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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 08/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-21 and 23 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/28/2026 with regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on Page 8 that the amendment to Claims 1 and 20 to specifically recite that the first measurement signal is output via a cable connected interface of the field device and that the second measurement signal is output via a radio interface of the field device present a specific practical application of using two different communication channels. Applicant further argues that Claims 1 and 20 further recite the affirmative step of connecting a cable to the cable-connected interface which is an actual physical structural act of establishing the wired signal path and not merely a description of data being transmitted.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sending measurement signals through hard wired cable connections and through radio interfaces are well understood, routine, and conventional in the art, as evidenced by Karschnia (US20070285224) in [0017] and Amirthasamy (US20180218586) in [0020] and Figure 1. Furthermore, connecting a cable to a cable-connected interface is considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity because connecting a cable to a cable connected interface is well known in the art as evidenced by Karschnia (US20070285224) in [0017] and Amirthasamy (US20180218586) in [0020] and Figure 1, where cables are detailed as being connected to the field devices. Furthermore, the action of connecting a cable does not impose a meaningful limit on the claim as cables connected to field devices inherently have to be connected to be of any use. That is, the cables do not carry the data from the field device to another device without the connection having been made. Additionally, as the cable functions to carry the measurement data from the field device, the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting. Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document). Furthermore, field devices performing communication through two different means (wired cables, RF) is well understood, routine, and conventional in the art, as evidenced by Karschnia (US20070285224) in [0017] and Figure 1 and Sanford (US20040186603) in [0014].
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, filed 08/28/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of Claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 9, filed 08/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 is made in view of newly discovered prior art Flanders (US20160065622).
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is 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.
Claim 20 details the amendment “connecting a cable to a cable-connected interface of the field device” and further details “receiving a first measurement signal from the remote field device via the cable-connected interface of the field device”. The antecedence on “field device” is detailed as “the”, but this is the first mention in the claim of “field device” by itself. Furthermore, as the claim details receiving a first measurement from the remote field device via the cable-connected interface of the field device, it is not clear how the remote field device is connected in relation to the field device as the cable is only detailed as being connected to the field device and it is not detailed as being connected to the remote field device. A second interpretation of the claim language is that the “field device” is the “remote field device”, thus it is connected to the cable.
Examiner interprets the field device as the remote field device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of performing abstract steps without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract concepts in BOLD of
1. A method for the detection of incorrect measurement signal outputs of a field device, comprising the steps:
outputting of a measurement value by the field device as a first measurement signal,
outputting of the measurement value by the field device as a second measurement signal,
connecting a cable to a cable-connected interface of the field device, wherein the first measurement signal is output via the cable-connected interface of the field device, and the second measurement signal is output via a radio interface of the field device,
receiving by a detection system the first measurement signal and the second measurement signal or values derived therefrom, the detection system being remote from the field device,
remotely from the field device, determining a measurement signal deviation between the first measurement signal and the second measurement signal by the detection system, and
remotely from the field device, checking by the detection system whether a case of error is present, taking into account the measurement signal deviation and, optionally, taking into account at least one further error condition.
20. A detection system for recognizing incorrect measurement signal outputs of a remote field device at a location remote from a location of the detection system, the detection system being configured for carrying out at least the following steps:
Connecting a cable to a cable-connected interface of the field device,
receiving a first measurement signal from the remote field device via the cable-connected interface of the field device,
receiving a second measurement signal from the remote field device via a radio interface of the field device,
remotely from the field device, determining a measurement signal deviation between the first measurement signal and the second measurement signal, and
remotely from the field device, checking whether a case of error is present, taking into account the measurement signal deviation and, optionally, taking into account at least one further error condition.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a process claim. Likewise, claim 20 is an apparatus claim.
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim., Under Step 2A, Prong One, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps recited in Claim 1 include at least one judicial exception, that being a mental process. This can be seen in the claimed process steps of “determining a measurement signal deviation between the first measurement signal and the second measurement signal by the detection system…” (See, for example, FIGS. 1-2; ¶43, of the instant specification), and “checking by the detection system whether a case of error is present…” (See, for example, FIGS. 1-2; ¶43, of the instant specification), each of which encompasses a mental process because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, capable of being performed using a pen and paper. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification, upon receipt of the first measurement signal and the second measurement signal or values derived therefrom, a human user would be capable of determining a measurement signal deviation between the first measurement signal and the second measurement signal, and checking by the detection system whether a case of error is present, by pen and paper. While such calculations by pen and paper may be time consuming, they fall in the “mental processes” abstract idea grouping. Noting MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) “MENTAL PROCESSES,” “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea.” CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). Claim 20 recites similar abstract ideas.
In the alternative, each of the recited judicial exceptions may also be considered a mathematical concept because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, capable of being performed by a computer processor, such as the cloud computer network taught in ¶43 of the instant specification.
In claim 1, the steps of: “determining” and “checking” each fall within the mental concepts grouping of abstract ideas. The recited process steps are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. Claim 20 recites similar abstract ideas. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
Each of the process steps “determining” and “checking” are recited as being performed by a computer (“The detection system 3 is a cloud computer network executing a computer program for monitoring field devices 1.” FIGS. 1-2; ¶41, of the instant specification). The computer is recited at a high level of generality (“cloud computer”). The computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of collecting data and performing the recited process steps. The computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recited process steps comprise an “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the controller does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978).
The amendments to claim 1, as well as claim 20, which includes the limitation of “the detection system being remote from the field device.” However, the newly presented limitation merely comprises an “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978).
Claim 1 also recites the additional elements (equipment) of “a field device,” and “a detection system,” (See, for example, FIGS. 1-2; ¶¶41-43, of the instant specification); and data comprising “a measurement value,” “a first measurement signal” and “a second measurement signal” (See, for example, FIGS. 1-2; ¶¶41-43, of the instant specification). However, these additional elements merely comprise generic conventional non-specific equipment, and computer hardware and software elements, and data/information, and is/are set forth at a highly generic level and each of which comprise an “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). The limitation of “the detection system being remote from the field device” merely comprises an “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). Claim 20 recites analogous additional elements.
The recited additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements recited in claim 1, as well as claim 20, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed method. For instance, nothing is done once the presence of an error is determined. Claims 18 and 19 detail action to be done once the presence of an error is determined.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (Claims 1, 20). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document). This is evidenced by Girardey (WO2010086073A1) in [0005] and Karschnia (US20070285224) in [0017]. The additional element of a cable connected to a cable-connected interface of a field device and a radio interface of the field device are well understood, routine, and conventional in the art, as evidenced by Karschnia (US20070285224) in [0017] and Amirthasamy (US20180218586) in [0020] and Figure 1. Furthermore, the action of connecting a cable does not impose a meaningful limit on the claim as cables connected to field devices inherently have to be connected to be of any use. That is, the cables do not magically carry the data from the field device to another device without the connection having been made. Additionally, as the cable functions to carry the measurement data from the field device, the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting. Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document)
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claim 20, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1, as well as claim 20, is not patent eligible under 101.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-17, provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
Claims 18-19 detail an additional limitation of transmitting a command to the field device to either put the field device into a safe state or to restart the field device in the case an error is present. The limitations of Claims 18 and 19 integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Flanders (US20160065622).
In regards to Claim 21, Flanders teaches “A field device with at least one sensor unit for recording a measurement value (“Conventional design practice is to route individual process control and safety signals from the process interface building (PIB) and/or the central control room (CCR) to field devices, including sensors and final elements. Sensors can include pressure switches and transmitters, level switches and transmitters, temperature switches and transmitters, position and limit switches, vibration monitors, among other instruments.” – [0003]), wherein the field device is configured for outputting the measurement value as a first measurement signal via a cable-connected interface of the field device and as a second measurement signal via a radio interface of the field device for remote reception by a detection system at a location remote from a location of the field device (“Non-critical control devices, e.g., monitoring instruments or sensors, can communicate with the FVCG without redundancy, such as using only a wireless connection. The FVCG continually monitors the wireless communications for overall health, and in the event that a wireless communications fault is detected, the interface transmits an alarm to the process control system. As some control circuits are critical in nature, a redundant signal conversion function is included in the FVCG. Critical service control devices can communicate with the FVCG using hardwired communications only or via wireless and hardwired communications in a dual-redundant fashion [i.e. sending a measurement signal over cable-connected interface and radio-interface], taking advantage of the internal FVCG state-based logic. If a fault is detected on the hardwired communications path between FVCGs, and a healthy wireless path is available, the interface will switch to the wireless path and alert the plant routing controller that trouble was detected on the primary hardwired link. The internal FVCG communications logic within the FVCG allows the end-user to define how the device will react when faults are detected within the field device to FVCG interface. In this way, a dual redundant communications path is optionally available, if needed, between the field devices and the connected signal converter and between individual field versatile control gateways (FVCGs).” – [0042]; “The versatile control interfaces 250 interface with numerous field devices 290 . These interfaces can be made via conventional (prior art) JBs 260 of the prior art with cables 255 routed between the versatile control interfaces 250 and the JBs 260 , and cables 265 routed between the JBs 260 and the field devices 290 . The versatile control interfaces 250 can also interface with field devices 290 via the FVCGs 270 of the invention. The communication between the versatile control interfaces 250 and the FVCGs 270 can include hardwired paths 257 and wireless paths 258 . The FVCGs 270 can communicate directly to field devices 290 via either a hardwired path 274 or a wireless path 278 . FVCGs can also communicate with other FVCGs via either a hardwired path 276 or a wireless path 279 . FVCGs can also communicate with prior art JBs 260 , via hardwired path 275 . Additional novel features of the present invention include new functions made possible by the introduction of the plant routing controller and the central versatile control switch that allow new levels of integration of emergency shutdown logic and adaptive logic.” – [0064]).”
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.
Claims 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flanders as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Karschnia (US20070285224).
In regards to Claim 23, Flanders discloses the claimed invention as detailed above in claim 21. Flanders is silent with regards to the language of “wherein the field device is incapable of receiving data via the radio interface or of processing data received via the radio interface as commands.”
Karschnia teaches “wherein the field device is incapable of receiving data via the radio interface or of processing data received via the radio interface as commands (“With the present invention, an RF communication module is included in a field device which can be used in addition to the connection to a process control loop such as loop 16. The wireless communication module 22 can be configured to be compact and lower power such that it can be easily included in existing field device configurations. The module can be used for wireless transmission of information for use in monitoring control and/or display of data. Such a radio transmitter can make the field device information available in a local area” – [0019]; “The RF circuitry 232 can be any appropriate circuitry or configuration as desired. In one simple form, the RF circuitry 232 simply transmits a measured variable to a wireless receiver. The antenna 240 can be used to broadcast the RF signal and can be formed integral with the circuitry 170, for example in the form of traces routed around an outside edge of a circuit board. The RF circuitry 232 can, in some embodiments, include a wireless receiver such that the circuitry 232 can be configured as a transceiver” – [0047]; As [0047] details, the RF circuitry can include in some embodiments receiver circuitry to be a transceiver. RF circuitry that consists of transmitter circuitry would thus be incapable of receiving data or commands as it would not have receiver circuitry to receive such data or commands.).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Flanders to incorporate the teaching of Karschnia to utilize wireless communication circuitry for the transmission of data. By incorporating the remote system by wireless communication circuitry consisting of a transmitter as taught by Karschnia this is an improvement that yields predictable results in the monitoring and operation of field devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3291. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
