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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/12/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/12/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3-9, and 11-13 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of amendments made to claims 1, 8, 11, and 13.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/12/2025, with respect to the 112 rejection of claim 8 has been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejection of claim 8 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoeing et al. (US 20040024939 A1) hereafter referred to as Hoeing, in view of Huck (DE 10135980 C1).
Regarding claim 1, Hoeing teaches an input/output device (100 base module unit), comprising: an inlay element (200 connecting module); and a module termination unit (100 base module) of a modular process control system comprising at least one connection port (102 bus bar connectors) and a recess formed in the module termination unit that is configured to hold the inlay element, wherein the inlay element is configured to be arranged inside the recess of the module termination unit of the modular process control system (Fig 2 and 3a/b) and wherein the inlay element comprises: a first connector section (section of 200 with 203 plug connector); and a second connector section (section of 200 with 203 plug connector); wherein the first connector section is configured to be connected to at least one controller module (300 input/output module, ¶16), wherein the first connector section comprises at least one connection interface for the at least one controller module (203 plug connector, Fig 2); and wherein the second connector section is configured to be connected to at least one fieldbus device (204’ and 204” auxiliary connectors) or to a control network (¶16), wherein the at least one controller module is connected to the module termination unit by the at least one connection port and to the inlay element by the at least one connection interface (¶16 and 17)
Hoeing fails to teach the module termination unit has no direct signal connection and/or electrical connection to the inlay element and the inlay element forms a bridge between the at least one controller module and a connected fieldbus device or connected control network. However, Huck teaches the module termination unit (34 plug contact device) has no direct signal connection and/or electrical connection to the inlay element (352 conductor bridges portion of 35, pg 5 ¶4-5) and the inlay element forms a bridge (pg 5 ¶5) between the at least one controller module (35 plug in unit) and a connected fieldbus device or connected control network (pg 5 ¶4-5). Hoeing and Huck are both in the industry of plug in connection devices therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Hoenig to include the connection specification of Huck in order to modify the field side communication interfaces of the connection device (pg 5 ¶4)
Regarding claim 3, Hoeing in view of Huck teach the input/output device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one controller module (300 input/output module) is a module fieldbus interface (¶17).
Regarding claim 4, Hoeing in view of Huck teach the input/output device according to claim 1, wherein the second connector section (portion of 200 with 204 connectors) comprises at least one type of fieldbus connection interface (204 connectors) for a fieldbus device (¶16).
Regarding claim 6, Hoeing in view of Huck teach the input/output device according to claim 1, wherein the inlay element (200 connecting unit) is configured to be connected to the module termination unit (100 base module) by form fitting (Fig 3a and 3b, 200 is seated upon 100 in 123 locating recess).
Regarding claim 7, Hoeing in view of Huck teach the input/output device according to claim 6, wherein the form fitting includes a latching mechanism (208 locating pins, ¶23).
Regarding claim 8, Hoeing teaches a module termination unit (100 base unit), comprising: a connection port (102 bus bar connectors) for housing a input/output unit (300 input/output module, Fig 2); a recess formed in the termination unit (Fig 3A), wherein the recess is configured to hold an inlay element (200 connecting module, Fig 3a and 3b); wherein the inlay element comprises a first connector section (section of 200 with 203 plug connector), wherein the first connector section comprises a connection interface for the a controller module (203 plug connector, Fig 2); and a second connector section (section of 200 with 204 connectors); wherein the first connector section is configured to be connected to a controller module (300 input/output module, ¶16); and wherein the second connector section is configured to be connected to a fieldbus device (204’ and 204” auxiliary connectors) and/or to a control network (¶16), wherein the a controller module is connected to the module termination unit by the a connection port and to the inlay element by the a connection interface (¶16 and 17), wherein the inlay element is configured to be arranged inside the recess of the module termination unit (Fig 3a and 3b).
Hoeing fails to teach the inlay element is configured to be arranged inside the recess of the module termination unit, the module termination unit has no direct signal connection and/or electrical connection to the inlay element and the inlay element forms a bridge between the at least one controller module and a connected fieldbus device or connected control network. However, Huck teaches the module termination unit (34 plug contact device) has no direct signal connection and/or electrical connection to the inlay element (352 conductor bridges portion of 35, pg 5 ¶4-5) and the inlay element forms a bridge (pg 5 ¶5) between the at least one controller module (35 plug in unit) and a connected fieldbus device or connected control network (pg 5 ¶4-5). Hoeing and Huck are both in the industry of plug in connection devices therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Hoenig to include the connection specification of Huck in order to modify the field side communication interfaces of the connection device (pg 5 ¶4)
Regarding claim 11, Hoeing in view of Huck teach the module termination unit according to claim 8, wherein the connection port (102 bus bar connectors) is hard wired on a common circuit board (202 connecting printed circuit board) of the module termination unit (100 base module, ¶17).
Regarding claim 12, Hoeing in view of Huck teach the module termination unit according to claim 8, wherein, in an assembled state (Fig 3b), a controller module (300 input/output module ) is arranged on the module termination unit (100 base module) and is connected to a field device via the fieldbus connection interface of the inlay element (200 connecting module, ¶16).
Regarding claim 13, Hoeing teaches a method for assembling an input/output device, comprising: providing a module termination unit (100 base module), the module termination unit comprising at least one connection port (102 bus bar connectors) for housing at least one input/output unit (300 input/output module) and a recess formed in the termination unit (see annotated Fig 3a below),
PNG
media_image1.png
286
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the recess is configured to hold an inlay element (Fig 3a and 3b); arranging an inlay element inside the recess of the module termination unit (Fig 3b), the inlay element comprising a first connector section (section of 200 with 203 plug connector) and a second connector section (section of 200 with 204 connectors), wherein the first connector section is configured to be connected to a controller module (¶16);
wherein the first connector section comprises at least one connection interface for the at least one controller module (203 plug connector, Fig 2); and wherein the second connector section is configured to be connected to a fieldbus device (204’ and 204” auxiliary connectors) and/or to a control network (¶16); connecting the controller module with the module termination unit and the inlay element by inserting controller module into a respective socket by the at least one connection port and the at least one connection interface. (¶16, Fig 3a and 3b).
Hoeing fails to teach the inlay element forms a bridge between the at least one controller module and a connected fieldbus device or connected control network. However, Huck teaches the inlay element forms a bridge (pg 5 ¶5) between the at least one controller module (35 plug in unit) and a connected fieldbus device or connected control network (pg 5 ¶4-5). Hoeing and Huck are both in the industry of plug in connection devices therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Hoenig to include the connection specification of Huck in order to modify the field side communication interfaces of the connection device (pg 5 ¶4)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoeing, in view of Huck and further in view of Budde et al. hereafter referred to as Budde (EP 2986093 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Hoeing in view of Huck teach the inlay element according to claim 4, wherein the fieldbus connection interface (204 connectors) of the second connector section (portion of 200 with 204 connectors).
Hoeing in view of Huck fails to teach the fieldbus connection interface comprises one or more RJ45 sockets , SUB sockets or USB sockets. However, Budde teaches the fieldbus connection interface (98 bus board) comprises one or more RJ45 sockets, SUB sockets or USB sockets (pg 23 3rd full paragraph). Hoeing, Huck, and Budde are both in the industry of modular controller devices therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Hoeing and Huck to include these specific connectors to facilitate data connection between the different pieces of the modular unit (pg 23 3rd full paragraph).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELISA SASSERATH whose telephone number is (703)756-5847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Allen Parker can be reached at (303) 297-4722. 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.
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/E.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2841