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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “node device is configured to perform… and execute” in Claim 1; “node device is configured to…correct…and perform…” in Claim 2; “node device to perform… and execute” in Claim 9; “node device is configured to perform…and execute” in Claim 12; and “node device is configured to maintain…” in Claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. See MPEP 2111.04(II). "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,287,667 to Chen et al. (“Chen”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the aforementioned claims of Chen recite, in substantially equivalent form, all of the limitations of the aforementioned claims of the instant application, as follows:
Claim 1 (Instant Application)
Claim 1 (Chen)
A control system, wherein:
A control system, wherein:
the control system comprises a ring network,
the control system comprises a ring network,
and the ring network comprises a primary controller and at least one node device;
and the ring network comprises a primary controller and at least one node device;
the primary controller is configured to:
the primary controller is configured to:
send a reference clock signal to the at least one node device by using the ring network,
send a reference clock signal to the at least one node device by using the ring network,
wherein the reference clock signal is obtained by performing frequency division on a local clock signal of the primary controller;
wherein the reference clock signal is obtained based on the local clock signal of the primary controller;
and the at least one node device is configured to perform timing based on a frequency of the reference clock signal.
and the at least one node device is configured to perform timing and execute a second task based on a frequency of the reference clock signal.
Claim 2 (Instant Application)
Claim 2 (Chen)
wherein the at least one node device comprises a phase-locked loop,
wherein the at least one node device comprises a phase-locked loop,
and the at least one node device is configured to: correct a frequency of a local clock signal of the node device, based on the frequency of the reference clock signal by using the phase-locked loop, to maintain a target ratio between the frequency of the local clock signal of the node device and the frequency of the reference clock signal;
and the at least one node device is configured to: correct a frequency of a local clock signal of the node device, based on the frequency of the reference clock signal by using the phase-locked loop, to maintain a target ratio between the frequency of the local clock signal of the node device and the frequency of the reference clock signal;
and perform timing based on the frequency of the local clock signal of the node device.
and perform timing based on the frequency of the local clock signal of the node device.
Claim 3 (Instant Application)
Claim 3 (Chen)
wherein the at least one node device is at least one secondary controller,
wherein the at least one node device is at least one secondary controller,
the control system further comprises at least one sensor and at least one executor,
the control system further comprises at least one sensor and at least one executor,
the at least one sensor is connected to the primary controller or the at least one secondary controller,
the at least one sensor is connected to the primary controller or the at least one secondary controller,
and the at least one executor is connected to the primary controller or the at least one secondary controller.
and the at least one executor is connected to the primary controller or the at least one secondary controller.
Claim 4 (Instant Application)
Claim 4 (Chen)
wherein the primary controller is further configured to: determine a task that needs to be executed by the primary controller and an execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the primary controller;
wherein the primary controller is further configured to: determine the task that needs to be executed by the primary controller and an execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the primary controller;
determine the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller and an execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller;
determine the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller and an execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller;
execute a task at the execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the primary controller;
execute a task at the execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the primary controller;
and send a task scheduling table to the at least one secondary controller,
and send a task scheduling table to the at least one secondary controller,
wherein the task scheduling table received by the at least one secondary controller comprises the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller and the execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller;
wherein the task scheduling table received by the at least one secondary controller comprises the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller and the execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller;
and wherein the at least one secondary controller is configured to execute, based on the task scheduling table, a task at the execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller.
wherein the at least one secondary controller is configured to execute, based on the task scheduling table, a task at the execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller.
Claim 5 (Instant Application)
Claim 5 (Chen)
wherein the primary controller is further configured to: divide a general data processing task into a plurality of data processing tasks;
wherein the primary controller is further configured to: divide a general data processing task into a plurality of data processing tasks;
and determine, based on load of the primary controller and load of the at least one secondary controller, a data processing task that needs to be executed by the primary controller and a data processing task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller.
and determine, based on load of the primary controller and load of the at least one secondary controller, a data processing task that needs to be executed by the primary controller and a data processing task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller.
Claim 6 (Instant Application)
Claim 6 (Chen)
wherein the at least one secondary controller further stores a priority list, the priority list comprises a priority of the at least one secondary controller,
wherein the at least one secondary controller further stores a priority list, the priority list comprises a priority of the at least one secondary controller,
and the at least one secondary controller is further configured to: if it is determined that the primary controller is faulty or any signal cable connected to the primary controller is faulty, determine a new primary controller from the at least one secondary controller based on the priority list.
and the at least one secondary controller is further configured to: if it is determined that the primary controller is faulty or any signal cable connected to the primary controller is faulty, determine a new primary controller from the at least one secondary controller based on the priority list.
Claim 7 (Instant Application)
Claim 7 (Chen)
wherein the primary controller and the at least one secondary controller are further configured to: send target data to another controller in the control system by using the ring network;
wherein the primary controller and the at least one secondary controller are further configured to: send target data to another controller in the control system by using the ring network;
and if the target data transmitted by using the ring network is not received or received target data transmitted by using the ring network is inconsistent with the sent target data, perform at least one of fault detection on the ring network or resending the target data.
and if the target data transmitted by using the ring network is not received or received target data transmitted by using the ring network is inconsistent with the sent target data, perform at least one of fault detection on the ring network or resending the target data.
Claim 8 (Instant Application)
Claim 8 (Chen)
wherein the control system further comprises a gateway, the gateway is connected to the primary controller or the at least one node device,
wherein the control system further comprises a gateway, the gateway is connected to the primary controller or the at least one node device,
and the gateway is configured to: send, to an external device, data from a device connected to the gateway;
and the gateway is configured to: send, to an external device, data from a device connected to the gateway;
and send, to the device connected to the gateway, data from the external device, wherein the external device is a device independent of the control system.
and send, to the device connected to the gateway, data from the external device, wherein the external device is a device independent of the control system.
Claim 9 (Instant Application)
Claim 10 (Chen)
A clock synchronization method,
A clock synchronization method,
applied to a primary controller in a control system,
applied to a primary controller in a control system, clock signal.
wherein the control system comprises a ring network,
wherein the control system comprises a ring network,
the ring network comprises the primary controller and at least one node device,
the ring network comprises the primary controller and at least one node device,
and the method comprises: sending a reference clock signal to the at least one node device by using the ring network,
and the method comprises…sending a reference clock signal to the at least one node device by using the ring network,
wherein the reference clock signal is obtained by performing frequency division on a local clock signal of the primary controller,
wherein the reference clock signal is obtained by performing frequency division on the local clock signal of the primary controller,
and the reference clock signal is used by the at least one node device to perform timing based on a frequency of the reference clock signal.
and the reference clock signal is used by the at least one node device to perform timing and execute a second task based on a frequency of the reference
Claim 10 (Instant Application)
Claim 11 (Chen)
wherein the at least one node device is at least one secondary controller,
wherein the at least one node device is at least one secondary controller,
the control system further comprises at least one sensor and at least one executor,
the control system further comprises at least one sensor and at least one executor,
the at least one sensor is connected to the primary controller or the at least one secondary controller,
the at least one sensor is connected to the primary controller or the at least one secondary controller,
and the at least one executor is connected to the primary controller or the at least one secondary controller.
and the at least one executor is connected to the primary controller or the at least one secondary controller.
Claim 11 (Instant Application)
Claim 12 (Chen)
wherein the method further comprises: if it is detected that any task is not executed at an execution moment of the any task, performing a fault response operation,
wherein the method further comprises: if it is detected that any task is not executed at an execution moment of the any task, performing a fault response operation,
wherein the fault response operation comprises one or more of the following operations:
wherein the fault response operation comprises one or more of the following operations:
restarting a device for executing the any task, wherein the device is the primary controller or the at least one node device;
restarting a device for executing the any task, wherein the device is the primary controller or the at least one node device;
restarting at least one of a sensor or an executor connected to the device for executing the any task;
restarting at least one of a sensor or an executor connected to the device for executing the any task;
and executing a security task configured in the primary controller.
and executing a security task configured in the primary controller.
Claim 12 (Instant Application)
Claim 13 (Chen)
A vehicle,
A vehicle,
wherein the vehicle comprises a control system,
wherein the vehicle comprises a control system,
the control system comprises a ring network,
the control system comprises a ring network,
and the ring network comprises a primary controller and at least one node device;
and the ring network comprises a primary controller and at least one node device;
the primary controller is configured to:
the primary controller is configured to:
send a reference clock signal to the at least one node device by using the ring network,
send a reference clock signal to the at least one node device by using the ring network,
wherein the reference clock signal is obtained by performing frequency division on a local clock signal of the primary controller;
wherein the reference clock signal is obtained based on the local clock signal of the primary controller;
and the at least one node device is configured to perform timing based on a frequency of the reference clock signal.
and the at least one node device is configured to perform timing and execute a second task based on a frequency of the reference clock signal.
Claim 13 (Instant Application)
Claim 14 (Chen)
wherein the at least one node device comprises a phase-locked loop,
wherein the at least one node device comprises a phase-locked loop,
and the at least one node device is configured to: correct a frequency of a local clock signal of the node device, based on the frequency of the reference clock signal by using the phase-locked loop, to maintain a target ratio between the frequency of the local clock signal of the node device and the frequency of the reference clock signal;
and the at least one node device is configured to: correct a frequency of a local clock signal of the node device, based on the frequency of the reference clock signal by using the phase-locked loop, to maintain a target ratio between the frequency of the local clock signal of the node device and the frequency of the reference clock signal;
and perform timing based on the frequency of the local clock signal of the node device.
and perform timing based on the frequency of the local clock signal of the node device.
Claim 14 (Instant Application)
Claim 15 (Chen)
wherein the at least one node device is at least one secondary controller,
wherein the at least one node device is at least one secondary controller,
the control system further comprises at least one sensor and at least one executor,
the control system further comprises at least one sensor and at least one executor,
the at least one sensor is connected to the primary controller or the at least one secondary controller,
the at least one sensor is connected to the primary controller or the at least one secondary controller,
and the at least one executor is connected to the primary controller or the at least one secondary controller.
and the at least one executor is connected to the primary controller or the at least one secondary controller.
Claim 15 (Instant Application)
Claim 16 (Chen)
wherein the primary controller is further configured to: determine a task that needs to be executed by the primary controller and an execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the primary controller;
wherein the primary controller is further configured to: determine the task that needs to be executed by the primary controller and an execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the primary controller;
determine the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller and an execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller;
determine the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller and an execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller;
execute a task at the execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the primary controller;
execute a task at the execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the primary controller;
and send a task scheduling table to the at least one secondary controller,
and send a task scheduling table to the at least one secondary controller,
wherein the task scheduling table received by the at least one secondary controller comprises the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller and the execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller;
wherein the task scheduling table received by the at least one secondary controller comprises the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller and the execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller;
and wherein the at least one secondary controller is configured to execute, based on the task scheduling table, a task at the execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller.
wherein the at least one secondary controller is configured to execute, based on the task scheduling table, a task at the execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller.
Claim 16 (Instant Application)
Claim 17 (Chen)
wherein the primary controller is further configured to: divide a general data processing task into a plurality of data processing tasks;
wherein the primary controller is further configured to: divide a general data processing task into a plurality of data processing tasks;
and determine, based on load of the primary controller and load of the at least one secondary controller, a data processing task that needs to be executed by the primary controller and a data processing task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller.
and determine, based on load of the primary controller and load of the at least one secondary controller, a data processing task that needs to be executed by the primary controller and a data processing task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller.
Claim 17 (Instant Application)
Claim 18 (Chen)
wherein the at least one secondary controller further stores a priority list, the priority list comprises a priority of the at least one secondary controller,
wherein the at least one secondary controller further stores a priority list, the priority list comprises a priority of the at least one secondary controller,
and the at least one secondary controller is further configured to: if it is determined that the primary controller is faulty or any signal cable connected to the primary controller is faulty, determine a new primary controller from the at least one secondary controller based on the priority list.
and the at least one secondary controller is further configured to: if it is determined that the primary controller is faulty or any signal cable connected to the primary controller is faulty, determine a new primary controller from the at least one secondary controller based on the priority list.
Claim 18 (Instant Application)
Claim 19 (Chen)
wherein the primary controller and the at least one secondary controller are further configured to: send target data to another controller in the control system by using the ring network;
wherein the primary controller and the at least one secondary controller are further configured to: send target data to another controller in the control system by using the ring network;
and if the target data transmitted by using the ring network is not received or received target data transmitted by using the ring network is inconsistent with the sent target data, perform at least one of fault detection on the ring network or resending the target data.
and if the target data transmitted by using the ring network is not received or received target data transmitted by using the ring network is inconsistent with the sent target data, perform at least one of fault detection on the ring network or resending the target data.
Claim 19 (Instant Application)
Claim 20 (Chen)
wherein the control system further comprises a gateway, the gateway is connected to the primary controller or the at least one node device,
wherein the control system further comprises a gateway, the gateway is connected to the primary controller or the at least one node device,
and the gateway is configured to: send, to an external device, data from a device connected to the gateway;
and the gateway is configured to: send, to an external device, data from a device connected to the gateway;
and send, to the device connected to the gateway, data from the external device, wherein the external device is a device independent of the control system.
and send, to the device connected to the gateway, data from the external device, wherein the external device is a device independent of the control system.
Claim 20 (Instant Application)
Claim 9 (Chen)
wherein the at least one node device is configured to maintain a target ratio between a frequency of a local clock signal of the node device and the frequency of the reference clock signal.
wherein the at least one node device is configured to maintain a target ratio between a frequency of a local clock signal of the node device and the frequency of the reference clock signal.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0145849 to Tam (“Tam) and US Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0086949 to Kamiya (“Kamiya”).
In reference to Claim 1, Tam discloses a control system, wherein the control system comprises a ring network (See Figure 1 Number 100 and Paragraph 20), and the ring network comprises a primary controller (See Figure 1 Number N0 and Paragraph 20) and at least one node device (See Figure 1 Numbers N1-N5 and Paragraph 20); the primary controller is configured to: send a reference clock signal to the at least one node device by using the ring network (See Figures 1 and 2 CLK_01 and Paragraphs 23 and 31); and the at least one node device is configured to perform timing (See Paragraph 25) based on a frequency of the reference clock signal (See Paragraphs 25). Tam further discloses that the reference clock signal is variable and can be frequency scaled based on system demands and power optimization (See Paragraph 23), but is silent as to the particular structure of the reference clock generator (See Figure 2 Number 201). Kamiya discloses a variable frequency clock generator (See Figure 1 Number 10) that generates an output clock signal by performing frequency division (See Figure 1 Numbers 2 and 3, Figure 2 Number 2, and Paragraphs 22, 24, and 31-44) on an input clock signal (See Figure 1 Number 1 and Paragraph 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Tam using the variable frequency clock generator having a frequency divider of Kamiya, resulting in the invention of Claim 1, because Tam is silent as to the particular structure of the variable frequency clock generator, and the simple substitution of the variable frequency clock generator having a frequency divider of Kamiya as the variable frequency clock generator of Tam would have yielded the predictable result of allowing the frequency of the reference clock signal to be changed based on the system demands (See Paragraph 23 of Tam and Paragraph 3 of Kamiya) in a matter that reduces problems caused by other types of variable frequency clock generators such as the switching time of the clock and area overheads of the circuit (See Paragraphs 5-7 of Kamiya).
Claim 9 recites limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 1 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
In reference to Claim 11, Tam and Kamiya disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 9 above. Tam and Kamiya further disclose that if it is detected that any task is not executed at an execution moment of the any task, performing a fault response operation, wherein the fault response operation comprises one or more of the following operations: restarting a device for executing the any task, wherein the device is the primary controller or the at least one node device; restarting at least one of a sensor or an executor connected to the device for executing the any task; and executing a security task configured in the primary controller.
It is noted that Claim 11 is a method claim reciting contingent limitations. As indicated above, if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.
In reference to Claim 20, Tam and Kamiya disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Tam further discloses that the at least one node device is configured to maintain a target ratio between the frequency of the local clock signal of the node device and the frequency of the reference clock signal (See Paragraphs 22-25 and 33);
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tam and Kamiya as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0184664 to Weyer et al. (“Weyer”).
In reference to Claim 2, Tam and Kamiya disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Tam further discloses that the at least one node device is configured to: correct a frequency of a local clock signal of the node devices based on the frequency of the reference clock signal to maintain a target ratio between the frequency of the local clock signal of the node device and the frequency of the reference clock signal (See Paragraphs 22-25 and 33); and perform timing based on the frequency of the local clock signal of the node device (See Paragraphs 22-25 and 33). Tam does not explicitly disclose that the at least one node device comprises a phase-locked loop, and the at least one node device is configured to: correct a frequency of a local clock signal of the node devices based on the frequency of the reference clock signal by using the phase-locked loop, to maintain a target ratio between the frequency of the local clock signal of the node device and the frequency of the reference clock signal. Weyer discloses correcting a frequency of a local clock signal based on a frequency of a reference clock signal by using a phase-locked loop, to maintain a target ratio between the frequency of the local clock signal of the node device and the frequency of the reference clock signal (See Paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Tam and Kamiya using the phase-locked loop of Weyer to correct the frequency of the local clock signal, resulting in the invention of Claim 2, in order to yield the predictable result of synchronizing the local clock signal and the reference clock signal using a commonly used clock synchronization device (See Paragraph 2 of Weyer).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tam and Kamiya as applied to Claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0091320 to Fujiwara et al. (“Fujiwara”).
In reference to Claim 3, Tam discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Tam further discloses that the at least one node device is at least one secondary controller (See Paragraph 25). Tam does not explicitly disclose that the control system further comprises at least one sensor and at least one executor, the at least one sensor is connected to the primary controller or the at least one secondary controller, and the at least one executor is connected to the primary controller or the at least one secondary controller. Fujiwara discloses a control system comprising a ring network (See Figure 1 Number 003 and Paragraph 38), the ring network having a primary controller (See Figure 1 Number 001 and Paragraph 37) and at least one node device (See Figure 1 Numbers 002a – 002d and Paragraph 37), wherein the at least one node device is at least one secondary controller (See Paragraph 37), the control system further comprises at least one sensor (See Paragraphs 46-47) and at least one executor (See Paragraphs 46-47 [actuator]), the at least one sensor is connected to the primary controller or the at least one secondary controller (See Paragraphs 46-47), and the at least one executor is connected to the primary controller or the at least one secondary controller (See Paragraphs 46-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Tam and Kamiya using the sensors and actuators of Fujiwara, resulting in the invention of Claim 3, because Tam is not limited as to the types of devices that are controlled (See Paragraph 93 of Tam), and the simple substitution of the sensors and actuators in the system of Tam would have yielded the predictable result of allowing for the control of devices based on the sensed environment (See Paragraph 2 of Fujiwara).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Fujiwara using the ring network of Tam and Kamiya, resulting in the invention of Claim 3, because Fujiwara is not limited as to the type of ring network used (See Paragraph 177 of Fujiwara), and the simple substitution of the ring network of Tam and Kamiya in the device of Fujiwara would have yielded the predictable result of providing for high bandwidth and low latency communications using a very high operating frequency (See Paragraphs 6-7 of Tam).
In reference to Claim 4, Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 3 above. Tam further discloses that the primary controller is further configured to: determine a task that needs to be executed by the primary controller and an execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the primary controller (See Paragraphs 8-9); determine a task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller and an execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller (See Paragraphs 8-9); execute a task at the execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the primary controller (See Paragraphs 8-9 and 52-54); and send a task scheduling table to the at least one secondary controller, wherein the task scheduling table received by the at least one secondary controller comprises the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller and the execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller (See Paragraphs 8-9 and 52-54); and wherein the at least one secondary controller is configured to execute, based on the task scheduling table, a task at the execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller (See Paragraphs 8-9 and 52-54).
Claim 10 recites limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 3 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 2002/0152373 to Sun et al. (“Sun”) and US Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0324095 to Barzel et al. (“Barzel”).
In reference to Claim 5, Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 3 above. Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara do not explicitly disclose that the primary controller is further configured to: divide a general data processing task into a plurality of data processing tasks; and determine, based on load of the primary controller and load of the at least one secondary controller, a data processing task that needs to be executed by the primary controller and a data processing task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller. Sun discloses dividing a general data processing task into a plurality of data processing tasks; and determine a data processing task that needs to be executed by a first controller and a data processing task that needs to be executed by a second controller (See Paragraph 18). Barzel discloses determining, based on load of the primary controller and load of the at least one secondary controller, a data processing task that needs to be executed by a first controller and a data processing task that needs to be executed by a second controller (See Paragraph 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara using the task division of Sun and the task distribution based on workload of Barzel, resulting in the invention of Claim 5, in order to yield the predictable results of providing scalability (See Paragraph 18 of Sun); and balancing the workload, thus improving efficiency (See Paragraph 4 of Barzel).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 2004/0195872 to Nakamura (“Nakamura”).
In reference to Claim 6, Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 3 above. Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara do not explicitly disclose that the at least one secondary controller further stores a priority list, the priority list comprises a priority of the at least one secondary controller, and the at least one secondary controller is further configured to: if it is determined that the primary controller is faulty or any signal cable connected to the primary controller is faulty, determine a new primary controller from the at least one secondary controller based on the priority list. Nakamura discloses that at least one secondary controller stores a priority list, the priority list comprises a priority of the at least one secondary controller, and the at least one secondary controller is further configured to: if it is determined that a primary controller is faulty or any signal cable connected to the primary controller is faulty, determine a new primary controller from the at least one secondary controller based on the priority list (See Paragraphs 96-108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara using the prioritized primary controller failover of Nakamura, resulting in the invention of Claim 6, in order to yield the predictable result of swiftly recovering the network and allowing for continued operation in the event the primary controller fails (See Paragraphs 37-38 of Nakamura).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of ‘ACK’ in The Free On-Line Dictionary of Computing (“FOLDOC”)
In reference to Claim 7, Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 3 above. Tam further discloses that that the primary controller and the at least one secondary controller are further configured to: send target data to another controller in the control system by using the ring network (See Paragraphs 20 and 41). Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara do not explicitly disclose that if the target data transmitted by using the ring network is not received or received target data transmitted by using the ring network is inconsistent with the sent target data, perform at least one of fault detection on the ring network or resending the target data. FOLDOC discloses that if data transmitted by using a network is not received or received target data transmitted by using the network is inconsistent with the sent target data, perform at least one of fault detection on the network or resending the data (See entry ‘ACK’ Definition 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara using the retransmission of data upon detection of the data not being received of FOLDOC, resulting in the invention of Claim 7, in order to yield the predictable result of ensuring proper operation and improving fault tolerance by verifying that data is received correctly (See entry ‘ACK’ Definition 2 of FOLDOC).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tam, Kamiya, Fujiwara, and FOLDOC as applied to Claim 7 above, and further in view of US Patent Number 6,230,194 to Frailong et al. (“Frailong”).
In reference to Claim 8, Tam, Kamiya, Fujiwara, and FOLDOC disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 7 above. Tam, Kamiya, Fujiwara, and FOLDOC do not explicitly disclose that the control system further comprises a gateway, the gateway is connected to the primary controller or the at least one node device, and the gateway is configured to: send, to an external device, data from a device connected to the gateway; and send, to the device connected to the gateway, data from the external device, wherein the external device is a device independent of the control system. Frailong discloses a control system (See Figure 1 Number 120) comprising a ring network (See Figure 1 Number 110 and Column 3 Lines 61-64), wherein the control system comprises a gateway, the gateway is connected to the primary controller or the at least one node device (See Figure 1 Numbers 108 and 112 and Column 3 Line 58), and the gateway is configured to: send, to an external device, data from a device connected to the gateway (See Figure 1 Number 104 and Column 3 Line 52 – Column 4 Line 18); and send, to the device connected to the gateway, data from the external device (See Column 3 Line 52 – Column 4 Line 18), wherein the external device is a device independent of the control system (See Figure 1 Number 104 and Column 3 Line 52 – Column 4 Line 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Tam, Kamiya, Fujiwara, and FOLDOC using the gateway of Frailong, resulting in the invention of Claim 8, in order to yield the predictable results of allowing for connection to devices using an external network such as the Internet (See Column 3 Lines 59-61 of Frailong).
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara.
In reference to Claim 12, Tam discloses a control system, wherein the control system comprises a ring network (See Figure 1 Number 100 and Paragraph 20), and the ring network comprises a primary controller (See Figure 1 Number N0 and Paragraph 20) and at least one node device (See Figure 1 Numbers N1-N5 and Paragraph 20); the primary controller is configured to: send a reference clock signal to the at least one node device by using the ring network (See Figures 1 and 2 CLK_01 and Paragraphs 23 and 31); and the at least one node device is configured to perform timing (See Paragraph 25) based on a frequency of the reference clock signal (See Paragraphs 25). Tam does not explicitly disclose a vehicle, wherein the vehicle comprises the control system. Fujiwara discloses a vehicle (See Paragraphs 162 and 176), wherein the vehicle comprises a control system, the control system comprises a ring network (See Figure 1 Number 003 and Paragraph 38), the ring network having a primary controller (See Figure 1 Number 001 and Paragraph 37) and at least one node device (See Figure 1 Numbers 002a – 002d and Paragraph 37). Tam further discloses that the reference clock signal is variable and can be frequency scaled based on system demands and power optimization (See Paragraph 23), but is silent as to the particular structure of the reference clock generator (See Figure 2 Number 201). Kamiya discloses a variable frequency clock generator (See Figure 1 Number 10) that generates an output clock signal by performing frequency division (See Figure 1 Numbers 2 and 3, Figure 2 Number 2, and Paragraphs 22, 24, and 31-44) on an input clock signal (See Figure 1 Number 1 and Paragraph 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Tam using the vehicle sensors and actuators of Fujiwara and using the variable frequency clock generator having a frequency divider of Kamiya, resulting in the invention of Claim 12, because Tam is not limited as to the types of devices that are controlled (See Paragraph 93 of Tam), and the simple substitution of the vehicle sensors and actuators in the system of Tam would have yielded the predictable result of allowing for the control of devices based on the sensed environment (See Paragraph 2 of Fujiwara); and because Tam is silent as to the particular structure of the variable frequency clock generator, and the simple substitution of the variable frequency clock generator having a frequency divider of Kamiya as the variable frequency clock generator of Tam would have yielded the predictable result of allowing the frequency of the reference clock signal to be changed based on the system demands (See Paragraph 23 of Tam and Paragraph 3 of Kamiya) in a matter that reduces problems caused by other types of variable frequency clock generators such as the switching time of the clock and area overheads of the circuit (See Paragraphs 5-7 of Kamiya).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Fujiwara using the ring network of Tam and using the variable frequency clock generator having a frequency divider of Kamiya, resulting in the invention of Claim 12, because Fujiwara is not limited as to the type of ring network used (See Paragraph 177 of Fujiwara), and the simple substitution of the ring network of Tam in the device of Fujiwara would have yielded the predictable result of providing for high bandwidth and low latency communications using a very high operating frequency (See Paragraphs 6-7 of Tam); and because Tam is silent as to the particular structure of the variable frequency clock generator, and the simple substitution of the variable frequency clock generator having a frequency divider of Kamiya as the variable frequency clock generator of Tam would have yielded the predictable result of allowing the frequency of the reference clock signal to be changed based on the system demands (See Paragraph 23 of Tam and Paragraph 3 of Kamiya) in a matter that reduces problems caused by other types of variable frequency clock generators such as the switching time of the clock and area overheads of the circuit (See Paragraphs 5-7 of Kamiya).
In reference to Claim 14, Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 12 above. Tam further discloses that the at least one node device is at least one secondary controller (See Paragraph 25). Fujiwara further discloses that the at least one node device is at least one secondary controller (See Paragraph 37), the control system further comprises at least one sensor (See Paragraphs 46-47) and at least one executor (See Paragraphs 46-47 [actuator]), the at least one sensor is connected to the primary controller or the at least one secondary controller (See Paragraphs 46-47), and the at least one executor is connected to the primary controller or the at least one secondary controller (See Paragraphs 46-47).
In reference to Claim 15, Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 14 above. Tam further discloses that the primary controller is further configured to: determine a task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller and an execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller (See Paragraphs 8-9); execute a task at the execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the primary controller (See Paragraphs 8-9 and 52-54); and send a task scheduling table to the at least one secondary controller, wherein the task scheduling table received by the at least one secondary controller comprises the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller and the execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller (See Paragraphs 8-9 and 52-54); and wherein the at least one secondary controller is configured to execute, based on the task scheduling table, a task at the execution moment of the task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller (See Paragraphs 8-9 and 52-54).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara as applied to Claim 12 above, and further in view of Weyer.
In reference to Claim 13, Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 12 above. Tam further discloses that the at least one node device is configured to: correct a frequency of a local clock signal of the node devices based on the frequency of the reference clock signal to maintain a target ratio between the frequency of the local clock signal of the node device and the frequency of the reference clock signal (See Paragraphs 22-25 and 33); and perform timing based on the frequency of the local clock signal of the node device (See Paragraphs 22-25 and 33). Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara do not explicitly disclose that the at least one node device comprises a phase-locked loop, and the at least one node device is configured to: correct a frequency of a local clock signal of the node devices based on the frequency of the reference clock signal by using the phase-locked loop, to maintain a target ratio between the frequency of the local clock signal of the node device and the frequency of the reference clock signal. Weyer discloses correcting a frequency of a local clock signal based on a frequency of a reference clock signal by using a phase-locked loop, to maintain a target ratio between the frequency of the local clock signal of the node device and the frequency of the reference clock signal (See Paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara using the phase-locked loop of Weyer to correct the frequency of the local clock signal, resulting in the invention of Claim 13, in order to yield the predictable result of synchronizing the local clock signal and the reference clock signal using a commonly used clock synchronization device (See Paragraph 2 of Weyer).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara as applied to Claim 14 above, and further in view of Sun and Barzel.
In reference to Claim 16, Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 14 above. Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara do not explicitly disclose that the primary controller is further configured to: divide a general data processing task into a plurality of data processing tasks; and determine, based on load of the primary controller and load of the at least one secondary controller, a data processing task that needs to be executed by the primary controller and a data processing task that needs to be executed by the at least one secondary controller. Sun discloses dividing a general data processing task into a plurality of data processing tasks; and determine a data processing task that needs to be executed by a first controller and a data processing task that needs to be executed by a second controller (See Paragraph 18). Barzel discloses determining, based on load of the primary controller and load of the at least one secondary controller, a data processing task that needs to be executed by a first controller and a data processing task that needs to be executed by a second controller (See Paragraph 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara using the task division of Sun and the task distribution based on workload of Barzel, resulting in the invention of Claim 16, in order to yield the predictable results of providing scalability (See Paragraph 18 of Sun); and balancing the workload, thus improving efficiency (See Paragraph 4 of Barzel).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara as applied to Claim 14 above, and further in view of Nakamura.
In reference to Claim 17, Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 14 above. Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara do not explicitly disclose that the at least one secondary controller further stores a priority list, the priority list comprises a priority of the at least one secondary controller, and the at least one secondary controller is further configured to: if it is determined that the primary controller is faulty or any signal cable connected to the primary controller is faulty, determine a new primary controller from the at least one secondary controller based on the priority list. Nakamura discloses that at least one secondary controller stores a priority list, the priority list comprises a priority of the at least one secondary controller, and the at least one secondary controller is further configured to: if it is determined that a primary controller is faulty or any signal cable connected to the primary controller is faulty, determine a new primary controller from the at least one secondary controller based on the priority list (See Paragraphs 96-108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara using the prioritized primary controller failover of Nakamura, resulting in the invention of Claim 17, in order to yield the predictable result of swiftly recovering the network and allowing for continued operation in the event the primary controller fails (See Paragraphs 37-38 of Nakamura).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara as applied to Claim 14 above, and further in view of FOLDOC
In reference to Claim 18, Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 14 above. Tam further discloses that that the primary controller and the at least one secondary controller are further configured to: send target data to another controller in the control system by using the ring network (See Paragraphs 20 and 41). Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara do not explicitly disclose that if the target data transmitted by using the ring network is not received or received target data transmitted by using the ring network is inconsistent with the sent target data, perform at least one of fault detection on the ring network or resending the target data. FOLDOC discloses that if data transmitted by using a network is not received or received target data transmitted by using the network is inconsistent with the sent target data, perform at least one of fault detection on the network or resending the data (See entry ‘ACK’ Definition 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Tam, Kamiya, and Fujiwara using the retransmission of data upon detection of the data not being received of FOLDOC, resulting in the invention of Claim 18, in order to yield the predictable result of ensuring proper operation and improving fault tolerance by verifying that data is received correctly (See entry ‘ACK’ Definition 2 of FOLDOC).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tam, Kamiya, Fujiwara, and FOLDOC as applied to Claim 18 above, and further in view of Frailong.
In reference to Claim 19, Tam, Kamiya, Fujiwara, and FOLDOC disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 18 above. Tam, Kamiya, Fujiwara, and FOLDOC do not explicitly disclose that the control system further comprises a gateway, the gateway is connected to the primary controller or the at least one node device, and the gateway is configured to: send, to an external device, data from a device connected to the gateway; and send, to the device connected to the gateway, data from the external device, wherein the external device is a device independent of the control system. Frailong discloses a control system (See Figure 1 Number 120) comprising a ring network (See Figure 1 Number 110 and Column 3 Lines 61-64), wherein the control system comprises a gateway, the gateway is connected to the primary controller or the at least one node device (See Figure 1 Numbers 108 and 112 and Column 3 Line 58), and the gateway is configured to: send, to an external device, data from a device connected to the gateway (See Figure 1 Number 104 and Column 3 Line 52 – Column 4 Line 18); and send, to the device connected to the gateway, data from the external device (See Column 3 Line 52 – Column 4 Line 18), wherein the external device is a device independent of the control system (See Figure 1 Number 104 and Column 3 Line 52 – Column 4 Line 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Tam, Kamiya, Fujiwara, and FOLDOC using the gateway of Frailong, resulting in the invention of Claim 19, in order to yield the predictable results of allowing for connection to devices using an external network such as the Internet (See Column 3 Lines 59-61 of Frailong).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 August 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 April 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J CLEARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-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, Andrew Jung can be reached at 571-270-3779. 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.
/THOMAS J. CLEARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights