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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 04/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-23 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 8-9, filed 04/14/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on Page 8 that the whatever abstract idea is recited in these claims is recited in the context of a physical embodiment, which is itself statutory subject matter and that the transmission of measurement values to and from a remote location to permit technological improvements such as remote diagnosis, error detection and reduced power consumption. Applicant disagrees with the as certation that the remote positioning of the detection system is only an insignificant extra-solution activity. Applicant argues that the method and systems check whether a case of error is present, taking into account the measurement signal deviation and that the step of detecting the error represents the practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As the previous office action details, under Step 1 of the analysis, Claims 1 and 20 belong to a statutory subject matter category.
With regards to the argument that the positioning of the remote location, the limitation is considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, and when re-evaluated under Step 2B it 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). That the field device is remote to the system is well known and understood in the art is evidenced by Girardey (WO2010086073A1) in [0005] and Karschnia (US20070285224) in [0017]. Furthermore, the transmission of measurement data is considered to be necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. acquiring a detection value) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The MPEP recites in 2106.04(d)(I) that “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")”. Furthermore, in evaluation of whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, under Step 2A Prong Two the claim is evaluated by identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Examiner notes that Claims 18-19 are no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the limitations of Claims 18 and 19 fall into this category as additional limitations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 9-11, filed 04/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-23 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 is made in view of previously disclosed prior art Girardey (WO2010086073A1) in view of newly discovered prior art Karschnia (US20070285224).
Applicant argues on Pages 9-10 that Girardey does not disclose a detection system that is remote or separate from a field device.
Examiner agrees that previously disclosed prior art Girardey discloses the detection system as being internal to the field device, as it pertains to the claim limitations of independent Claims 1 and 20. Examiner notes however that Claim 21 only details that “the field device is configured for outputting the measurement value as a first measurement signal and as a second measurement signal for remote reception by a detection system at a location remote from a location of the field device”, which Giradey details in [0005] that “In modern automation systems, field devices are typically connected to a higher-level unit, often referred to as a control system or control room, via communication networks such as HART, multidrop, point-to-point connections, or Profibus Foundation Fieldbus. This higher-level unit is responsible for process control, process visualization, process monitoring, as well as commissioning and operating the field devices…” Thus as it includes the communication system to a control system or a control room (a remote location), and that the higher-level unit (i.e. control system/room) is responsible for process monitor, it reads upon the limitations of Claim 21 and thus claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). With respect to Claims 1 and 20, the above teaching of Giradey in [0005] holds that Giradey conveys the measurement data to a remote location. As Girardey details in [0005], the control room/system is responsible for process control, process visualization, process monitoring, as well as commissioning and operating the field devices. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the control system that is remote from the field device to perform process monitoring and operating of the field devices including the determination of measurement deviation and an error occurring as these would fall under the monitoring and operating of the field devices. Newly discovered prior art Karschnia (US20070285224) details the full details of the remote process control and monitoring of a field device by a control room or control system in Figure 1 and [0017].
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 1-17 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,
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:
receiving a first measurement signal from the remote field device,
receiving a second measurement signal from the remote 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].
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(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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Girardey (WO2010086073A1).
In regards to Claim 21, Girardey teaches “A field device with at least one sensor unit for recording a measurement value (“In automation technology, particularly in process automation, field devices are used to determine and monitor process variables. Examples of such field devices include level gauges, flow meters, analytical instruments, pressure and temperature gauges, humidity and conductivity gauges, and density and viscosity gauges. The sensors of these field devices detect the corresponding process variables, such as level, flow rate, pH value, substance concentration, pressure, temperature, humidity, conductivity, density, or viscosity” – [0003]), wherein the field device is configured for outputting the measurement value as a first measurement signal and as a second measurement signal for remote reception by a detection system at a location remote from a location of the field device (“In modern automation systems, field devices are typically connected to a higher-level unit, often referred to as a control system or control room [i.e. detection system at a location remote from a location of the field device], via communication networks such as HART, multidrop, point-to-point connections, or Profibus Foundation Fieldbus. This higher-level unit is responsible for process control, process visualization, process monitoring, as well as commissioning and operating the field devices. Additional components necessary for the operation of fieldbus systems, which are directly connected to a fieldbus and primarily serve for communication with the higher-level units, are also frequently referred to as field devices. These additional components include, for example, remote I/Os, gateways, linking devices, and controllers” – [0005]; “For field devices 1 used in safety-critical applications and classified according to SIL (Safety Integrity Level) according to IEC 61508, independent verification of the measurement result delivered in a measurement path MP1 [i.e. second measurement signal], MP2, MP3 [i.e. first measurement signal] is required. Previously, two or more different measurement paths MP1, MP2, MP3 were provided for this purpose in field devices 1. Often, the measured value is determined hardware-wise in a first measurement path MP1 using an ASIC 5.” – [0046];).”
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 1-8, 10, 13, 15-17, 20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girardey (WO2010086073A1) in view of Karschnia (US20070285224).
In regards to claim 1, Girardey teaches “outputting of a measurement value by the field device as a first measurement signal (“For field devices 1 used in safety-critical applications and classified according to SIL (Safety Integrity Level) according to IEC 61508, independent verification of the measurement result delivered in a measurement path MP1, MP2, MP3 is required. Previously, two or more different measurement paths MP1, MP2, MP3 were provided for this purpose in field devices 1. Often, the measured value is determined hardware-wise in a first measurement path MP1 using an ASIC 5.” – [0046]; “The analog measurement path MP3 [i.e. first measurement signal] is faster but less accurate than the two digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2, which typically use the same type of A/D converter. Voter 7 compares the output signals of the two digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2 with the output signal of the analog measurement path MP3. If the deviation is within the tolerance limits of the analog measurement path MP3, the output signal of the digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2 is passed on to the analog current output module 9” – [0054]),
outputting of the measurement value by the field device as a second measurement signal (“For field devices 1 used in safety-critical applications and classified according to SIL (Safety Integrity Level) according to IEC 61508, independent verification of the measurement result delivered in a measurement path MP1, MP2, MP3 is required. Previously, two or more different measurement paths MP1, MP2, MP3 were provided for this purpose in field devices 1. Often, the measured value is determined hardware-wise in a first measurement path MP1 using an ASIC 5.” – [0046]; “The analog measurement path MP3 is faster but less accurate than the two digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2 [i.e. second measurement signal], which typically use the same type of A/D converter. Voter 7 compares the output signals of the two digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2 with the output signal of the analog measurement path MP3. If the deviation is within the tolerance limits of the analog measurement path MP3, the output signal of the digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2 is passed on to the analog current output module 9” – [0054]),
receiving by a detection system the first measurement signal and the second measurement signal or values derived therefrom (“In modern automation systems, field devices are typically connected to a higher-level unit, often referred to as a control system or control room [i.e. detection system remote from the field device], via communication networks such as HART, multidrop, point-to-point connections, or Profibus Foundation Fieldbus. This higher-level unit is responsible for process control, process visualization, process monitoring, as well as commissioning and operating the field devices. Additional components necessary for the operation of fieldbus systems, which are directly connected to a fieldbus and primarily serve for communication with the higher-level units, are also frequently referred to as field devices. These additional components include, for example, remote I/Os, gateways, linking devices, and controllers” – [0005] ; “The analog measurement path MP3 is faster but less accurate than the two digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2, which typically use the same type of A/D converter. Voter 7 compares the output signals of the two digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2 with the output signal of the analog measurement path MP3. If the deviation is within the tolerance limits of the analog measurement path MP3, the output signal of the digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2 is passed on to the analog current output module 9” – [0054]),
determining a measurement signal deviation between the first measurement signal and the second measurement signal by the detection system (“In modern automation systems, field devices are typically connected to a higher-level unit, often referred to as a control system or control room, via communication networks such as HART, multidrop, point-to-point connections, or Profibus Foundation Fieldbus. This higher-level unit is responsible for process control, process visualization, process monitoring, as well as commissioning and operating the field devices.” – [0005]; “The analog measurement path MP3 is faster but less accurate than the two digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2, which typically use the same type of A/D converter. Voter 7 compares the output signals of the two digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2 with the output signal of the analog measurement path MP3. If the deviation is within the tolerance limits of the analog measurement path MP3, the output signal of the digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2 is passed on to the analog current output module 9” – [0054]), 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 (“In modern automation systems, field devices are typically connected to a higher-level unit, often referred to as a control system or control room, via communication networks such as HART, multidrop, point-to-point connections, or Profibus Foundation Fieldbus. This higher-level unit is responsible for process control, process visualization, process monitoring, as well as commissioning and operating the field devices.” – [0005]; “If both measured values are the same within a predefined error tolerance – a corresponding check is performed in the controller 7 – it can be assumed that the field device 1 is functioning correctly. A deviation is always considered an indication of a malfunction. Consequently, an alarm is generated based on the two measured values, which is forwarded via digital communication electronics 8, analog communication electronics 9, and a bus system 10 to a higher-level control unit or control room 12.” – [0046]).”
Girardey is silent with regards to the language of “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.”
Karschnia teaches “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 (“FIG. 1 is a simplified block diagram of a process control or monitoring system 10 in which a control room or control system 12 couples to a field device 14 over a two-wire process control loop 16. The field device 14 includes I/O power circuitry 18, actuator/transducer 20 and wireless communication circuitry 22. The wireless communication circuitry 22 is configured to send and/or receive an RF signal 24 using an antenna 26” – [0017], Figure 1).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Girardey to incorporate the teaching of Karschnia to utilize a two-wire process loop and wireless communication circuitry to send data to a control room or control system. As Girardey details in [0005], the control room/system is responsible for process control, process visualization, process monitoring, as well as commissioning and operating the field devices. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the control system that is remote from the field device to perform process monitoring and operating of the field devices including the determination of measurement deviation and an error occurring as these would fall under the monitoring and operating of the field devices. By incorporating the remote detection system connected via two-wire control loop and by wireless communication circuitry as taught by Karschnia this is an improvement that yields predictable results in the monitoring and operation of field devices.
In regards to Claim 2, Girardey in view of Karschnia discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Girardey further teaches “wherein the first measurement signal is output via a interface of the field device, and the second measurement signal is output via an interface of the field device (“In modern automation systems, field devices are typically connected to a higher-level unit, often referred to as a control system or control room, via communication networks such as HART, multidrop, point-to-point connections, or Profibus Foundation Fieldbus.” – [0005]).”
Girardey is silent with regards to the language of “wherein the first measurement signal is output via a cable-connected interface of the field device, and the second measurement signal is output via a radio interface of the field device”
Karschnia further teaches “wherein the first measurement signal is output via a cable-connected interface of the field device, and the second measurement signal is output via a radio interface of the field device (“FIG. 1 is a simplified block diagram of a process control or monitoring system 10 in which a control room or control system 12 couples to a field device 14 over a two-wire process control loop 16 [i.e. cable-connected interface of the field device]. The field device 14 includes I/O power circuitry 18, actuator/transducer 20 and wireless communication circuitry 22. The wireless communication circuitry 22 is configured to send and/or receive an RF signal 24 using an antenna 26 [i.e. radio interface of the field device” – [0017], Figure 1).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Girardey to incorporate the teaching of Karschnia to utilize a two-wire process loop and wireless communication circuitry to send data to a control room or control system. By incorporating the remote detection system connected via two-wire control loop and by wireless communication circuitry as taught by Karschnia this is an improvement that yields predictable results in the monitoring and operation of field devices.
In regards to Claim 3, Girardey in view of Karschnia discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Girardey further teaches “wherein the first measurement signal is an analog measurement signal (The analog measurement path MP3 – [0054]), and that the second measurement signal is a digital measurement signal (the two digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2 – [0054]).”
In regards to Claim 4, Girardey in view of Karschnia discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Girardey further teaches “wherein, 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 (“Function modules in a defined first area of the logic block are reconfigured, and a microcontroller is provided which, by comparing the data of individual function modules or groups of function modules with corresponding redundant or diverse function modules or groups of function modules, determines whether the function module or group of function modules in the first area of the logic block is working correctly or is faulty” – [0029]; “The following refers to Figures 5a, 5b, 5c, and 5d. In many processes of process automation, the response time to a sudden change, i.e., the processing speed, is just as important as the accuracy of the output signal of a measurement path. These two factors are usually related, as higher accuracy requires correspondingly designed A/D converters. Therefore, high accuracy of the output signal of a measurement path is typically associated with a lower processing speed within the measurement path, while higher processing speed is associated with a lower processing speed on the corresponding measurement path. For example, the voter and the analog measurement path can be used to achieve the shortest possible response time or the lowest possible output signal.” – [0052]; “High processing speed with high accuracy is achieved. In this context, reference is also made to Fig. 6, which shows a voter 7 designed as a switch, which ensures that in the event of a sudden change in the process size, the optimal values are always available as output signals” – [0053]; “The analog measurement path MP3 is faster but less accurate than the two digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2, which typically use the same type of A/D converter. Voter 7 compares the output signals of the two digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2 with the output signal of the analog measurement path MP3. If the deviation is within the tolerance limits of the analog measurement path MP3, the output signal of the digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2 is passed on to the analog current output module 9” – [0054]).”
In regards to Claim 5, Girardey in view of Karschnia discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Girardey further teaches “wherein the determination of the measurement signal deviation comprises the following steps:
providing an analog nominal measurement value by converting the digital measurement value into an analog unit (Figure 3 details the digital measurement signals being converted to analog),
providing an analog actual measurement value on the basis of the analog measurement signal (“The analog measurement path MP3 – [0054]), and
calculating a difference between the analog nominal measurement value and the analog actual measurement value (“Provided that the difference between the analog output signal and the digital output signal is greater than the accuracy of the output signal of the analog measurement path, and provided that the output signal of the digital measurement path MP1 MP2 is not yet - albeit with a delay - indicating a sudden change, then an error exists on one of the two measurement paths MP1, MP2, or MP3. If the output signals in the two digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2 are the same, then the error clearly lies in the analog measurement path MP3. To correct this error, the self-healing method, as previously described, can be applied” – [0059]).”
In regards to Claim 6, Girardey in view of Karschnia discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Girardey further teaches “wherein the method further comprises the steps of:
outputting a configuration data set of the field device by the field device, and
receiving the configuration data set by the detection system (“Furthermore, it is proposed that the logic module comprises a plurality of logic cells in a hard-wired FPGA/standard ASIC structure, wherein the logic cells are configurable via configuration registers to execute elementary logic functions, wherein a link matrix with a plurality of memory cells is provided via which different logical operations of the logic cells in defined complex operations can be configured via the configuration registers, and that a second control unit is provided which partially dynamically configures the logic cells and the link matrix via an internal bus and via the configuration registers using a configuration bitstream, such that the hard-wired FPGA/ASIC structure behaves functionally like a partially dynamically reconfigurable standard logic module” – [0037]).”
In regards to Claim 7, Girardey in view of Karschnia discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Girardey further teaches “wherein 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 (“Function modules in a defined first area of the logic block are reconfigured, and a microcontroller is provided which, by comparing the data of individual function modules or groups of function modules with corresponding redundant or diverse function modules or groups of function modules, determines whether the function module or group of function modules in the first area of the logic block is working correctly or is faulty” – [0029]; “The following refers to Figures 5a, 5b, 5c, and 5d. In many processes of process automation, the response time to a sudden change, i.e., the processing speed, is just as important as the accuracy of the output signal of a measurement path. These two factors are usually related, as higher accuracy requires correspondingly designed A/D converters. Therefore, high accuracy of the output signal of a measurement path is typically associated with a lower processing speed within the measurement path, while higher processing speed is associated with a lower processing speed on the corresponding measurement path. For example, the voter and the analog measurement path can be used to achieve the shortest possible response time or the lowest possible output signal.” – [0052]; “High processing speed with high accuracy is achieved. In this context, reference is also made to Fig. 6, which shows a voter 7 designed as a switch, which ensures that in the event of a sudden change in the process size, the optimal values are always available as output signals” – [0053]; “The analog measurement path MP3 is faster but less accurate than the two digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2, which typically use the same type of A/D converter. Voter 7 compares the output signals of the two digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2 with the output signal of the analog measurement path MP3. If the deviation is within the tolerance limits of the analog measurement path MP3, the output signal of the digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2 is passed on to the analog current output module 9” – [0054]).”
In regards to Claim 8, Girardey in view of Karschnia discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Girardey further teaches “wherein 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 (Figure 4B details case where the analog signal MP3 is converted to a digital signal and transmitted).”
In regards to Claim 10, Girardey in view of Karschnia discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Girardey further teaches “wherein the first measurement signal and the second measurement signal are output, in terms of time, in a spaced-apart manner by the field device (“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” – [0054]).”
In regards to Claim 13, Girardey in view of Karschnia discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Girardey further teaches “wherein the detection system, when checking whether a case of error is present, 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 (“For field devices 1 used in safety-critical applications and classified according to SIL (Safety Integrity Level) according to IEC 61508, independent verification of the measurement result delivered in a measurement path MP1, MP2, MP3 is required. Previously, two or more different measurement paths MP1, MP2, MP3 were provided for this purpose in field devices 1. Often, the measured value is determined hardware-wise in a first measurement path MP1 using an ASIC 5. Additionally, the measured value is determined software-wise in a second measurement path MP2 using a program running on a microcontroller 6. The diverse measured value determined by the microcontroller 6 is compared with the measured value determined by the ASIC 5. If both measured values are the same within a predefined error tolerance – a corresponding check is performed in the controller 7 – it can be assumed that the field device 1 is functioning correctly. A deviation is always considered an indication of a malfunction. Consequently, an alarm is generated based on the two measured values, which is forwarded via digital communication electronics 8, analog communication electronics 9, and a bus system 10 to a higher-level control unit or control room 12. The corresponding field device 1 for pressure measurement is offered and distributed by the applicant under the name Cerabar S Evolution. A problem with an even number of measurement paths MP1, MP2 is that it cannot be specified in which of the measurement paths MP1 MP2 the error occurred” – [0046]; “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 or to the operating personnel” – [0050]; “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” – [0054]).”
In regards to Claim 15, Girardey in view of Karschnia discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Girardey further teaches “wherein the first measurement signal is a current signal (“The analog measurement path MP3 is faster but less accurate than the two digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2, which typically use the same type of A/D converter. Voter 7 compares the output signals of the two digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2 with the output signal of the analog measurement path MP3. If the deviation is within the tolerance limits of the analog measurement path MP3, the output signal of the digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2 is passed on to the analog current output module 9” – [0054]).”
In regards to Claim 16, Girardey in view of Karschnia discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Girardey is silent with regards to the language of “wherein the field device outputs the first measurement signal via a two-wire system.”
Karschnia further teaches “wherein the field device outputs the first measurement signal via a two-wire system (“FIG. 1 is a simplified block diagram of a process control or monitoring system 10 in which a control room or control system 12 couples to a field device 14 over a two-wire process control loop 16. The field device 14 includes I/O power circuitry 18, actuator/transducer 20 and wireless communication circuitry 22. The wireless communication circuitry 22 is configured to send and/or receive an RF signal 24 using an antenna 26” – [0017], Figure 1).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Girardey to incorporate the teaching of Karschnia to utilize a two-wire process loop to send data to a control room or control system. By incorporating the remote detection system connected via two-wire control loop as taught by Karschnia this is an improvement that yields predictable results in the monitoring and operation of field devices.
In regards to Claim 17, Girardey in view of Karschnia discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Girardey further teaches “wherein the detection system outputs an error signal when ascertaining the presence of the case of error (“Output signals from two measurement paths or channels: a warning or error message is generated if the difference between the output signals of two measurement paths is greater than the accuracy of the measurement path with the higher processing speed and if the output signal of the measurement path with the lower processing speed shows no reaction to the abrupt change in the process variable” – [0026]).”
In regards to Claim 20, Girardey teaches “receiving a first measurement signal from the field device (“In modern automation systems, field devices are typically connected to a higher-level unit, often referred to as a control system or control room, via communication networks such as HART, multidrop, point-to-point connections, or Profibus Foundation Fieldbus. This higher-level unit is responsible for process control, process visualization, process monitoring, as well as commissioning and operating the field devices.” – [0005]; “For field devices 1 used in safety-critical applications and classified according to SIL (Safety Integrity Level) according to IEC 61508, independent verification of the measurement result delivered in a measurement path MP1, MP2, MP3 is required. Previously, two or more different measurement paths MP1, MP2, MP3 were provided for this purpose in field devices 1. Often, the measured value is determined hardware-wise in a first measurement path MP1 using an ASIC 5.” – [0046]; “The analog measurement path MP3 [i.e. first measurement signal] is faster but less accurate than the two digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2, which typically use the same type of A/D converter. Voter 7 compares the output signals of the two digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2 with the output signal of the analog measurement path MP3. If the deviation is within the tolerance limits of the analog measurement path MP3, the output signal of the digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2 is passed on to the analog current output module 9” – [0054]),
receiving a second measurement signal from the field device (“In modern automation systems, field devices are typically connected to a higher-level unit, often referred to as a control system or control room, via communication networks such as HART, multidrop, point-to-point connections, or Profibus Foundation Fieldbus. This higher-level unit is responsible for process control, process visualization, process monitoring, as well as commissioning and operating the field devices.” – [0005]; “For field devices 1 used in safety-critical applications and classified according to SIL (Safety Integrity Level) according to IEC 61508, independent verification of the measurement result delivered in a measurement path MP1, MP2, MP3 is required. Previously, two or more different measurement paths MP1, MP2, MP3 were provided for this purpose in field devices 1. Often, the measured value is determined hardware-wise in a first measurement path MP1 using an ASIC 5.” – [0046]; “The analog measurement path MP3 is faster but less accurate than the two digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2 [i.e. second measurement signal], which typically use the same type of A/D converter. Voter 7 compares the output signals of the two digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2 with the output signal of the analog measurement path MP3. If the deviation is within the tolerance limits of the analog measurement path MP3, the output signal of the digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2 is passed on to the analog current output module 9” – [0054]),
determining a measurement signal deviation between the first measurement signal and the second measurement signal (“In modern automation systems, field devices are typically connected to a higher-level unit, often referred to as a control system or control room, via communication networks such as HART, multidrop, point-to-point connections, or Profibus Foundation Fieldbus. This higher-level unit is responsible for process control, process visualization, process monitoring, as well as commissioning and operating the field devices.” – [0005]; “The analog measurement path MP3 is faster but less accurate than the two digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2, which typically use the same type of A/D converter. Voter 7 compares the output signals of the two digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2 with the output signal of the analog measurement path MP3. If the deviation is within the tolerance limits of the analog measurement path MP3, the output signal of the digital measurement paths MP1 and MP2 is passed on to the analog current output module 9” – [0054]), and
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 (“In modern automation systems, field devices are typically connected to a higher-level unit, often referred to as a control system or control room, via communication networks such as HART, multidrop, point-to-point connections, or Profibus Foundation Fieldbus. This higher-level unit is responsible for process control, process visualization, process monitoring, as well as commissioning and operating the field devices.” – [0005]; “If both measured values are the same within a predefined error tolerance – a corresponding check is performed in the controller 7 – it can be assumed that the field device 1 is functioning correctly. A deviation is always considered an indication of a malfunction. Consequently, an alarm is generated based on the two measured values, which is forwarded via digital communication electronics 8, analog communication electronics 9, and a bus system 10 to a higher-level control unit or control room 12.” – [0046]).”
Girardey is silent with regards to the language of “receiving a signal from the remote field device; remotely from the field device.”
Karschnia teaches “receiving a signal from the remote field device (“FIG. 1 is a simplified block diagram of a process control or monitoring system 10 in which a control room or control system 12 couples to a field device 14 over a two-wire process control loop 16. The field device 14 includes I/O power circuitry 18, actuator/transducer 20 and wireless communication circuitry 22. The wireless communication circuitry 22 is configured to send and/or receive an RF signal 24 using an antenna 26” – [0017], Figure 1).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Girardey to incorporate the teaching of Karschnia to utilize a two-wire process loop and wireless communication circuitry to send data to a control room or control system. As Girardey details in [0005], the control room/system is responsible for process control, process visualization, process monitoring, as well as commissioning and operating the field devices. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the control system that is remote from the field device to perform process monitoring and operating of the field devices including the determination of measurement deviation and an error occurring as these would fall under the monitoring and operating of the field devices. By incorporating the remote detection system connected via two-wire control loop and by wireless communication circuitry as taught by Karschnia this is an improvement that yields predictable results in the monitoring and operation of field devices.
In regards to Claim 22, Girardey discloses the claimed invention as detailed above in Claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 102. Girardey is silent with regards to the language of “wherein the field device has a cable-connected interface and a radio interface, wherein the field device is configured for outputting the first measurement signal via the cable-connected interface and the second measurement signal via the radio interface.”
Karschnia teaches “wherein the field device has a cable-connected interface and a radio interface, wherein the field device is configured for outputting the first measurement signal via the cable-connected interface and the second measurement signal via the radio interface (“FIG. 1 is a simplified block diagram of a process control or monitoring system 10 in which a control room or control system 12 couples to a field device 14 over a two-wire process control loop 16 [i.e. cable connected interface]. The field device 14 includes I/O power circuitry 18, actuator/transducer 20 and wireless communication circuitry 22. The wireless communication circuitry 22 is configured to send and/or receive an RF signal 24 using an antenna 26 [i.e. radio interface]” – [0017], Figure 1).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Girardey to incorporate the teaching of Karschnia to utilize a two-wire process loop and wireless communication circuitry to send data to a control room or control system. By incorporating the remote detection system connected via two-wire control loop and by wireless communication circuitry as taught by Karschnia this is an improvement that yields predictable results in the monitoring and operation of field devices.
In regards to Claim 23, Girardey in view of Karschnia discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Girardey 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 further 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 Girardey to incorporate the teaching of Karschnia to utilize wireless communication circuitry to send data to a control room or control system. 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girardey in view of Karschnia as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Jensen (US20130223494).
In regards to Claim 9, Girardey in view of Karschnia discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Girardey in view of Karschnia is silent with regards to the language of “wherein the recording unit furnishes the measurement data packet with a time stamp.”
Jensen teaches “wherein the recording unit furnishes the measurement data packet with a time stamp (“response, described are systems and methods for recording a time-stamp at the field device (e.g., process control valve) and associating that time-stamp with measured data. As a result, when the measured data is transmitted to a receiving system, the data includes a time-stamp indicative of when the data was captured” – [0010]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Girardey in view of Karschnia to incorporate the teaching of Jensen to have the field device record a time stamp and associate the time stamp with the measurement signal. By using time stamps this is an improvement that yields predictable results in the operation of field devices and the monitoring of the measurement signals from the field devices.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girardey in view of Karschnia as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jensen (US20130223494).
In regards to Claim 11, Girardey in view of Karschnia discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Girardey in view of Karschnia are silent with regards to the language of “wherein the field device furnishes the second measurement signal with a time stamp.”
Jensen teaches “wherein the field device furnishes the second measurement signal with a time stamp (“response, described are systems and methods for recording a time-stamp at the field device (e.g., process control valve) and associating that time-stamp with measured data. As a result, when the measured data is transmitted to a receiving system, the data includes a time-stamp indicative of when the data was captured” – [0010]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Girardey in view of Karschnia to incorporate the teaching of Jensen to have the field device record a time stamp and associate the time stamp with the measurement signal. By using time stamps this is an improvement that yields predictable results in the operation of field devices and the monitoring of the measurement signals from the field devices.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girardey in view of Karschnia as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Amirthasamy (US20180218586).
In regards to Claim 12, Girardey in view of Karschnia discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Girardey in view of Karschnia is silent with regards to the language of “wherein the detection system, when checking whether a case of error is present, determines whether a threshold value predefined for the measurement signal deviation is exceeded.”
Amirthasamy teaches “wherein the detection system, when checking whether a case of error is present, determines whether a threshold value predefined for the measurement signal deviation is exceeded (an error condition is associated with a process parameter including a deviation from a threshold – [0040]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Girardey in view of Karschnia to incorporate the teaching of Amirthasamy to utilize a threshold to in the error determination. By utilizing a threshold with the process parameters including a deviation, this is an improvement that yields predictable results in the evaluation of field devices for error conditions.
Claims 14 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girardey in view of Karschnia as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sotriffer (US20190334800).
In regards to Claim 14, Girardey in view of Karschnia discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Girardey in view of Karschnia is silent with regards to the language of “wherein the detection system, when checking whether a case of error is present, 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.”
Sotriffer teaches “wherein the detection system, when checking whether a case of error is present, 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 (“For detecting this interference, a timeout function, set to a predetermined value each time a message is received by the client, may be provided on the communication proxy side, for example. A timeout error is, then, present when the client is no longer signaling within the predefined time period. As an alternative to this timer functionality, the client could also be pinged at regular intervals by the server, wherein, as a result of the regular pinging, a fault on the client side can be detected. To monitor the activity of the client, it could alternatively be provided for the FDT data traffic to be monitored.” – [0044]; “If the communication proxy receives no feedback from a field device or a field bus component or from the communication drivers over a prolonged period of time, then the reason for this may, for example, be a network failure, an error of the software components, in particular the FDT general application and the communication drivers, an error on the field device side, or connection and grounding problems in the connection to the field device. On the communication proxy side, a timer functionality can be provided which checks whether a feedback from the field device or from the field bus component is present within a predetermined time interval. If there is no feedback within the predetermined period of time, then there is a timeout error. In this case, the communication proxy will terminate the data connection via the communication drivers to the automation network and output an error message. Moreover, the communication proxy can automatically undertake measures for error correction. For example, the communication proxy could initiate a restart of the field device or the field bus component and/or a restart of software components, i.e., for example, the FDT general application, and of one or more communication drivers” – [0049]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Girardey in view of Karschnia to incorporate the teaching of Sotriffer to monitor field devices for time out errors. By monitoring the field device for a timeout error this is an improvement that yields predictable results in the evaluation of the operation of the field device.
In regards to Claim 19, Girardey in view of Karschnia discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Girardey in view of Karschnia is silent with regards to the language of “wherein the detection system, if the case of error is present, transmits to the field device a command for restarting the field device.”
Sotriffer teaches “wherein the detection system, if the case of error is present, transmits to the field device a command for restarting the field device (“Moreover, the communication proxy can automatically undertake measures for error correction. For example, the communication proxy could initiate a restart of the field device or the field bus component and/or a restart of software components, i.e., for example, the FDT general application, and of one or more communication drivers” – [0049]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Girardey in view of Karschnia to incorporate the teaching of Sotriffer to restart the field device upon determination of an error. By restarting the field device this is an improvement that yields predictable results in the operation of field devices.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girardey in view of Karschnia as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fruhauf (US20150254973).
In regards to Claim 18, Girardey in view of Karschnia discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Girardey in view of Karschnia is silent with regards to the language of “wherein 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.”
Fruhauf teaches “wherein 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 (computer unit acts in case of detecting an error by bringing the field device into a safe state – [0025]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Girardey in view of Karschnia to incorporate the teaching of Fruhauf to bring the field device into a safe state upon determination of an error. By bring the field device into a safe state upon detection of an error, this is an improvement that yields predictable results in the operation of field devices.
Conclusion
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/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights