of the four categories of invention and therefore this/these claim(s) is/are not statutory. Energy is not a series of steps or acts and thus is not a process. Energy is not a physical article or object and as such is not a machine or manufacture. Energy is not a combination of substances and therefore not a composition of matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-34-01 Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 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. 07-34-10 Regarding claim 5, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). 07-34-10 Regarding claim 6, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). 07-34-10 Regarding claim 14, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). 07-34-10 Regarding claim 15, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1 – 5 and 7 – 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0277411 (hereinafter Nakajima) . As per claims 1, 7, 8, and 11, Nakajima teaches a input-output, I/O, station (Nakajima; Figure 1 Items 20 and 30), connected with a plurality of network devices (Nakajima; Figure 1 Items 10, 40, 50, and 60) in an automation system (Nakajima; Figure 1 Item 10), the I/O station comprising: a plurality of I/O modules (Nakajima; Figure 1 Items 20a and 20b), each I/O module providing one or more I/O channels (Nakajima; Figure 1 “L”), each I/O channel connecting a respective field device (Nakajima; Figure 1 Items 11a, 11b, 12a, and 12b); an I/O network interface (Nakajima; Figure 1 Items 30, 31, and 33) for forwarding data between the I/O modules and the network devices via a network (Nakajima; Figure 1 “C2”); a data storage (Nakajima; Figure 1 Item 32) storing a set of diagnostics data, the set comprising a plurality of entries of diagnostics data, each entry relating to performance of the automation system; wherein the I/O station is operative to, in response to a request from anyone of the network devices, send the stored set of diagnostics data to the requesting network device (Nakajima; Paragraphs [0041], [0043], and [0045] – [0047]); and wherein at least one of the entries in the stored set of diagnostics data relates to a condition of one of the I/O modules just before an unscheduled shutdown of said I/O module (Nakajima; Paragraph [0043]). As per claim 2, Nakajima also teaches wherein each of the entries relating to performance of the automation system relates to performance of the network interface, one of the field devices, one of the I/O modules or one of the I/O channels of the I/O station (Nakajima; Paragraph [0039]). As per claims 3, 10, and 12, Nakajima also teaches wherein each of some or all of the entries in the stored set of diagnostics data is stored in association with a respective timestamp indicating a time when the diagnostics data of the entry was obtained (Nakajima; Paragraph [0039]). As per claims 4 and 13, Nakajima also teaches wherein the data storage (Nakajima; Figure 1 Item 32) is comprised in the I/O network interface (Nakajima; Figure 1 Item 30) and/or in one or more of the I/O modules and/or in a baseplate providing a slot to which the I/O network interface and/or I/O module is mechanically connected in the I/O station. As per claims 5 and 14, Nakajima also teaches wherein the network devices include any of: one or more controller(s) (Nakajima; Figure 1 Item 40), one or more human-machine interface(s) and one or more engineering tool(s), and any other device. As per claim 9, Nakajima teaches wherein the diagnostics data which is stored as the entry in the set of diagnostics data replaces previously stored diagnostics data in the set, thus updating the set of diagnostics data (Nakajima; Paragraph [0047]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0277411 (hereinafter Nakajima) in view of US Patent No. 12,632,295 (hereinafter Read) . As per claims 6 and 15, Nakajima teaches the invention as described per claims 1 and 2 (see rejection of claims 1 and 2 above). Nakajima does not explicitly teach wherein the I/O station, e.g. the I/O network interface, is configured to send the stored set of diagnostics data via the network in accordance with an OPC Unified Architecture, OPC UA, or Process Field Network, PROFINET, communication protocol. However, Read teaches an industrial network in which field devices communicate with computer systems over OPC-UA or PROFINET communication protocols (Read; Col 6 Lines 34 – 43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Nakajima to include the communication protocols because doing so allows for communication in an intrinsically safe manner (Read; Col 6 Lines 34 – 43). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD B FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0669. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm. 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, Idriss Alrobaye can be reached at (571) 270-1023. 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. /RICHARD B FRANKLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2181 Application/Control Number: 19/056,973 Page 2 Art Unit: 2181 Application/Control Number: 19/056,973 Page 3 Art Unit: 2181 Application/Control Number: 19/056,973 Page 4 Art Unit: 2181 Application/Control Number: 19/056,973 Page 6 Art Unit: 2181
Prosecution Insights