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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed February 28, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3) (i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. NPL document # 2 is not in English. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Interpretation Content of Specification (k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS : See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p). The claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed elements, the structural elements listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”. A claim is only limited by positively claimed elements. Thus, "[i] nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”. MPEP 2115 Material or Article Worked Upon by Apparatus. It is noted that although the claims mention a process plant (not structurally defined), data, electrical components, dust, water, environment with explosive or flammable atmosphere, leads, at least one electronic or mechatronic control circuit (and further elements of such circuit; claims 6-10, 14-15) , process variable of the process plant, a positioner ( signal, and property of the positioner; claim 8, 10) , and pneumatic actuator (claim 9) . However, none of such are positively claimed as structural elements of the inventions. All of such are considered as materials/articles intended to be/can be worked upon, used with the claimed inventions. It claim 1, it is presumed that the term “comprising” is directed to the field device and not the process plant. Therefore, the claim should read as …process plant, the field device comprising…. It is noted that the terms “connections” and “electrical components” are relatively broad and are not defined in the claims by any specific structure. It is noted that the “configured to…” clauses employed throughout the claims do not provide for any further structure/structural elements , structural connections, nor definitive relative structural locations/relationships between any positively claimed structural elements , but are directed to intended/possible uses. It is noted that the phrase “at least one…” only requires one and “at least two…” only requires two. It is noted that the term “or” is directed to alternative options, not requirements. Furthermore the term “and/or” is interpreted as “or” which is minimal requirement of the term. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. As to claim 1, it is unclear what is the structural distinction between a primary connection and secondary connections because the recited basis of “ a first power level" is unclear since it is not disclosed what this power level is intended to relate to and where this power level of greater than or less than 10 W must be applied and which unit then makes the decision on the basis thereof with regard to the connections to be used. Furthermore, it is noted that consuming power is not the same as transferring power. As to claim 1, it is unclear if applicant intends to claim, require electrical components to be located in the housing because the phrase “configured to accommodate electrical components” only requires that the housing be capable housing/ accommodating broad, unspecified electrical components (not structurally defined) , but does not require such electrical components to be located in the housing. It is unclear if the power data switch and/or any of the primary and at least two secondary connections are locate d in or outside of the housing and first housing. Furthermore , it is presume d that the phrase “ and to accommodate the primary connection” is intended to refer to the pressure proof enclosure. However, the claim does not provide for, positively claim any electrical components nor primary connection to be located in the pressure proof enclosure. See prior remarks above directed to “configured to accommodate”. Furthermore, it is unclear what is required of an enclosure to be considered as “pressure proof” because the claim does not provide for such. There is nothing precluding any pressure from being applied to the enclosure, including pressure from gravity or any other source of pressure. The term “ safe ” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ safe ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no indication as to what is required of “electronic components” (not positively claimed as being located in the housing) to be considered as “safe” what may be considered as “safe” to one person may not be considered as such to another and vice versa. Regarding claim 1, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear what is the difference between “outside of the pressure proof enclosure” and “outside of the first housing compartment” because claim previously establishes that such are one in the same. Furthermore, it is noted that the phrase “outside of the first housing component, pressure proof enclosure” is not directed to any specific location of the actual device. Outside could be any distance and remote location away from the first housing compartment/ enclosure. Therefore, the claim allows for the at least secondary connections could be in a different room, building, city, country, etc. and yet be considered as elements of the claimed device. It is unclear how such is possible. The claim as drafted does not require any of the positively claimed elements to be structurally connected to each other to establish a single device, but is directed to a list of parts that are not required to be connected to each other. As to claim 1, it is unclear how the field device as claim can function as intended without provide for a data coupler and a power coupler which according to the specification appear to be necessary for data communication/transmission and power transmission. As to claim 1, in the last paragraph, it is unclear what is structurally required to be considered as a protective bridge because such is not structurally defined in the claim. There is no indication as to what considered as “protective” and what is required to be protected by such bridge because the claim does not define, recite such. Furthermore, it is unclear what is intended to connect primary connection to the at least two secondary connections, the protective bridge or leads because the claim does not clearly recite such. It is unclear if applicant intends for the device, first housing compartment to comprise leads that connect to the primary connection to each of the at least two secondary connections because the “configured to” clause does not require such, but is directed to what is possible, can be done rather than what is required. As to claim 1, it is unclear what is structurally meant by “isolate” because no leads are positively claimed and there is no indication as to what such leads are required to be isolated from. Claims 2-10 and 12-13 are rejected via dependency upon a rejected claim. As to claims 2-3, 6, and 11, it is unclear which/what housing is being referenced by the phrase “the housing” because claims 1 and 11, respectively previously recite “a housing” and “a first housing”. To avoid any confusion, it is suggested that “a housing” be amended to “a house” (or some other distinct term) and further claims referencing such be amended to employ the same terminology to reference such. As to claim 2, it is presumed that the phrase “at least one additional housing compartment” is intending to refer to, mean in addition to the first housing compartment such that the housing further comprises at least second housing compartment different from the first housing compartment . If so, it is suggested that the claim be amended to recite such. Furthermore , it is unclear what is the structural nexus, location, and connectivity of the at least one of the at least two secondary connections to the prior positively claimed elements because the claim does not provide for such (the dependent claims also fail to provide for structural connections of the positively claimed elements) . The “configured to house” clause is directed to capability of the at least one additional housing compartment, but no secondary connections are required to be actually located within the at least one additional housing compartment. As to claim 3, it is unclear what is required to comprise “at least one section” and what is structurally considered as a “section” because such is not structurally defined in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear what is the structural difference between first housing compartment and a section because the claim does not provide for any structural distinction between such. There is nothing precluding first housing compartment from being considered as “a section”. It is noted that the first housing is defined in, by the housing. Therefore, the first housing compartment is inherently confined, limited to being in, confined in the housing. Therefore, it is unclear what is further structurally required by the claim. As to claim 4, it is unclear what is structurally required, considered as “ a galvanic isolation ” because such is not structurally defined in the claim by any specific structure nor required to isolate anything. As to claim 6, it is unclear what is further structurally required by the claim because the claim does not provide for required the field device to comprise any further structure nor requires any prior positively claimed element to comprise any further structure. As noted above, the “configured to accommodate at least one electronic or mechatronic control circuit ” (not defined by and specific structural elements in the claim) provides for a capability of the housing, but does not require the at least one electronic or mechatronic control circuit to be located in the housing. Furthermore, the “configured to detect…” clause is directed to an intended use of the unclaimed, structurally undefined at least one electronic or mechatronic control circuit relative to a broad, undefined, unspecified process variable of the unclaimed, structurally undefined process plant that is not a structural element of the claimed field device. The claimed field device is never required to be used in any process at all including with/in any process of use of the unclaimed, structurally undefined process plant. Furthermore, it is unclear what is required to be done and/or considered as “influence” a process variable of the process plant because such is not defined, provided for in the claim. As to claims 7-10 and 14-15, although no control circuit is positively claimed a structural element of the field device, it is unclear what/which control circuit is being referenced by “ the control circuit ” because claim 6 previously recites “ at least one electronic or mechatronic control circuit ”. It’s further noted that what the unclaimed control circuit includes/comprises does not further limit the invention, the field device. In claim 7, it is presumed that it is intended for the power distributing data switch to comprise a load controller (not specifically structurally defined in the claim). Furthermore, it is noted that claim s 7 and 15 do not appear to be structurally accurate because the load controller (device 31) does not appear to be a source of power, but is a device that can control power transfer/ transmission being supplied via supply lines (not claimed) from a power supply (not claimed). See for example paragraphs 0028, 49 of the US Publication US 2024 / 0053728 A1 . Also applicable to the primary connection of claim 14. As to claim 8, it is unclear what is further structurally required by the claim. see rejections above directed to the control circuit. Furthermore, it is noted that a positioner (not structurally defined) is not positively claimed as an element of the field device. Furthermore, it is unclear what is considered as a “signal” . It is unclear what is required of such signal be considered as “corresponding” to a broad, unspecified “property” of the unclaimed, structurally undefined positioner, and where such signal is derived, received from. Also applicable to electrical signal in claim 11 . As to claim 9, see above applicable rejections. Furthermore , it is noted that although not positively claimed as elements of the invention, a pneumatic output and pneumatic actuator are defined as being specific structure nor is any structurally connectivity of such to each other nor any other prior positively claimed elements provided for in the claim. As to claim 10 , see above applicable rejections. Furthermore , although the positioner and location sensor are not positively claimed as elements of the field device, it is unclear how such can be “coupled contact-free” because the term “coupled” by definition requires physical contact. Therefore, the phrase “coupled contact-free” appears to be contradictory. Claim 10 recites the limitation " the positioner ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 employs the same or similar language as claim 1. See applicable rejections of claim 1 above. See also above remarks directed to the phrase “outside of the pressure proof enclosure/first housing compartment” which are also applicable to the phrase “at least one converted arranged outside of the housing” in the last paragraph of claim 11. As to claim 11, in the first line of the last paragraph, it is unclear what is structurally meant by term “with” because it is unclear if the term is intended to mean that the positioner comprises/includes at least one converter or if the term means along/in conjunction with which does not require the positioner to comprise/include in the at least one converter. It is unclear what is further required by claim 12. The claim appears to be redundant in view of claim 1 because claim 1 previously recites “ the at least two secondary connections are arranged outside of the pressure proof enclosure …” and “ in particular outside of the first housing compartment ”. The pressure proof enclosure and first housing compartment are one in the same. See also above remarks direct to “outside of the pressure proof enclosure/first housing compartment” . As to claim 13, it is unclear what is structurally required to be an electrical power barrier because such is not structurally defined in the claim. As to claim 14, it is unclear how the primary connection can supply any electrical power because the primary connection (of the power distributing data switch ) is not disclosed as being a source that can generate/supply electrical power. The claim is not consistent with the specification. See for example paragraph 00 16 of the US Publication US 2024/0053728 A1 . As to claim 15, see prior rejection of claim 7. Furthermore, it is unclear if it is intended for the field device to comprise a tertiary connection, located within the first housing compartment because the claim does not clearly recite such. Furthermore, it is unclear what structurally is considered the tertiary connection and what the tertiary connection is required to be connected to because the claim does not clearly recite such. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . 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(s) 1- 3, 7-12, and 14- 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann et al., DE 198 10 350 A ( US 6 , 294 , 732 ) . Hoffmann discloses a field device for a process installation (column 1, line 6; figure 1), comprising: [strikethrough a powerdistributing data switching device having a primary electrical connection configured to consume power at a first power level of greater than 10 W (column 3, line 58 - column 4, line 5; figure 1); at least two secondary electrical connections for combined data communication and power transfer at a second power level of less than 10 W for each secondary connection<strikethrough] (column 4, lines 12-21), wherein a housing for accommodating electrical components in a manner protected against dust and/or water is provided, said housing forming a first housing compartment, wherein the first housing compartment is configured to encapsulate electrical components in a pressure-tight manner for an environment with an explosive or flammable atmosphere and accommodates the primary connection (column 3, line 58 - column 4, line 5), and wherein the at least two secondary connections are arranged outside pressure-tight encapsulation of electrical components for an environment with an explosive or flammable atmosphere (column 4, lines 12-21), wherein at least one protective bridge leads out of the first housing compartment in order to connect the primary connection to the at least two secondary connections ( column 4, lines 5-11) . Hoffmann does not disclose a data switching device which, depending on a power level, selects which of the connections is intended to consume power. The Applicant is advised that the Supreme Court recently clarified that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Furthermore, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc. , 127 Sup. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143). Common sense, predictability, knowledge, and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art may suffice to establish obviousness. It would have been obvious to and within the common sense, knowledge, and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a c onnection of the field device that is appropriate for a particular power level to provide for the appropriate required amount of power as such would provide for predictable results. As to claim 2, Hoffmann discloses an addition housing compartment. (column 4, lines 15-21). As to claim 3, first ho u sing compartment is confined by an outer wall of the housing (figure 1). Claims 7-10 and 14-15 are directed to the control circuit that is not positively claimed as an element of the invention. See claim interpretations and further remarks above. Claim(s) 4-6, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann et al., DE 198 10 350 A (US 6,294,732) as applied above, and further in view of Kirst et al., DE 10 2008 029956 A 1 ( US 2010 / 0026518 ) . Hoffmann does not disclose the protective bridge comprises a galvanic isolation. Kirst discloses a sensor module has a sensor housing, at least one arranged at least partially in the sensor housing transducer for detecting at least one measured variable and generating at least one of the measured variable influenced primary signal and disposed within the sensor housing, connected to the transducer sensor electronics for Converting the primary signal supplied by the transducer into a sensor signal. In the sensor electronics, a power supply unit is furthermore provided which has at least one energy store arranged within the sensor housing for storing energy to be converted in the measuring system. The transmitter module is coupled to the sensor module and has a transmitter housing and a transmitter electronics accommodated in the transmitter housing and electrically coupled to the sensor electronics for converting the sensor signal supplied by the sensor module in the at least one measured variable representing readings. (Abstract) As to claims 4 and 13, Kirst discloses a device comprises galvanic isolation. For example, Kirst discloses transmitter electronics accommodated in the transmitter housing and electrically coupled, especially electrically coupled with galvanic isolation …and a sensor signal transmitted from the sensor electronics to the transmitter electronics via galvanic isolation point, into measured values representing at least one measured variable … sensor electronics and transmitter electronics are kept, during operation, galvanically isolated from one another, especially lastingly and/or with application of at least one inductively coupling transformer . See for example, paragraph 0067 . It would have been obvious to and within the common sense, knowledge, and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide of a galvanic isolation to provide for the transmission of signals between structures as taught by Kirst as such would provide for predictable results. As to claim s 5 -6 , Kirst discloses As to claim 6, the sensor electronics includes, in the example of an embodiment illustrated here, an A/D converter 111, which digitizes the at least one primary signal p of the measuring transducer 10. The digitized primary signal is led to a microprocessor 112 provided in the sensor electronics 11 for further processing, where it is converted, taking into consideration, for example, sensor specific, parameter values experimentally won in the framework of a calibration of the sensor module 1, into corresponding measured values . (load controller and data transmitter, control circuit… paragraph 0085 ) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fiedler; Marc; Jung; Torsten et al.; GUIM BERNAT; Francesc et al.; Knobloch; Andreas et al.; Daniel; Joseph A.; Ren; Wei et al.; Savo ; Salvatore et al.; Parrott; Brian et al.; Matsumoto; Akihiro; OKUDA; Kouji ; DE MARTIN; Lino; Kirst; Michael et al.; Callaghan; David M. et al. ; Vasko , David A. et al. ; Lontka , Bruce J. et al. ; Ma; Xiqing et al. ; Brown; Larry K. et al. ; Adams; John T. et al. ; Hoffmann; Heinfried et al. ; Brown; Larry K. et al. ; Waedt ; Karl et al. ; Tapperson ; Gary et al. ; Tal; Rony ; and Carpenter; Edward J. et al. disclose device including components for transferring power and/or data. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRIAN R GORDON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1258 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 8-5:30pm; off every other Friday. . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Charles Capozzi can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-3638 . 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. /BRIAN R GORDON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798