DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on March 18, 2026.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on March 18, 2026 have been entered.
The specification has been amended.
Claims 1 and 16 have been amended.
Claims 3 and 6-8 remain canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 9-17 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Although applicant has not presented arguments with respect to the objections to claims 1 and 16 raised in the previous office action, the examiner submits that in view of the amendments to the claims addressing the informalities previously presented, the objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (p. 7-9), filed on 03/18/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-5 and 9-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (p. 7) that Kirkpatrick does not disclose at least the following features: - the sensor is an integrated sensor, the integrated sensor being disposed in or on a housing of the field device, - wherein more than one computing method is stored in the field device, which can be carried out for generating the output signal, wherein different computing methods are provided for external signal generators of different types connected to the at least one additional interface.
These arguments are not persuasive.
The examiner submits that the rejection relies on Nixon (US 20220078238 A1) and Russell (US 20180024534 A1) for teaching the argued features (see rejection below), therefore, in response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant further argues (p. 7-8) that nowhere in Nixon is it mentioned that this field device has a housing … Fig. 1 only represents how components of the field device are arranged, but it does not represent the actual physical structure of the field device. In particular, no housing or related structure of the field device is shown in Fig. 1. In view of this, Nixon does not and cannot disclose a sensor that is disposed in or on a housing of a field device. Considering Fig. 1 of Nixon, it should further be noted that so-called field device hardware (12), which supposedly represents integrated sensors of the field device, is located in a lower section of the block diagram and is clearly separate from other components such as a microprocessor (14) and an interface (18). Furthermore, to connect the field device hardware (12) to a microprocessor (14) of the field device, the interface (18) is required. This underlines that the field device hardware (12) is external to the field device.
These arguments are not persuasive.
The examiner submits that, as indicated in the rejection, Nixon discloses (see Fig. 1) a field device 10 including field device hardware 12 such as one or more sensors (see [0048]; see also [0049]-[0050] regarding interface 18 being an internal input/output device that multiplexes and or conditions signals from the hardware devices 12, and a power supply 22 (e.g., a battery) of the field device providing power to hardware components 12 including one or more sensors).
Furthermore, the examiner submits that according to the MPEP:
“When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art” (see MPEP 2125); and
“Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations, however, Office personnel must explain why the difference(s) between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The “mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention’s nonobviousness.” Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). The gap between the prior art and the claimed invention may not be “so great as to render the [claim] nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in the art.” Id. In determining obviousness, neither the particular motivation to make the claimed invention nor the problem the inventor is solving controls. The proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. See 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap” (MPEP 2141).
Based on this, the examiner submits that the prior art of record renders the argued features obvious.
Applicant also argues (p. 9) that in direct contrast to Kirkpatrick, however, the Russell application teaches a handheld base connected to functional modules which are plugged into the handheld base (see paragraph [0042] of Russell, lines 1-3). Therefore, Russell is not compatible with Kirkpatrick. Moreover, it should be noted that according to Russell, sensors are located in the functional modules, not the handheld base. The Examiner argues that the handheld base of Russell is analogous to a field device. This begs the question how the handheld base can be analogous with a field device if the handheld base does not even feature any sensors of its own. This also means that Nixon cannot be combined with Russell, as Nixon supposedly discloses sensors within a field device.
These arguments are not persuasive.
The examiner submits that the rejection relies on Russell for teaching/suggesting “wherein more than one computing method is stored in the field device, which can be carried out for generating the output signal, wherein different computing methods are provided for external signal generators of different types connected to the at least one additional interface” (see rejection below), while applicant’s arguments continue to attack each individual reference for lacking features that according to the rejection are disclosed in other references (see rejection below), and according to the MPEP: “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references” (see MPEP 2145).
Furthermore, the examiner submits that as indicated in the Office guidance: ““It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859, 225 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)) (“Etter’s assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.”). See also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”)” (MPEP 2145).
Furthermore, applicant argues (p. 9) that to summarize, in Kirkpatrick, sensors are external to a field device, in Russell, sensors are located in external, pluggable components, and in Nixon, a field device features a sensor, albeit not located in or on its housing. Therefore, those skilled in the arts cannot combine the disclosure of Kirkpatrick, Russell and Nixon in an obvious manner to obtain the present invention. The subject matter of claims 1 and 16 is therefore novel with respect to each prior art reference and non-obvious, since the combinations of prior art references are legally inappropriate.
These arguments are not persuasive.
The examiner submits that as indicated above and in detail in the rejection, the prior art of record, when considered in combination, renders the claimed invention obvious under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 9-17 were evaluated for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY TEST FOR PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES described in the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) to determine patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 1, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence for evaluating claims for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test (see bold text):
the limitation “generating an output signal on the basis of the at least one first input signal and the at least one second input signal, wherein more than one computing method is stored in the field device, which can be carried out for generating the output signal” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to obtain additional information (e.g., using a computing method to manipulate the at least one first input signal and the at least one second input signal to obtain an output signal, see specification at [0034]). Except for the recitation of the generic computer implementation (e.g., storing computing method in the field device), the limitation in the context of this claim mainly refers to applying mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain additional information.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, the claim recites:
“A field device with a two-wire supply interface, which is suitable for receiving energy via a two-wire system and for signal transmission via the two-wire system, with an integrated sensor, the integrated sensor being disposed in or on a housing of the field device, with at least one additional interface, which is suitable for signal reception, and with a functional unit or functional group for data and/or signal processing, which is coupled to the two-wire supply interface, the at least one additional interface and the integrated sensor, wherein the at least one additional interface is a two-wire interface, wherein the at least one additional interface has exactly one pair of terminals” which, when considering the claim as a whole, integrates the judicial exception into a practical application by applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (e.g., a particular machine configuration, see MPEP 2106.05(b));
“wherein the functional unit or functional group is configured for carrying out the following steps:
- receiving at least one first input signal from the integrated sensor,
- receiving at least one second input signal from the at least one additional interface,
wherein more than one computing method is stored in the field device,
wherein different computing methods are provided for external signal generators of different types connected to the at least one additional interface, and
wherein the field device is configured for tapping the at least one second input signal from the one pair of terminals” which adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (e.g., storing computing methods), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., functional unit or functional group, external signal generators, see [0029] and [0034]) (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), while also appending extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering, source/type of data to be manipulated) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Therefore, these additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim, when considered as a whole, is eligible at Prong Two of the Revised Step 2A (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Revised Step 2A, see also MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Similarly, independent claim 16 is directed to patent eligible subject matter as explained above with regards to claim 1.
Regarding the dependent claims 2, 4-5, 9-15 and 17, they were found to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 by incorporating the eligible subject matter of their corresponding independent claims.
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.
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.
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 1-2, 4-5, 13-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkpatrick (US 6574515 B1), hereinafter ‘Kirkpatrick’, in view of Nixon (US 20220078238 A1), hereinafter ‘Nixon, and in further view of Russell (US 20180024534 A1), hereinafter ‘Russell’.
Regarding claim 1.
Kirkpatrick discloses:
A field device (Figs. 1 and 2, item 16 – “two-wire field mountable process device”) with a two-wire supply interface (Fig. 2, items 36 and 38 – “loop communicator” and “power module”), which is suitable for receiving energy via a two-wire system (Fig. 1, item 14 – “two-wire process loop”) and for signal transmission via the two-wire system (col. 3, lines 26-39, 58, 63-65; col. 4, lines 54-58: a two-wire field mountable process device is provided including input/output channels, with power management and communication being performed through a two-wire process loop (see also col. 2, line 59 – col. 3, line 9; col. 4, lines 2-4, 19-21)), with a sensor (Fig. 1, items 20-30; col. 4, lines 33-41: sensors are coupled to the two-wire field mountable process device via sensor terminals (see Fig. 2, items “sensor 1” … “sensor n”) arranged in different channels (see col. 5, line 66 – col. 6, line 7)), with at least one additional interface (Fig. 2, items “sensor 1” … “sensor n”), which is suitable for signal reception (col. 5, line 66 – col. 6, line 7: multiple sensor terminals (at least one additional interface) are provided in different channels in the two-wire field mountable process device for providing additional connections (see also col. 6, line 52 - col. 7, line 10 regarding additional interfaces (Fig. 2, items “input 1” … “input n” in channel 46, and Fig. 2, items “actuator 1” … “actuator n” in channel 48)), and with a functional unit or functional group (Fig. 2, item 40 – ‘controller’) for data and/or signal processing (col. 5, lines 18-19, 27-29: controller executes program instructions to determine outputs), which is coupled to the two-wire supply interface, the at least one additional interface and the sensor (Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 53-58: two-wire field mountable device includes coupled components including controller, loop communicator, power module, sensors and input/output channels including the sensor terminals), wherein the functional unit or functional group is configured for carrying out the following steps:
- receiving at least one first input signal from the sensor (Fig. 3, item 82; col. 6, lines 4-12, 19-20; col. 7, lines 16-19: controller receives measured characteristic of a first sensor through a first sensor terminal),
- receiving at least one second input signal from the at least one additional interface (Fig. 3, item 84; col. 4 lines 33-41, 49-52; col. 7, lines 19-22: controller receives measured characteristic of a second sensor through a second sensor terminal, which is a two-wire terminal (see Fig. 1)), wherein the at least one additional interface is a two-wire interface (Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 18-19, 23-25: sensors terminals are two-wire interfaces since sensors are connected to sensor terminals through two wires), and
- generating an output signal on the basis of the at least one first input signal and the at least one second input signal (Fig. 3, item 86; col. 7, lines 24-26: a process variable is computed based on both sensor signals), and
wherein the at least one additional interface has exactly one pair of terminals, and wherein the field device is configured for tapping the at least one second input signal from the one pair of terminals (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 33-37: sensors are connected through the sensor terminals to the two-wire field mountable process device in order to provide measurements).
Kirkpatrick does not explicitly disclose:
the sensor is an integrated sensor, the integrated sensor being disposed in or on a housing of the field device; and
wherein more than one computing method is stored in the field device, which can be carried out for generating the output signal, wherein different computing methods are provided for external signal generators of different types connected to the at least one additional interface.
Regarding “the sensor is an integrated sensor, the integrated sensor being disposed in or on a housing of the field device”, Nixon teaches:
“Referring now to FIG. 1, a highly versatile (HV) field device 10 is generally illustrated in block diagram form. In particular, the highly versatile field device 10 includes field device hardware 12 which may be, for example, one or more sensors, an actuator, a valve seat and valve stem, or any other typical or desired control hardware associated with the operation of the field device. The control hardware 12 may be any combination of hardware typically associated with any type of control device, such as a sensor (e.g., temperature sensor, flow meter, level sensor, pressure sensor, etc.), a valve or other flow gas or liquid flow control structure, ignitors, fans, motors, actuators, pumps, etc.” ([0048]: a (HV) field device includes field device hardware such as sensors (analogous to integrated sensor disposed in a housing of the field device) (see also [0059] regarding two-wire communication being supported)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kirkpatrick in view of Nixon to incorporate the sensor as an integrated sensor, the integrated sensor being disposed in or on a housing of the field device, in order to provide a highly versatile field device configuration that performs standard process and control functions in a secure manner, as discussed by Nixon ([0013]).
Regarding “wherein more than one computing method is stored in the field device, which can be carried out for generating the output signal, wherein different computing methods are provided for external signal generators of different types connected to the at least one additional interface”, Russell teaches:
“One or more software modules 30 are accessible to the computer processor 20. The software modules 30 may be located directly within the handheld base 14, such as within memory carried by the handheld base 14 … Each software module 30 is configured to perform a different functional task. Three such software modules 30a, 30b, and 30c are illustrated in FIG. 2 for exemplary purposes only ... The software 30 and/or the computer processor 20 is preferably configured to automatically detect which functional module or modules 16 are operatively attached to the handheld base 14 and then decide which software applications 30 are to enabled for use to the user” ([0048]-[0049]: memory in the handheld base (analogous to field device) includes software modules (computing methods) that are carried out depending on the functional module (external signal generators of different type, see also [0023]) attached to the handheld base through the electrical connectors (analogous to the at least one additional interface) (see also [0058]-[059]; see also Kirkpatrick at col. 4, lines 13-21 regarding a control algorithm including logic statements relating specific inputs to outputs)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kirkpatrick in view of Nixon, and in further view of Russell, to store more than one computing method in the field device, which can be carried out for generating the output signal, wherein different computing methods are provided for external signal generators of different types connected to the at least one additional interface, in order to provide a portable field maintenance tool system that can significantly reduce the weight and number of items that the field technician has to carry into the plant, as discussed by Russell ([0062]; see also [0020]-[0021], [0025]).
Regarding claim 2.
Kirkpatrick in view of Nixon and Russell discloses all the features of claim 1 as described above.
Kirkpatrick further discloses:
the functional unit or functional group is configured for carrying out the following step:
causing a transmission of the output signal via the two-wire system by means of the two-wire supply interface (Fig. 3, item 88; col. 7, lines 32-34: process variable is output through loop communicator to two-wire process control loop (see col. 4, lines 56-58; see also col. 7, lines 51-55)).
Regarding claim 4.
Kirkpatrick in view of Nixon and Russell discloses all the features of claim 1 as described above.
Kirkpatrick does not discloses:
the at least one additional interface is suitable for supplying the energy.
Russell further teaches:
“One or more of the functional modules may configured to perform any one or more of the following functional tasks: a device communicator; a loop power generator; loop validation; a data collector; a vibration data collector; a calibrator; configure and/or set-up a measurement instrument, such as a pressure transmitter; calibrate a temperature transmitter; measure electrical parameters of a field device; sense vibrations of a field device; and/or implement device diagnostics to troubleshoot a field device. Additional examples include functional modules that are configured to function as a portable industrial computer, functional modules that are configured to be used during operator rounds; functional modules that are configured to function as an ammeter; functional modules that are configured to function as a volt meter; and/or functional modules that are configured to function as a variable current source/control” ([0023]: functional modules connected through electrical connectors (interfaces) are configured to function as current sources, with the electrical connectors including electrical power connectors (see [0047], [0051], [0053])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Kirkpatrick in view of Nixon and Russell to incorporate the at least one additional interface suitable for supplying the energy, in order to provide a robust field device configuration that can continue to operate in case of internal power loss by relying on external power supply.
Regarding claim 5.
Kirkpatrick in view of Nixon and Russell discloses all the features of claim 1 as described above.
Kirkpatrick further discloses:
the two-wire supply interface and/or the at least one additional interface are suitable for receiving and/or transmitting signals in accordance with standard DIN IEC 60381-1, standard DIN IEC 60381-2, dem Profibus PA protocol and/or HART protocol (col. 3, lines 58-63: protocols for communication over two-wire process control loop include HART and Profibus-PA protocols).
Regarding claim 13.
Kirkpatrick in view of Nixon and Russell discloses all the features of claim 1 as described above.
Kirkpatrick further discloses:
A measuring assembly (Fig. 1) with the field device (Figs. 1 and 2, item 16 – “two-wire field mountable process device”) according to claim 1 and with a signal generator (Fig. 1, items 20-30), wherein the field device is connected via the at least one additional interface with the signal generator (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 33-37; col. 5, line 66 – col. 6, line 7: sensors are connected through sensor terminals (the at least one additional interface) to the two-wire field mountable process device in order to provide measurements).
Regarding claim 14.
Kirkpatrick in view of Nixon and Russell discloses all the features of claim 13 as described above.
Kirkpatrick further discloses:
wherein the signal generator is a temperature sensor (col. 4, lines 33-41: sensors include thermocouples).
Regarding claim 16.
Kirkpatrick discloses:
A method (Fig. 3) for providing an output signal (col. 7, lines 11-13: a method for providing a process variable using a two-wire field mounted process device is presented) comprising the steps:
- generating at least one first input signal by a sensor (Fig. 1, items 20-30; col. 4, lines 33-41: sensors are coupled to the two-wire field mountable process device via sensor terminals (see Fig. 2, items “sensor 1” … “sensor n”) arranged in different channels (see col. 5, line 66 – col. 6, line 7)) of a field device (Figs. 1 and 2, item 16 – “two-wire field mountable process device”; Fig. 3, item 82; col. 6, lines 4-12, 19-20; col. 7, lines 16-19: controller of two-wire field mountable process device receives measured characteristic of a first sensor through a first sensor terminal),
- receiving, via at least one additional interface of the field device, at least one second input signal by the field device from a signal generator (Fig. 1, items 20-30) external to the field device (Fig. 3, item 84; col. 4 lines 33-41, 49-52; col. 7, lines 19-22: controller receives measured characteristic of a second sensor (signal generator) through a second sensor terminal (at least one additional interface); sensors are connected through sensor terminals to the two-wire field mountable process device in order to provide measurements (see Fig. 1; col. 5, line 66 – col. 6, line 7)), wherein the at least one additional interface of the field device is a two-wire interface (Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 18-19, 23-25: sensors terminals are two-wire interfaces since sensors are connected to sensor terminals through two wires),
- generating the output signal by the field device on the basis of the at least one first input signal and the at least one second input signal (Fig. 3, item 86; col. 7, lines 24-26: a process variable is computed based on both sensor signals), and
- causing a transmission of the output signal via a two-wire system (Fig. 1, item 14 – “two-wire process loop”) by means of a two-wire supply interface (Fig. 2, items 36 and 38 – “loop communicator” and “power module”) of the field device (Fig. 3, item 88; col. 7, lines 32-34: process variable is output through loop communicator to two-wire process control loop (see col. 4, lines 56-58; see also col. 7, lines 51-55)),
wherein the at least one additional interface has exactly one pair of terminals, and wherein the field device taps the at least one second input signal from the one pair of terminals (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 33-37: sensors are connected through pair of wires to the two-wire field mountable process device in order to provide measurements; each pair of wires in Fig. 1 is interpreted to be connected to each sensor terminal in Fig. 2).
Kirkpatrick does not explicitly disclose:
the sensor is an integrated sensor, the integrated sensor being disposed in or on a housing of the field device; and
wherein different computing methods stored in the field device are used for generating the output signal, depending on a type of the external signal generator connected to the at least one additional interface.
Regarding “the sensor is an integrated sensor, the integrated sensor being disposed in or on a housing of the field device”, Nixon teaches:
“Referring now to FIG. 1, a highly versatile (HV) field device 10 is generally illustrated in block diagram form. In particular, the highly versatile field device 10 includes field device hardware 12 which may be, for example, one or more sensors, an actuator, a valve seat and valve stem, or any other typical or desired control hardware associated with the operation of the field device. The control hardware 12 may be any combination of hardware typically associated with any type of control device, such as a sensor (e.g., temperature sensor, flow meter, level sensor, pressure sensor, etc.), a valve or other flow gas or liquid flow control structure, ignitors, fans, motors, actuators, pumps, etc.” ([0048]: a (HV) field device includes field device hardware such as sensors (analogous to integrated sensor disposed in a housing of the field device) (see also [0059] regarding two-wire communication being supported)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kirkpatrick in view of Nixon to incorporate the sensor as an integrated sensor, the integrated sensor being disposed in or on a housing of the field device, in order to provide a highly versatile field device configuration that performs standard process and control functions in a secure manner, as discussed by Nixon ([0013]).
Regarding “wherein different computing methods stored in the field device are used for generating the output signal, depending on a type of the external signal generator connected to the at least one additional interface”, Russell teaches:
“One or more software modules 30 are accessible to the computer processor 20. The software modules 30 may be located directly within the handheld base 14, such as within memory carried by the handheld base 14 … Each software module 30 is configured to perform a different functional task. Three such software modules 30a, 30b, and 30c are illustrated in FIG. 2 for exemplary purposes only ... The software 30 and/or the computer processor 20 is preferably configured to automatically detect which functional module or modules 16 are operatively attached to the handheld base 14 and then decide which software applications 30 are to enabled for use to the user” ([0048]-[0049]: memory in the handheld base (analogous to field device) includes software modules (computing methods) that are carried out depending on the functional module (external signal generators of different type, see also [0023]) attached to the handheld base through the electrical connectors (analogous to the at least one additional interface) (see also [0058]-[059]; see also Kirkpatrick at col. 4, lines 13-21 regarding a control algorithm including logic statements relating specific inputs to outputs)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kirkpatrick in view of Nixon, and in further view of Russell, to use different computing methods stored in the field device for generating the output signal, depending on a type of the external signal generator connected to at least one additional interface, in order to provide a portable field maintenance tool system that can significantly reduce the weight and number of items that the field technician has to carry into the plant, as discussed by Russell ([0062]; see also [0020]-[0021], [0025]).
Regarding claim 17.
Kirkpatrick in view of Nixon and Russell discloses all the features of claim 16 as described above.
Kirkpatrick further discloses:
the signal generator is a temperature sensor (col. 4, lines 33-41: sensors include thermocouples).
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkpatrick in view of Nixon and Russell, and in further view of Freiburger (US 20180203135 A1), hereinafter ‘Freiburger’.
Regarding claim 9.
Kirkpatrick in view of Nixon and Russell discloses all the features of claim 1 as described above.
Kirkpatrick does not discloses:
the at least one first input signal represents a density.
Freiburger teaches:
“The radiometric measuring device may be, for example, a radiometric scintillation detector for detecting gamma or neutron radiation for measuring the filling level or density in the process industry” ([0004]: a radiometric measuring device can be used for determining density in the process industry using a basic module (see [0026], analogous to integrated sensor used to obtain the first input signal)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Kirkpatrick, in view of Nixon and Russell, and in further view of Freiburger, to incorporate the at least one first input signal representing a density, in order to provide a flexible field device capable of determining process industry variables.
Regarding claim 15.
Kirkpatrick in view of Nixon and Russell discloses all the features of claim 13 as described above.
Kirkpatrick does not discloses:
the signal generator is a flow sensor or a control device of a transport system.
Freiburger teaches:
“A digital unit of the basic module is then used, for example, to determine a filling level, a density and/or a mass flow from the preprocessed analog signal” ([0026]: a basic module (analogous to signal generator) of a radiometric measuring device (see [0003]) can determine mass flow).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Kirkpatrick in view of Nixon and Russell, and in further view of Freiburger, to incorporate the signal generator as a flow sensor or a control device of a transport system, in order to provide a flexible field device capable of determining process industry variables.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkpatrick in view of Nixon and Russell, and in further view of Schumacher (US 20090030634 A1), hereinafter ‘Schumacher’.
Regarding claim 10.
Kirkpatrick in view of Nixon and Russell discloses all the features of claim 1 as described above.
Kirkpatrick does not explicitly discloses:
the at least one second input signal represents a temperature measurement value, wherein the functional unit or functional group is configured for carrying out a temperature compensation of the at least one first input signal by means of the at least one second input signal during the generation of the output signal.
Schumacher teaches:
“In operation of transmitter 10, primary sensor 12 and Tavg sensor 13 provide analog signals to A/D 15A. Microprocessor 16 clocks the A/Ds, which digitize the analog signals, converting them to digital signals. Microprocessor 16 compensates the digital sensor signal as a function of the digital compensation signal, generating a compensated sensor output for I/F 17” ([0035]: a transmitter (field device, see [0025]) includes a primary sensor, a temperature-averaging sensor and a microprocessor, which during operation of the transmitter receives the signals from the sensors and generates a compensated sensor output (see also [0010], [0027]-[0028], [0032])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Kirkpatrick, in view of Nixon and Russell, in further view of Schumacher, to incorporate the at least one second input signal representing a temperature measurement value, wherein the functional unit or functional group is configured for carrying out a temperature compensation of the at least one first input signal by means of the at least one second input signal during the generation of the output signal, in order to provide accurate information regarding process industry.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkpatrick, in view of Nixon and Russell, and in further view of Schauble (US 20160124408 A1), hereinafter ‘Schauble’.
Regarding claim 11.
Kirkpatrick in view of Nixon and Russell discloses all the features of claim 13 as described above.
Kirkpatrick does not disclose:
the at least one first input signal represents at least one dimension of an observed object, or the at least one dimension of the observed object can be derived from the at least one first input signal.
Schauble teaches:
“Likewise known is that the way, in which a field device works, is established with the assistance of parameters, which are written into modules provided therefor, respectively into specific memory locations of the field device. By storing suitable parameter values in the respective modules, respectively memory locations, the way, in which the field device works, is established. This procedure is referred to as “parametering”. The setting of the parameters is performed, for example, by the customer. By selecting suitable parameter values, the customer can adapt the field device to its particular application. Such parameters, for example, in the case of a fill level measuring device for measuring the fill level of a medium in a tank, are the height and the diameter of the tank” ([0010]: field devices work by using additional information, such as in the case of providing a fill level measuring device, information including the height and diameter of the tanks can be provided; input signal can be interpreted as the fill level or the height and diameter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Kirkpatrick, in view of Nixon and Russell, and in further view of Schauble, to incorporate the at least one first input signal representing at least one dimension of an observed object, or the at least one dimension of the observed object can be derived from the at least one first input signal, in order to provide a flexible field device capable of determining process industry variables.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkpatrick in view of Nixon, Russell and Freiburger, and in further view of Prellwitz (US 3635082 A), hereinafter ‘Prellwitz’
Regarding claim 12.
Kirkpatrick, in view of Nixon, Russell and Freiburger, discloses all the features of claim 9 as described above.
Kirkpatrick does not discloses:
the at least one second input signal represents a flow velocity or transport velocity of a material, wherein the functional unit or functional group is configured for determining as the output signal a mass of the material or a mass flow, based on the at least one first input signal and the at least one second input signal.
Prellwitz teaches:
“Finely divided particles in a fluid stream transported in a conduit comprise the dielectric of two spaced-apart capacitors at electrically insulated inserts in the conduit. Circuitry determines the time span between correlated variations in capacitance of the two capacitors as a measure of stream velocity. Additional circuitry determines stream density by measuring the capacitance. The velocity and density circuit outputs are multiplied to provide a mass flow rate. An integrator provides total flow” (Abstract: fluid velocity and fluid density are used to calculate mass flow rate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Kirkpatrick, in view of Nixon, Russell and Freiburger, and in further view of Prellwitz, to incorporate the at least one second input signal representing a flow velocity or transport velocity of a material, wherein the functional unit or functional group is configured for determining as the output signal a mass of the material or a mass flow, based on the at least one first input signal and the at least one second input signal, in order to provide a robust field device capable of accurately determining process industry variables.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Walser; Björn et al., US 20220334149 A1, FIELD DEVICE
Reference discloses a field device comprising a sensor for measuring a characteristics such as fill level.
Wehrs; David L. et al., US 20070069903 A1, Industrial field device with automatic indication of solids
Reference discloses a field device including a pressure/acoustic sensor.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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 SCHECHTER can be reached on 571-272-2302. 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.
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights