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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to a paper filed on 12/03/2025 in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groot et al (hereinafter Groot) (US 2014/0327475 A1) in view of Hibiya et al (hereinafter Hibiya) (US 2014/0094985 A1) further in view of Jonsson (US 2020/0303944 A1).
As to claims 1 and 16, Groot discloses a system, comprising:
a field device (Fig 1, 18);
a power limited source (Fig 1, 10) operatively connected to the field device and configured to supply a main power to the field device up to a power limit threshold; and a bulk energy storage (Fig 1, 12) assembly operatively connected to the field device, wherein the bulk energy storage assembly is configured to provide a supplemental power to the field device when the main power drops below a demand power from the
field device (see parag [0005]).
Groot does not disclose when the demand power from the field device exceeds the power limit threshold.
However, Hibiya discloses when the demand power from the field device exceeds the power limit threshold (see parag [0131]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Groot to include the teachings as taught by Hibiya in order to effectively control power provided to the device.
The combination of Groot and Hibiya does not disclose the bulk energy storage assembly operatively connected to the field device while the power limited source is operatively connected to the field device.
However, Jonsson discloses the bulk energy storage assembly operatively connected to the field device while the power limited source is operatively connected to the field device (see parags [0024], [0027]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Groot and Hibiya to include the teachings as taught by Jonsson in order to effectively control the power provided to the load.
As to claim 6, the combination of Groot, Hibiya and Jonsson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the bulk energy storage assembly is integral with the field
device (Jonsson, see parag [0024]).
4. Claim(s) 2, 5, 7-8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groot et al (hereinafter Groot) (US 2014/0327475 A1) in view of Hibiya et al (hereinafter Hibiya) (US 2014/0094985 A1) as modified by Jonsson (US 2020/0303944 A1) further in view of Nicholas et al (hereinafter Nicholas) (US 2013/0179697 A1).
As to claims 2 and 17, the combination of Groot, Hibiya and Jonsson does not disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the power limited source is intrinsically safe.
However, Nicholas discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the power limited source is
intrinsically safe (see parag [0052]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art
before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Groot, Hibiya and Jonsson to include the teachings as taught by Nicholas in order to protect the power source from explosions.
As to claim 5, the combination of Groot, Hibiya, Jonsson and Nicholas discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the field device is a sensor (Nicholas, Fig 1, 30, 40, parag [0024)).
As to claim 7, the combination of Groot, Hibily and Nicholas discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the bulk energy storage assembly includes a circuit having one or more intrinsically safe inputs (Nicholas, see parag [0052], field device 100 may include or consist of components, modules, or circuitry that are compliant with IS or other safety standards. Likewise primary power source 142 and backup power source 146 may be compliant with IS or other safety standards).
As to claim 8, the combination of Groot, Hibiya, Jonsson and Nicholas discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the bulk energy storage assembly includes one or more energy storage devices configured to store the supplemental power (Nicholas, see parag [0008])
Claim(s) 3-4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groot et al (hereinafter Groot) (US 2014/0327475 A1) as modified by Hibiya et al (hereinafter Hibiya) (US 2014/0094985 A1) as modified by Jonsson (US 2020/0303944 A1) in view of Nicholas et al (hereinafter Nicholas) (US 2013/0179697 A1) further in view of WO 2022/167116 A1 (hereinafter WO116).
As to claims 3 and 18, the combination of Groot, Hibiya, Jonsson and Nicholas does not disclose the system of claim 2, wherein the power limited source is an advanced physical layer (APL) system. However, WO116, drawn to field devices, discloses wherein the power limited source is an advanced physical layer (APL) system (see parag [0150]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Groot, Hibiya, Jonsson and Nicholas to include wherein the power limited source is an advanced physical layer (APL) system as disclosed by WO116 in order to improve the safety and efficiency of the device (see parag [0006]).
As to claim 4, the combination of Groot, Hibiya, Jonsson, Nicholas and WO116 discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system includes Galvanic isolation between the power limited source and the field device (WO116, see parag [0006]).
6. Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groot et al (hereinafter Groot) (US 2014/0327475 A1) as modified by Hibiya et al (hereinafter Hibiya) (US 2014/0094985 A1) in view of Jonsson (US 2020/0303944 A1) further in view of Nicholas et al (hereinafter Nicholas) (US 2013/0179697 A1) and further in view of Al-abdullatef et al (hereinafter Al-abdullatef) (US 2022/0045547 A1).
As to claim 9, the combination of Groot, Hibiya, Jonsson and Nicholas does not disclose the system of claim 8, wherein the one or more energy storage devices are sized to store at least enough energy to provide at least 10 milliseconds of supplemental power at a nominal system load or at a full power load with or without main power.
However, Al-abdullatef discloses wherein the one or more energy storage devices are sized to store at least enough energy to provide at least 10 milliseconds of supplemental power at a nominal system load or at a full power load with or without main power (see parag [0068]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Groot, Hibiya, Jonsson and Nicholas to include the teachings as taught by Al-abdullatef in order to improve the reliability and the run time of the device (see parags [0004-0005]).
As to claim 10, the combination of Groot, Hibiya, Jonsson, Nicholas and Al-abdullatef discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the one or more energy storage devices include one or more capacitors (Al-abdullatef, see parag [0045]).
7. Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groot et al (hereinafter Groot) (US 2014/0327475 A1) as modified by Hibiya et al (hereinafter Hibiya) (US 2014/0094985 A1) in view of Jonsson (US 2020/0303944 A1) in view of Nicholas et al (hereinafter Nicholas) (US 2013/0179697 A1) further in view of Al-abdullatef et al (hereinafter Al-abdullatef) (US 2022/0045547 A1) and further in view of Couvillon et al (hereinafter Couvillon) (US 2018/0287406).
As to claim 11, the combination of Groot, Hibiya, Jonsson, Nicholas and Al-abdullatef does not disclose the system of claim 10, wherein the circuit includes a plurality of input branches connected in parallel.
However, Couvillon discloses wherein the circuit includes a plurality of input branches connected in parallel (see Fig 1A, parag [0007]). It would have been obvious to one
skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of EP285, Hibiya, Jonsson, Nicholas and Al-abdullatef to include the teachings as taught by Couvillon in order to improve the energy density and reliability of the device (see parag [0020]).
As to claim 12, the combination of Groot, Hibiya, Jonson, Nicholas, Al-abdullatef and Couvillon discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the circuit includes a plurality of energy storage devices (Couvillon, see Fig 1A, parag [0007]).
As to claim 13, the combination of Groot, Hibiya, Jonsson, Nicholas, Al-abdullatef and Couvillon discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the one or more energy storage devices include a first energy storage device on each input branch of the circuit (Couvillon, see Fig 1A, parags [0007], [0030]).
As to claim 14, the combination of Groot, Hibiya, Jonsson, Nicholas, Al-abdullatef and Couvillon discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the one or more energy storage devices include a second energy storage device downstream of the input branches (Couvillon, see Fig 1A, parags [0007], [0025]).
As to claim 15, the combination of Groot, Hibiya, Nicholas, Al-abdullatef and Couvillon discloses the system of claim 14, further comprising a filter assembly downstream of the plurality of branches (Couvillon, see Fig 1A, parags [0004], [0007]).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUC M PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-5026. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Monday to Friday.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at 5712727492. 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.
/DUC M PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2836 January 2, 2026
/DANIEL CAVALLARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836