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
The action is responsive to the Amendment filed on December 9, 2025. Claims 1, 20, and 21 were amended. No claims were added or cancelled. Thus, claims 1-23 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites:
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, 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, determining a measurement signal deviation between the first measurement signal and the second measurement signal by the detection system, and 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. The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.” Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of claim 20.
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).
Additionally, Applicant is thanked for their 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). As noted above, Applicant is thanked for their 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 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.
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).
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 2-19, 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 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.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Girardey (WIPO | PCT Patent Publication WO 2016/182799 A1 – An Espacenet | EPO Machine generated translation [Generated: 09/024/2025] and original German language application were each provided with the previous action.).
Regarding claim 1, Girardey teaches a method for the detection of incorrect measurement signal outputs of a field device (Girardey: Abstract; [“…field device for determining and/or monitoring a physical or chemical process variable…”]), comprising the steps:
outputting of a measurement value by the field device as a first measurement signal (Girardey: FIGS. 1-4b; ¶¶46-47 [“…an independent verification of the measurement result delivered in a measurement path MP1, MP2 MP3 is required. Up to now, two or more different measurement paths MP1, MP2 MP3 were provided for this purpose in field devices 1. Frequently, the measured value is determined in hardware in a first measurement path MP1…”]; ¶¶54-56 [“The analogue measuring path MP3 is faster but less accurate than the two digital measuring paths MP1, MP2, which usually use the same type of A/D converter. The voter 7 compares the output signals of the two digital measuring paths MP1, MP2 with the output signal of the analogue measuring path MP3. If the deviation is within the tolerance limits of the analogue measuring path MP3, the output signal of the digital measuring paths MP1, MP2 is passed on to the analogue current output module 9…”]),
outputting of the measurement value by the field device as a second measurement signal (Girardey: FIGS. 1-4b; ¶¶46-47, ¶¶54-56 {See above.}),
receiving by a detection system the first measurement signal and the second measurement signal or values derived therefrom (Girardey: FIGS. 1-4b; ¶¶54-56 [“The voter 7 compares the output signals of the two digital measuring paths MP1, MP2 with the output signal of the analogue measuring path MP3. If the deviation is within the tolerance limits of the analogue measuring path MP3, the output signal of the digital measuring paths MP1, MP2 is passed on to the analogue current output module 9…”] {See above.}), the detection system being remote from the field device (Girardey: FIGS. 1-2; ¶46 [“A deviation is always seen as an indication of a malfunction. evaluated If the two measured values are inequality, an alarm is generated which is forwarded to a higher-level control unit or control room 12 via digital communication electronics 8, analog communication electronics 9 and a bus system 10.”]; ¶50 [“If a deviation occurs between the measurement results in the various MP1, MP2, MP3, this is output as a warning or error message via the data line, which is preferably a data bus 10, to the control room 12.”]),
determining a measurement signal deviation between the first measurement signal and the second measurement signal by the detection system (Girardey: FIGS. 1-4b; ¶¶54-56 [“The voter 7 compares the output signals of the two digital measuring paths MP1, MP2 with the output signal of the analogue measuring path MP3. If the deviation is within the tolerance limits of the analogue measuring path MP3, the output signal of the digital measuring paths MP1, MP2 is passed on to the analogue current output module 9…”] {See above.}), and
checking by the detection system whether a case of error is present, taking into account the measurement signal deviation (Girardey: FIGS. 1-4b; ¶¶46-47, ¶¶54-56 [“If both measured values are equal within a specified error tolerance - a corresponding check is carried out in the voter 7 - then it can be assumed that the field device 1 is working correctly. A deviation is always seen as an indication of a malfunction. evaluated If the two measured values are inequality, an alarm is generated…”] {See above.}).
Regarding Claims 20 and 21, each claim recites limitations found within Claim 1, and is rejected under the same rationale applied to the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Girardey teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 1 as shown above. Girardey additionally discloses the first measurement signal is outputted via a cable-connected interface of the field device (Girardey: FIGS. 1-4b; ¶005 [“…field devices in modern automation systems are connected to a higher-level unit via communication networks, such as HART multidrop, point-to-point connection, Profibus Foundation Fieldbus…”] {See above.}), and the second measurement signal is outputted via a radio interface of the field device (Girardey: FIGS. 1-4b; ¶¶46-47 [“…an alarm is generated which is forwarded to a higher-level control unit or control room 12 via digital communication electronics 8, analog communication electronics 9 and a bus system 10.”] {See above.}).
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites limitations found within Claim 2, and is rejected under the same rationale applied to the rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Girardey teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 1 as shown above. Girardey additionally discloses the first measurement signal is an analog measurement signal, and that the second measurement signal is a digital measurement signal (Girardey: FIGS. 1-4b; ¶5, ¶¶46-47, ¶¶54-56 {See above.}).
Regarding claim 4, Girardey teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 3 as shown above. Girardey additionally discloses for determining the measurement signal deviation, the analog measurement signal and the digital measurement signal are normalized to a matching unit, so as to result in normalized values, and a difference between the normalized values is then calculated (Girardey: FIGS. 1-4b; ¶5, ¶¶46-47, ¶¶54-56 {See above.}; ¶¶29-32 [“…in the event of a detected error, the control/evaluation unit reconfigures the faulty functional module or the faulty group of functional modules in the first area and compares the corresponding data with each other…. the control/evaluation unit blocks the first area of the logic module and reconfigures the corresponding function module or the corresponding group of function modules in a second area of the logic module that differs from the first area of the logic module. The corresponding data are then compared with each other.”]).
Regarding claim 4, Girardey teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 3 as shown above. Girardey additionally discloses the determination of the measurement signal deviation comprises providing an analog nominal measurement value by converting the digital measurement value into an analog unit, providing an analog actual measurement value on the basis of the analog measurement signal, and calculating a difference between the analog nominal measurement value and the analog actual measurement value (Girardey: FIGS. 1-4b; ¶5, ¶¶46-47, ¶¶54-56 {See above.}; ¶¶52-53 [“…both variables are related to each other, since a higher accuracy requires appropriately designed A/D converters. Therefore, a high accuracy of the output signal of a measuring path is usually linked to a lower processing speed in the measuring path, while a higher processing speed is accompanied by a lower processing speed on the corresponding measuring path…”]).
Regarding claim 6, Girardey teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 4 as shown above. Girardey additionally discloses outputting a configuration data set of the field device by the field device, and receiving the configuration data set by the detection system (Girardey: FIGS. 1-4b; ¶5, ¶¶46-47, ¶¶54-56 {See above.}; ¶37 [“…via which different logical connections of the logic cells in defined complex connections can be configured by means of the configuration registers, and that a second control unit is provided which partially dynamically configures the logic cell and the logic matrix via an internal bus and via the configuration registers by means of a configuration bit stream…”]).
Regarding claim 7, Girardey teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 6 as shown above. Girardey additionally discloses when determining the measurement signal deviation, the detection system uses the configuration data set for normalizing the analog measurement signal and the digital measurement signal to the matching unit (Girardey: FIGS. 1-4b; ¶5, ¶37, ¶¶46-47, ¶¶54-56 {See above.}).
Regarding claim 8, Girardey teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 3 as shown above. Girardey additionally discloses a recording unit records the analog measurement signal, wherein the recording unit carries out an analog-digital conversion of the analog measurement signal into a measurement data packet, and wherein the recording unit transmits the measurement data packet to the detection system (Girardey: FIGS. 1-4b; ¶5, ¶¶46-47, ¶¶53-56 {See above.}).
Regarding claim 9, Girardey teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 8 as shown above. Girardey additionally discloses the recording unit furnishes the measurement data packet with a time stamp (Girardey: FIGS. 1-4b; ¶5, ¶¶46-47, ¶¶53-56 {See above.} {Examiner takes official notice that while Girardey doesn’t explicitly recite the recording unit furnishes the measurement data packet with a time stamp, attaching a timestamp to data packets transferred via a communication network, such as HART multidrop, disclosed by Girardey are notoriously well-known, routine, and conventional in the art to which Applicant’s invention relates.}).
Regarding claim 10, Girardey teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 1 as shown above. Girardey additionally discloses the first measurement signal and the second measurement signal are outputted, in terms of time, in a spaced-apart manner by the field device (Girardey: FIGS. 1-4b; ¶¶54-56 [“Voter 7 subsequently outputs the output signal of the analogue measuring path MP3 until the output signals of the digital measuring paths MP1, MP2 is again within the tolerance limits of the output signal of the analogue measuring path MP3. As soon as the output signals of the two digital measuring paths MP1, MP2 are again within the tolerance limits of the output signal of the analogue measuring path MP3, the voter 7 again forwards the digital output signals for evaluation of the measured value. Although three measuring paths MP1 MP2 MP3 are used in Fig. 3, it goes without saying that the solution according to the invention can also be used with two measuring paths. Likewise, instead of a slow digital measuring path and a fast analogue measuring path, two digital and/or analogue measuring paths with different processing speeds and different accuracy can be used.”] {See above.}).
Regarding claim 11, Girardey teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 1 as shown above. Girardey additionally discloses the field device furnishes the second measurement signal with a time stamp (Girardey: FIGS. 1-4b; ¶5, ¶¶46-47, ¶¶53-56 {See above.} {Examiner takes official notice that while Girardey doesn’t explicitly recite the recording unit furnishes the measurement data packet with a time stamp, attaching a timestamp to data packets transferred via a communication network, such as HART multidrop, disclosed by Girardey are notoriously well-known, routine, and conventional in the art to which Applicant’s invention relates.}).
Regarding claim 12, Girardey teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 1 as shown above. Girardey additionally discloses the detection system determines whether a threshold value predefined for the measurement signal deviation is exceeded when checking whether a case of error is present (Girardey: FIGS. 1-4b; ¶5, ¶¶46-47, ¶¶53-56 {See above.}).
Regarding claim 13, Girardey teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 1 as shown above. Girardey additionally discloses the detection system takes into account several pairs of first and second measurement signals, wherein the pairs of first and second measurement signals have been outputted, in terms of time, in a spaced-apart manner by the field device when checking whether a case of error is present (Girardey: FIGS. 1-4b; ¶5, ¶¶46-47, ¶¶53-56 {See above.}).
Regarding claim 14, Girardey teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 1 as shown above. Girardey additionally discloses the detection system measures a time span since receiving the last second measurement signal or a value derived therefrom and ascertains the presence of the case of error if the measured time span exceeds a predefined maximum time span when checking whether a case of error is present (Girardey: FIGS. 1-4b; ¶5, ¶¶46-47, ¶¶53-56 {See above.} {Examiner takes official notice that while Girardey doesn’t explicitly recite measuring a time span since receiving the last second measurement signal or a value derived therefrom and ascertains the presence of the case of error if the measured time span exceeds a predefined maximum time span, a time offset between the two measurement signals or a time period after receiving a measurement signal are notoriously well-known, routine, and conventional in the art to which Applicant’s invention relates at the time of invention, for example, depending on the dynamics of the process to be verified, as disclosed by Girardey.}).
Regarding claim 15, Girardey teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 1 as shown above. Girardey additionally discloses the first measurement signal is a current signal (Girardey: FIGS. 1-4b; ¶5, ¶¶46-47, ¶¶53-56 {See above.}).
Regarding claim 16, Girardey teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 1 as shown above. Girardey additionally discloses the field device outputs the first measurement signal via a two-wire system (Girardey: FIGS. 1-4b; ¶5 [“…field devices in modern automation systems are connected to a higher-level unit via communication networks, such as HART multidrop, point-to-point connection, Profibus Foundation Fieldbus…”] {See above.}).
Regarding claim 17, Girardey teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 1 as shown above. Girardey additionally discloses the detection system outputs an error signal when ascertaining the presence of the case of error (Girardey: FIGS. 1-4b; ¶5, ¶¶46-47, ¶¶53-56 {See above.}).
Regarding claim 18, Girardey teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 1 as shown above. Girardey additionally discloses the detection system, if the case of error is present, transmits to the field device a command for putting the field device into a safe state (Girardey: FIGS. 1-4b; ¶5, ¶¶46-47, ¶¶53-56 {See above.} ¶9 [“…configurable field device has become known from WO 03/098154, in which a reconfigurable logic module in the form of an FPGA is provided. In this known solution, the logic module is configured with at least one microcontroller, also known as an embedded controller, at system start-up. After the configuration is completed, the required software is loaded into the microcontroller. The reconfigurable logic module required here must have sufficient resources, namely logic, wiring and memory resources, to fulfill the desired functionalities. Logic modules with many resources require a lot of energy, which in turn, from a functional point of view, makes their use in process automation possible without restrictions. The disadvantage of using logic modules with few resources and thus with lower energy consumption is the significant restriction in the functionality of the corresponding field device. …”] {See above.}).
Regarding claim 19, Girardey teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 1 as shown above. Girardey additionally discloses the detection system, if the case of error is present, transmits to the field device a command for restarting the field device (Girardey: FIGS. 1-4b; ¶5, ¶9, ¶¶46-47, ¶¶53-56 {See above.}).
Regarding claim 23, Girardey teaches all the limitations of the parent claim 22 as shown above. Girardey additionally discloses the field device is incapable of receiving data via the radio interface or of processing data received via the radio interface as commands (Girardey: FIGS. 1-4b; ¶5 {See above.}).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on December 9, 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant is thanked for their arguments and amendments which were presented in an effort to overcome the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 persists.
In regard claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, Examiner’s position and supporting remarks are presented in the rejection above.
Additionally, Applicant is thanked for their 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).
The recited additional elements, including the newly recited limitation, 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.
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).
Therefore, the rejection of the independent claims, claim 1, as well as claim 20, under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Similarly, the rejection of the dependent claims, claims 2-19, under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues (Remarks pp. 10-11) that Girardey fails to disclose “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,” as recited in amended claim 1, as well as claims 20 and 21. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Girardey discloses receiving by a detection system the first measurement signal and the second measurement signal or values derived therefrom (Girardey: FIGS. 1-4b; ¶¶54-56 {See above.}), and where the detection system is remote from the field device (Girardey: FIGS. 1-2; ¶46 [“A deviation is always seen as an indication of a malfunction. evaluated If the two measured values are inequality, an alarm is generated which is forwarded to a higher-level control unit or control room 12 via digital communication electronics 8, analog communication electronics 9 and a bus system 10.”]; ¶50 [“If a deviation occurs between the measurement results in the various MP1, MP2, MP3, this is output as a warning or error message via the data line, which is preferably a data bus 10, to the control room 12.”]).
Thus, Girardey anticipates the subject matter recited in claim 1, as well as claims 20 and 21, and recited in dependent claims 2-19.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 JEFFREY P AIELLO whose telephone number is (303) 297-4216. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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 submiss claims 2-19ions 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.
/JEFFREY P AIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857