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
Application 17/265,010, filed on 02/01/2021, claims foreign priority to GERMANY 10 2018 118 706.8 filed on 08/01/2018 and is a 371 of PCT/EP2019/070672 with a filing date of 07/31/2019.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendments to the claims submitted on 08/05/2025 wherein claims 10, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-22 are pending and have been considered below. Claims 1-9, 11-12, 15, and 18 have been previously canceled.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10, 19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by McCoy et al., U.S. Pub. No 2017/0093533 A1.
Regarding independent claim 10 McCoy teaches:
“An automation engineering two-wire field device” (McCoy, fig 1, ¶ 0005: McCoy teaches a “two-wire process variable transmitter for use in an industrial process . .” (¶ 0005) disclosing an “automation engineering two-wire field device”, comprising:
“a sensor element for capturing a process variable” (McCoy, fig 1, ¶ 0016: Fig 1 depicts a “process variable sensor 14 arranged to sense a process variable of a process fluid” (¶ 0016) disclosing “a sensor element for capturing a process variable”).
“a connection terminal for connecting a two-wire line” (McCoy, fig 3, ¶ 0019: McCoy teaches “I/O and diagnostic circuitry couples to two-wire process control loop 18 through terminal 40” (¶ 0019) disclosing “a connection terminal for connecting a two-wire line”).
“a field-device electronics unit that is supplied with an operating power by a terminal voltage applied via the two-wire line to the connection terminal and a loop current flowing through the connection terminal via the two-wire line” (McCoy, fig 1, fig 2, ¶ 0016-¶ 0019, ¶ 0029: Fig 2 depicts a “process variable transmitter 12” that contains an “I/O and diagnostic circuitry 36,” “microprocessor 14,” and “memory 32” (¶ 0018) disclosing a “field-device electronics unit” where “I/O and diagnostic circuitry couples to two-wire process control loop 18 through terminal 40” (¶ 0019). The “two-wire process control loop 18” is connected to a voltage source (fig 1, 24) supplying “an operating power by a terminal voltage applied via the two-wire line to the connection terminal” where “transmitter 12 controls the loop current I” (¶ 0016) disclosing “a loop current flowing through the connection terminal from the two-wire line”).
“wherein the field-device electronics unit is configured to operate in a measurement mode of capturing the process variable via the sensor element and communicating the captured process variable by setting the loop current to a value between 4 mA and 20 mA, inclusive, representing the captured process variable” (McCoy, fig 1, fig 2, ¶ 0016-¶ 0019: McCoy teaches “Microprocessor 30 receives an output from the process variable sensor 14 through measurement circuitry 34” (¶ 0018) disclosing “the field-device electronics unit is configured to operate in a measurement mode.” Additionally, “One example communication technique is a 4-20 mA communication technique in which the process control loop 18 carries a signal ranging from 4-20 mA to represent a value related to the output from the process variable (sensor) 14” (¶ 0018) where “process variable 14” indicates the process variable sensor of fig 1 and fig 2 (¶ 0016, ¶ 0018) disclosing “capturing the process variable via the sensor element and communicating the captured process variable by setting the loop current to a value between 4 mA and 20 mA representing the captured process variable”).
“a diagnosis unit configured to operate in the measurement mode, wherein when the loop current is set between 4 mA and 20 mA, inclusive” (McCoy, fig 6, ¶ 0016-¶ 0018, ¶ 0036: McCoy teaches “an industrial process control or monitoring system 10” (¶ 0016) where “the control room 20 is illustrated as a sense resistor 22 and a voltage source 24. The transmitter 12 controls the loop current I such that the loop current is representative of the sensed process variable. For example, the loop current may range from 4 mA to 20 mA” (¶ 0016) disclosing the loop current is “set between 4 mA and 20 mA” and “Microprocessor 30 receives an output from the process variable sensor 14 through measurement circuitry 34” (¶ 0018) disclosing “a diagnosis unit configured to operate in the measurement mode”).
“the diagnosis unit is further configured to: capture exclusively in the measurement mode a first value pair for the terminal voltage and the loop current; capture exclusively in the measurement mode a second value pair for the terminal voltage and the loop current when the value of the set loop current differs from the loop current of the first value pair; and “take exclusively the value pairs captured in the measurement mode as a basis for making a statement about a minimum value of the terminal voltage for a maximum value of the loop current greater than 21 mA” (McCoy, fig 5, ¶ 0029-¶ 0030, ¶ 0034: McCoy teaches “Upon power up of the process variable transmitter 12, the device can measure the terminal voltage” (¶ 0029) disclosing “upon power up” the device is in “measurement mode.” Fig 5 is a block diagram “showing steps used to generate coefficients for a curve fit equation” (¶ 0034) by measuring the loop current and terminal voltage (254 and 256) where at least 2 data points are required for a linear curve fit (258, ¶ 0034) disclosing a “first value pair” and a “value of the second value pair” where “in order to obtain a sufficient and accurate curve, the span over which the data is obtained should be at least a selected percentage of the overall span as indicated at block 260” (¶ 0034) disclosing the different loop current values for each of the data points. The graph of fig 4A depicts the “linear function” which is “extended to 22 mA” (¶ 0029) where the extended linear function discloses a prediction of “a minimum value of the terminal voltage for a maximum value of the loop current greater than 21 mA”).
Regarding claim 19 McCoy teaches:
“the diagnosis unit, to take the captured values for the terminal voltage and the corresponding values for the loop current as a basis for making the statement” (McCoy, see claim 1 above),
“predicts the minimum value of the terminal voltage at the maximum value of the loop current and compares it to a minimum setpoint value for the terminal voltage.” (McCoy, fig 4A, ¶ 0029-¶ 0030: Fig 4A “illustrates the resultant linear terminal voltage baseline obtained using a least squares fit extended to 22 mA” (¶ 0029) disclosing “predicts the minimum value of the terminal voltage at the maximum value of the loop current.” McCoy also teaches “the baseline can be used to assess if the power supply voltage is within the transmitter operating range for all of the expected loop current values” providing a “warning of a terminal voltage which is too high or too low” (¶ 0030) disclosing comparing the “minimum value of the terminal voltage” to a “minimum setpoint value for the terminal voltage”).
Regarding claim 21 McCoy teaches:
“the diagnosis unit is configured to dynamically execute the at least two different values of the loop current and the respective at least one corresponding value for the terminal voltage and make the statement about the minimum value of the terminal voltage at the maximum value of the loop current” (McCoy, fig 4A, fig 5, ¶ 0029-¶ 0030, ¶ 0034: McCoy teaches “Fig 4A illustrates the resultant linear terminal voltage baseline obtained using a least squares fit extended to 22 mA” (¶ 0029) where the “terminal voltage must be measured over a range of loop currents” where “this range should be sufficiently wide to establish an accurate baseline” (¶ 0029) in which “at least two data points” are required for the analysis (¶ 0034) disclosing “the diagnosis unit is configured to dynamically execute the at least two different values of the loop current and the respective at least one corresponding value for the terminal voltage and make the statement about the minimum value of the terminal voltage at the maximum value of the loop current” where the “least squares fit” uses “at least two data points” discloses using “at least two different values of the loop current and the respective at least one corresponding value for the terminal voltage” to “make a statement” where the graph of fig 4A depicts “the statement” which includes the “the minimum value of the terminal voltage at the maximum value of the loop current”).
Regarding claim 22 McCoy teaches:
“the diagnosis unit is configured to determine a linear function on the basis of the first value pair and the second value pair of the terminal voltage and loop current and predict or specify the minimum value of the terminal voltage at the maximum value of the loop current on the basis of the linear function” (McCoy, fig 4A, fig 5, ¶ 0029-¶ 0030, ¶ 0034: McCoy teaches “Fig 4A illustrates the resultant linear terminal voltage baseline obtained using a least squares fit extended to 22 mA” (¶ 0029) where the “terminal voltage must be measured over a range of loop currents” where “this range should be sufficiently wide to establish an accurate baseline” (¶ 0029) in which “at least two data points” are required for the analysis (¶ 0034) where “the resultant linear terminal voltage baseline” discloses “a linear function” and the “at least two data points,” required for the analysis, disclose “first value pair and the second value pair of the terminal voltage and loop current.” The graph of fig 4A depicts the “linear function” which is “extended to 22 mA” disclosing “predict or specify the minimum value of the terminal voltage at the maximum value of the loop current on the basis of the linear function”).
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.
Claims 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCoy et al., hereinafter McCoy, U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0093533 A1 in view of Schwanzer et al, hereinafter Schwanzer, DE 102016116378 A1, using U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0195667 A1 as an English translation.
Regarding claim 16 McCoy does not teach:
“for dynamic performance the diagnosis unit is further configured to capture the at least two different values of the loop current and the respective at least one corresponding value for the terminal voltage whenever two values of the loop current representing the captured process variable exceed a predetermined loop current differential value in the measurement mode.”
Schwanzer teaches:
“for dynamic performance the diagnosis unit is further configured to capture the at least two different values of the loop current and the respective at least one corresponding value for the terminal voltage whenever two values of the loop current representing the captured process variable exceed a predetermined loop current differential value in the measurement mode” (Schwanzer, fig 2, ¶ 0038-¶ 0040: Schwanzer teaches “the input voltage UE is measured at two extreme loop direct currents IS, and the values of further tuples, consisting of loop direct current IS and associated input voltage UE, are interpolated. It is, in particular, provided that the extreme loop direct currents IS be outside the range of the measuring current IM”(¶ 0039) therefore the “two extreme loop direct currents IS” “exceed a predetermined loop current differential value” where the “range of the measuring current IM” discloses “a predetermined loop current differential value”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and system for performing diagnostics on a process variable transmitter coupled to a two-wire process control loop as taught by McCoy by including a predetermined loop current differential value as taught by Schwanzer as using predetermined values provides consistency in results which improve the ability to monitor the system where current intensities outside of a range are interpreted as fault current and “the output of such a fault current is, advantageously, a fast signaling type for a fault condition” (Schwanzer, ¶ 0046-¶ 0047).
Regarding claim 17 McCoy does not teach:
“the predetermined loop current differential value is at least 1 mA.”
Schwanzer teaches:
“the predetermined loop current differential value is at least 1 mA” (Schwanzer, fig 2, ¶ 0038-¶ 0040, ¶ 0047: Schwanzer teaches the “range of the measuring current IM” discloses “a predetermined loop current differential value” (see claim 16 above) and the “current range of the measuring current IM (is) of 0-16 mA” therefore the “predetermined loop current differential value” is 16 mA which is “at least 1 mA”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and system for performing diagnostics on a process variable transmitter coupled to a two-wire process control loop as taught by McCoy by including a predetermined loop current differential value as taught by Schwanzer as using predetermined values provides consistency in results which improve the ability to monitor the system where current intensities outside of a range are interpreted as fault current and “the output of such a fault current is, advantageously, a fast signaling type for a fault condition” (Schwanzer, ¶ 0046-¶ 0047).
Regarding claim 20 McCoy does not teach:
“the diagnosis unit is configured so as, in the event that the predicted minimum value of the terminal voltage is less than the minimum setpoint value for the terminal voltage, to take an undervoltage, which is not sufficient for supplying power to the field-device electronics unit, as a basis for making the statement.”
Schwanzer teaches:
“the diagnosis unit is configured so as, in the event that the predicted minimum value of the terminal voltage is less than the minimum setpoint value for the terminal voltage, to take an undervoltage, which is not sufficient for supplying power to the field-device electronics unit, as a basis for making the statement” (Schwanzer, fig 2, ¶ 0035-
¶ 0040, ¶ 0044: Schwanzer teaches “the input voltage UE is measured at two extreme loop direct currents IS, and the values of further tuples, consisting of loop direct current IS and associated input voltage UE, are interpolated” (¶ 0039) and “coefficients of an equation system are calculated from the measured tuples and stored as a signature” (¶ 0040) where the “equation system” is depicted as the graphs of fig 2. When “the loop direct current IS exceeds a limiting current ISG, the input voltage UE falls below the required minimum input voltage UEM” (¶ 0037) disclosing “UE” as “an undervoltage, which is not sufficient for supplying power to the field-device electronics unit” which is used “as a basis for making the statement” where the characteristic curve discloses “the statement”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and system for performing diagnostics on a process variable transmitter coupled to a two-wire process control loop as taught by McCoy by including using undervoltage in the diagnostics as taught by Schwanzer in order to provide a system that detects “unexpected failures which suddenly occur (and) are, advantageously, avoided if, as a result of the measured value, the loop current assumes such a high value that the minimum supply voltage of the measuring transducer falls short as a result of the voltage drop along the current loop” (Schwanzer, ¶ 0025).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCoy as modified by Schwanzer as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Chemisky et al., hereinafter Chemisky, DE 102011082018 A1.
Regarding claim 13 McCoy does not teach:
“the minimum setpoint value for the terminal voltage is in the range from 9.5 to 11.5 V.”
Chemisky teaches:
“the minimum setpoint value for the terminal voltage is in the range from 9.5 to 11.5 V” (Chemisky, ¶ 0003, ¶ 0015, ¶ 0020: Chemisky teaches “a minimum voltage of, for example, 10.5 V is required at the terminals of the field device” (¶ 0003) disclosing “the minimum setpoint value for the terminal voltage is in the range from 9.5 to 11.5 V”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and system for performing diagnostics on a process variable transmitter coupled to a two-wire process control loop as taught by McCoy by including a minimum value for voltage as taught by Chemisky as using predetermined values provides consistency in results in order to provide a system that determines a “burden” using voltage and current values (Chemisky, ¶ 0011) where “The field device advantageously emits a signal to indicate an error if the calculated value of the burden is outside the predetermined value range”(Chemisky, ¶ 0012)
Regarding claim 14 McCoy does not teach:
“the maximum value of the loop current is in the range of 21 - 23 mA.”
Chemisky teaches:
“the maximum value of the loop current is in the range of 21 - 23 mA” (Chemisky, ¶ 0005: Chemisky teaches “a sufficiently large voltage is available so that the minimum voltage at the connection terminals themselves with a maximum loop current of 22.8 mA, for example, is not fallen below” (¶ 0005) disclosing “the maximum value of the loop current is in the range of 21 - 23 mA” as 22.8 mA is “in the range of 21 - 23 mA”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and system for performing diagnostics on a process variable transmitter coupled to a two-wire process control loop as taught by McCoy by including a minimum value for voltage as taught by Chemisky as using predetermined values provides consistency in results in order to provide a system that determines a “burden” using voltage and current values (Chemisky, ¶ 0011) where “The field device advantageously emits a signal to indicate an error if the calculated value of the burden is outside the predetermined value range”(Chemisky, ¶ 0012).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (remarks), filed on 08/05/2025, have been fully considered.
Regarding Independent Claim 10 and Dependent claims 13-14, 16-17 and 19-22 page 6-7 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues “Independent claim 10 stands rejected as being anticipated by McCoy. Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection of claims 10, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-22 is overcome and should be withdrawn because McCoy does not teach expressly or inherently all elements of independent claim 10 as would be required by MPEP § 2131 to support an anticipation rejection.
The object of independent claim 10 differs from the cited prior art document McCoy at least by the following feature: "take exclusively the value pairs captured in the measurement mode as a basis for making a statement about a minimum value of the terminal voltage for a maximum value of the loop current greater than 21 mA" (Application, claim 10). McCoy does not disclose that the captured values are captured exclusively in measurement mode, i.e., the state of the field device in which the field device transmits measured values by setting the loop current to corresponding values. Rather, McCoy discloses, for example in ¶ [0029] the following:
"Upon power up of the process variable transmitter 12, the device can measure the terminal voltage at the minimum loop current value, for example 3.6 mA. Additional measurements are accumulated as the device is operating and controlling the loop current as a function of the sensed process variable." (McCoy, ¶ [0029]). In this respect, McCoy reveals that the value at 3.6mA is not captured in actual measuring mode, but when the field device is started up.
Consequently, the subject matter of independent claim 10 is novel in view of McCoy” (Remarks, page 6-7).
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s arguments but Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 language states “wherein the field-device electronics unit is configured to operate in a measurement mode of capturing the process variable via the sensor element and communicating the captured process variable by setting the loop current to a value between 4 mA and 20 mA, inclusive, representing the captured process variable.” Using the broadest reasonable interpretation, McCoy teaches the limitations which claim a “measurement mode” as McCoy teaches “Upon power up of the process variable transmitter 12, the device can measure the terminal voltage” (¶ 0029) disclosing “upon power up” the device is in “measurement mode” as measurements are being taken. Also, “Additional measurements are accumulated as the device is operating” (¶ 0029) disclosing “additional measurements” are also taken during a “measurement mode.” As depicted in fig. 2, the “process variable transmitter 12” contains “microprocessor 30,” “process variable sensor 14,” and “measurement circuitry 34” where “Microprocessor 30 receives an output from the process variable sensor 14 through measurement circuitry 34” (¶ 0018) where the “measurement circuitry” discloses the “field-device electronics unit” which collects data from the “process variable sensor,” disclosing the “sensor element,” and outputs the data which is received by the “microprocessor” thereby “communicating the captured process variable.” Additionally, “One example communication technique is a 4-20 mA communication technique in which the process control loop 18 carries a signal ranging from 4-20 mA to represent a value related to the output from the process variable 14” (¶ 0018) where “process variable 14” indicates the process variable sensor of fig 1 and fig 2 (¶ 0016, ¶ 0018). Therefore using the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, McCoy teaches a “measurement mode” and discloses the limitation “wherein the field-device electronics unit is configured to operate in a measurement mode of capturing the process variable via the sensor element and communicating the captured process variable by setting the loop current to a value between 4 mA and 20 mA, inclusive, representing the captured process variable.”
Applicant argues “But moreover, the subject matter of independent claim 10 is based on an inventive step.
The distinguishing feature has the technical effect of being able to monitor a clamping voltage of a field device without requiring a special teach-in phase or similar phase in which the field device must first capture values that it uses during diagnostics. The objective technical task therefore is a field device that enables monitoring of the clamping voltage without the need for a special teach-in phase or similar phase.”
McCoy does not provide the skilled person with any indication to modify the teaching described therein according to the claimed device. Rather, McCoy follows the approach that there is a special "teach-in phase" during commissioning in which a low loop current value, e.g., 3.6 mA, is approached in order to begin generating a "baseline" with which the diagnosis is then carried out in the actual measurement mode. In this respect, the subject matter of independent claim 10 is also based on an inventive step in relation to McCoy” (remarks, page 7).
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s arguments but respectfully disagrees. The claim language does not claim any “distinguishing feature” or “objective technical task.” Additionally, Examiner was unable to find any reference to a clamping voltage, maximum voltage, or a surge voltage therefore this argument is mere allegations. MPEP states the Examiner should consider “whether, on balance, the applicant has met the burden of proof to show nonequivalence. However, under no circumstance Should an examiner accept as persuasive a bare statement or opinion that the element shown in the prior art is not an equivalent embraced by the claim limitation. Moreover, if an applicant argues that the means- (or step-) plus-function language in a claim is limited to certain specific structural or additional functional characteristics (as opposed to "equivalents" thereof) where the specification does not describe the invention as being only those specific characteristics, the claim should not be allowed until the claim is amended to recite those specific structural or additional functional characteristics” (MPEP 2184.II]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wilson et al., teaches a surge protection apparatus using a two wire field device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Denise R Karavias whose telephone number is (469)295-9152. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 - 3:00 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, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/DENISE R KARAVIAS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/MICHAEL J DALBO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857