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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US. Pub. No. 2018/0101189 A1; hereinafter “Liu”) in view of Klicpera (US. Pub. No. 2019/0281371 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Liu teaches a method for retrofitting an existing field device comprising installing in said existing field device a display and/or operating module comprising:
a housing (see Liu, fig. 4, 410), a display unit arranged in the housing and an electronics unit (see Liu, fig. 4, display 404, electronic 406), wherein the display and/or operating module has at least one mechanical interface for connecting the display and/or operating module to the field device (see Liu, fig. 4, cap 402) and a data interface for a communication between the display and/or operating module and an electronics module of the field device (see Liu, fig. 2, bus 202, para. [0046]),
wherein the electronics unit has at least one first radio interface (see Liu, fig. 2, communication 208, para. [0048]).
Liu is silent to teaching that wherein the electronics unit has at least one further second radio interface different from the first radio interface.
In the same field of endeavor, Klicpera teaches a method wherein the electronics unit has at least one further second radio interface different from the first radio interface (see Klicpera, fig. 3, third wireless 63, LoRa 103, para. [0064], long range different than second wireless 61, short range).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Liu with the teaching of Klicpera in order to improve sensor systems with wireless technologies (see Klicpera, para. [0004]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant's argument that Liu and Klicpera are not combinable, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The examiner submits Klicpera teaches a device which is deployed out in a field for water meter and leak detection. Thus, Klicpera teaches the claimed field device and is combinable with Liu in order to improve sensor systems with wireless technologies (see Klicpera, para. [0004]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN WU HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7852. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/WEN W HUANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648