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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they lack descriptive legends as required by 37 CFR 1.84(o). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “at at” is grammatically incorrect on line 4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim rejections under 35 USC 112b
Claims 3 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claim 3, on line 5 “the alternating field coupling” lacks antecedent basis. In claim 12, it is indefinite as to what is meant by “received by this” at the end of the claim. Dependent claims 13-15 are rejected since they depend on claim 12.
Claim rejections under 35 USC 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deck et al US 11387543 B2 (hereafter Deck).
Consider claims 1 and 12. Deck teaches a field device (1 in fig 2) in particular, a fill-level, point-level, flow, pressure or temperature-measurement device (col 1, lines 53-67), with a housing (3), an electrical connection line (7) led into the housing (3) via a cable feedthrough (5) and a radio module (9) held in the housing (3) for remote data transmission (see col 4, lines 10-13), wherein the radio module transmits or receives (col 4, lines 1-4) a remote data transmission signal by means of a field coupling (see capacitive coupling at col 5 lines 21-24) with a section of the connection line located in the housing into or out of a section of the connection line located outside the housing (cable 7 can be seen in figure to both in and out of housing (3).
For what is called for in claims 2 and 13, Deck field coupling is designed as capacitive coupling (see col 4, lines 51-53).
For what is called for in claim 6, this reads on shield (13) of Deck.
For what is called for in claim 7, Deck’s housing 3 is made of metal (see col 5, line 36).
For what is called for in claim 9, see shielding discussed in col 3,
lines 53-58 of Deck.
For what is called for in claim 14, see col 4, lines 52-53 of Deck where the remote signal is coupled to the connection line via galvanic coupling.
Claim rejections under 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
13. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deck et al US 11387543 B2 in view of Vander Aa JP-2011525026-A (see google translation JP2011525026A - Wireless communication adapter for field devices - Google Patents)
14. Regarding claim 4, although it is likely inherent that Decks field device is likely waterproof give the environment it operates in, it doesn’t explicitly state it. However, from the same field of endeavor Vander Aa teaches such (second to last paragraph). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to make Decks housing waterproof to keep the electronics protected from the outside elements thus extending longevity and value.
15. For what is called for in claim 5, see cable bushing 5 of Deck.
16. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deck et al US 11387543 B2 in view of Gansen US 7787921 B2.
17. Consider claim 3, Deck fails to explicitly teach an alternating field coupling. However, from the same field of endeavor Gansen teaches such (see inductive coupling 226) for his field measurement device. It would have been obvious before the effective date to substitute Gansen’s inductive coupling for Deck’s capacitive coupling in order to have more stable communication.
18. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deck et al US 11387543 B2 in view of Andreas et al. WO 2022122397(hereafter Andreas).
19. Consider claim 8. Deck fails to specifically state that his measurement means is a transducer is equipped with a metallic measuring electrode on the inner side of the housing. However, Andreas, from the same field of endeavor teaches that its well known in the art to using a ceramic transducer (13) with metallic electrodes (see last two paragraphs of Andreas) for his field unit. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use this specific measure transducer/electrode combination as taught by Andreas in Deck in order to provide more shielding inside the device thus giving more accurate readings.
20. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deck et al US 11387543 B2.
21. Regarding claim 10. Deck is silent as to the length of his connection lines located outside the housing has a length of at least at least 5 m, and the maximum length of the section of the connection line located outside the housing is not more than 50 m. However, given the variation of ranges claimed and the lack of claim criticality of these ranges, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to manufacture the cable lengths as such depending on the usage of the field device.
22. Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deck et al US 11387543 B2 in view of Edwards 7142985 B2.
23. Regarding claims 11 and 15. Although Deck et al shows the cable attached to the field device, he doesn’t teach that the field device is actually suspended during operation of the field device. However, such is well known as taught by Edwards which shows lowering and supporting his measurement transducer (20 in fig 1) via cable 2. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the cable taught by Deck as a support mechanism depending on the usage of the field device. The connector and cable of Deck et al are both sufficiently designed structurally to handle the load.
24. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kielb et al US 2009/0253388 A1 teaches a field device and/or adapter configured to couple to a process control loop which further includes a wireless communication module for one way or bi-directional wireless communication. The wireless communication module can transmit and/or receive an RF signal from a remote device or location. The module can be directly powered with power received from the two-wire process control loop, or can be powered with power received from the process control loop and stored for subsequent use. The module can be a removable module in which the module need only couple to those field devices in which wireless communication is desired. The module can be configured as an adapter to retrofit an existing transmitter.
WO 2022008071 A1 Haas et al teaches using a two-conductor field device, comprising a measuring transducer for capturing a measurement variable, an electronic unit for processing the measurement data, and a two-conductor interface for supplying power to the two-conductor field device and for communicating with a superordinate unit, characterized in that the two-conductor field device has a display unit for signaling a state of the two-conductor field device, which display unit can be visually read remotely and is designed to be intrinsically safe so it can be used in hazardous areas.
25. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7499. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th from 530am to 230pm and Fri from 530am to 10am.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew D Anderson, can be reached at telephone number 5712724177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/CURTIS A KUNTZ/Primary examiner, Art Unit 2646