DETAILED ACTION
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 12, 15, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubinsztain (US 20220196739) in view of Scholl (US 20220089140) and Rummele-Werner (WO2018114193), see attached English Translation.
Regarding claim 12, Rubinsztain discloses a method for checking a signal path of an electronic sensor circuit for a sensor (see Abstract: method for testing a signal path in a sensor), wherein the sensor circuit includes the signal path having a transducer element for detecting (see Fig. 1A and paragraphs 0013 and 0014: sensing module with sensing element for detecting), converting (see Fig. 1A and paragraph 0017: analog signal is amplified, demodulated, and filtered, i.e. converted), and outputting a process variable to an output of the transducer element in the form of analog measured values (see Fig. 1A and paragraphs 0045 and 0051: sensing module outputs signal 121 measured values), a circuit downstream from the transducer element (see Fig. 1A), a digital processor (see Fig. 1A and paragraph 0054: signal processor/digital processor);
the digital processor is designed to further process the measured values in a measuring mode into measured values (see paragraphs 0030 and 0045: signal processor receives signal generated by sensing elements and generates an output signal in operating mode, i.e. measuring mode), the method comprising:
interrupting the measuring mode (see paragraphs 0030 and 0031: switch 111 is turned off in testing mode, i.e. operational mode/measuring mode is interrupted);
replacing the analog measured values at the output of the transducer element with a test signal (see paragraphs 0030 and 0031: switch 111 is turned off in testing mode, i.e. operational mode/measuring mode is interrupted);
passing the test signal through the signal path so that a diagnostic circuit determines a measured value corresponding to the test signal (see Fig. 1A and paragraphs 0018 and 0049: obtains a value of a received signal during the test);
checking the determined measured value with a comparison value determined for the signal path (see Fig. 1A and paragraphs 0018 and 0049: compares the values to an expected value to determine if there is a failure in the signal path); and
identifying a change in a state of the signal path when the measured value determined for the test signal is outside a defined tolerance range for the comparison value (see Fig. 1A and paragraphs 0018 and 0049: identifies a failure if the value of the received signal is below a threshold, tolerance range corresponds to acceptable values, i.e. values above threshold).
Rubinsztain does not expressly disclose wherein the sensor and sensor electronics comprise a field device in automation technology;
wherein the analog measured values are raw measured values output by the transducer element;
an analog-digital converter connected downstream from the transducer element to convert the analog raw measured values into digital raw measured values, wherein the digital processor is downstream from the analog-digital converter which is fed the digital raw measured values;
the digital processor is designed to further process the digital raw measured values in a measuring mode into measured values;
wherein the test signal is an analog check signal;
wherein the digital processor determines a measured value corresponding to the analog check signal.
Scholl discloses wherein the analog measured values are raw measured values output by the transducer element (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0039 and 0050: sensor signal V_PS is an analog signal output by a sensor/transducer element 120);
an analog-digital converter connected downstream from the transducer element to convert the analog raw measured values into digital raw measured values, wherein the digital processor is downstream from the analog-digital converter which is fed the digital raw measured values (see Fig. 1, paragraphs 0024 and 0050, and claim 19: control unit has one computing unit for processing signal data, i.e. a processor, analog/digital converter downstream of sensor 120, control unit/computing unit receives and evaluates signals received along a signal path);
the digital processor is designed to further process the digital raw measured values in a measuring mode into measured values (see paragraphs 0024 and 0050: when sensor signal is traveling along the signal path, the computing unit can continuously measure and evaluate the sensor signals);
wherein the test signal is an analog check signal (see Fig 1 and paragraphs 0045 and 0050: produces analog voltage test signals that are guided to a signal path to an analog/digital converter, i.e. test signal is an analog signal);
wherein the digital processor determines a measured value corresponding to the analog check signal (see paragraphs 0050 and 0058: control unit evaluates the signal path according to values read from the signal path after the test signal is applied).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Rubinsztain with the teaching of Scholl, i.e. using the same computing component, i.e. digital processor, to evaluate the quality of signal path and evaluate the sensor signals, for the advantageous benefit of reducing the number of components to test the signal path. It would have been obvious that the diagnostic functions, i.e. element 130, and signal processing functions, i.e. element 160, could have been combined into a single computing unit.
Rubinsztain and Scholl do not expressly disclose wherein the sensor and sensor electronics comprise a field device in automation technology.
Rummele-Werner discloses wherein the sensor and sensor electronics comprise a field device in automation technology (see Abstract and page 5 last 10 lines: field device for use in automation technology, discloses sensor).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Rubinsztain with the teaching of Rummele-Werner, i.e. utilizing the sensor and sensor electronics as a field device in automation technology, for the advantageous benefit using sensor to automatically evaluate operating conditions so it can automatically make adjustment to ensure that the system is optimally functioning.
Regarding claim 15, Rubinsztain does not expressly disclose wherein the check signal applied to the output of the transducer element is realized by a voltage signal.
Scholl discloses wherein the check signal applied to the output of the transducer element is realized by a voltage signal (see paragraphs 0012 and 0013: test voltage source for generating a test signal, signal represents an electrical voltage).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Rubinsztain with the teaching of Scholl, using a voltage check signal as a test signal, for the advantageous benefit of using a test signal that matches the sensor signal being processed by the signal path so it can be properly evaluated.
Regarding claim 18, Rubinsztain, previously modified, further discloses wherein the replacement of the sensor signal, i.e. previously modified analog raw measured values, at the output of the transducer element with the analog check signal is initiated or controlled by the digital processor or another digital processor (see paragraph 0046-0047: signal process controls switches, i.e. controlling of the switches can be considered an initiation to the replacement of the sensor signal with the analog check signal/test signal).
Regarding claim 19, Rubinsztain previously disclosed checking the determined measured value with a comparison value determined for the signal path (see Fig. 1A and paragraphs 0018 and 0049: compares the values to an expected value to determine if there is a failure in the signal path)
Rubinsztain does not expressly disclose wherein the checking/evaluation is carried out by the digital processor or another digital processor.
Scholl discloses wherein the checking/evaluation is carried out by the digital processor or another digital processor (see paragraphs 0050 and 0058: control unit evaluates the signal path according to values read from the signal path after the test signal is applied).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Rubinsztain with the teaching of Scholl, i.e. using the same computing component, i.e. digital processor, to evaluate the quality of signal path and evaluate the sensor signals, for the advantageous benefit of reducing the number of components to test the signal path. It would have been obvious that the diagnostic functions, i.e. element 130, and signal processing functions, i.e. element 160, could have been combined into a single computing unit.
Regarding claim 20, Rubinsztain, previously modified, further discloses signaling the change in the state of the signal path (see paragraph 0018: set a status signal indicating a failure in the signal path, i.e. a change in the state).
Regarding claim 21 Rubinsztain, previously modified, further discloses resuming the measurement mode after the check of the determined measured value with the comparison value determined for the signal path when the measured value determined for the analog check signal lies within a tolerance range defined for the comparison value (see Fig. 1A and paragraphs 0018 and 0049: identifies a failure if the value of the received signal is below a threshold, tolerance range corresponds to acceptable values, i.e. values above threshold, no failure if values within tolerance; see paragraph 0051: after evaluation transitions back to operating mode, i.e. measurement mode).
Regarding claim 22, Rubinsztain, previously modified, further discloses conditioning the analog verification signal before the analog verification signal passes through the signal path, wherein the conditioning includes adjusting a gain and/or an offset (see paragraph 0028: test signal may be set to a value higher or lower than the value Bop, i.e. teaches adjusting a gain of the test signal).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubinsztain (US 20220196739) in view of Scholl (US 20220089140), Rummele-Werner (WO2018114193), and Alley (US 20220069952).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Rubinsztain, Scholl, and Rummele-Werner do not expressly disclose wherein the comparison value determined for the signal path is determined during the production of the electronic sensor circuit and is accessed for checking the comparison value determined during the production of the electronic sensor circuit, wherein the comparison value determined during the manufacture of the electronic sensor circuit is stored in a memory element on the electronic sensor circuit.
Alley discloses wherein a comparison value determined for a signal path is determined during the production of the electronic sensor circuit and is accessed for checking the comparison value determined during the production of the electronic sensor circuit, wherein the comparison value determined during the manufacture of the electronic sensor circuit is stored in a memory element on the electronic sensor circuit (see paragraphs 0044 and 0045: initial baseline response is measured and may be stored in memory 46, i.e. a memory element on the manufactured circuit, during manufacture of the circuit, must have been determined before being stored in the memory element, baseline frequency is used as a comparison value).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Rubinsztain with the teaching of Alley, i.e. determining and storing baseline parameters for a healthy signal path, for the advantageous benefit of ensuring that each manufactured circuit is programmed with suitable threshold values for accurately evaluating the state of the signal path being evaluated.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubinsztain (US 20220196739) in view of Scholl (US 20220089140), Rummele-Werner (WO2018114193), and Arunachalam (US 20140320154).
Regarding claim 16, Rubinsztain, Scholl, and Rummele-Werner do not expressly disclose wherein the voltage signal is generated by the digital processor.
Arunachalam discloses wherein a voltage signal is generated by a digital processor (see Abstract, Fig. 1A, and paragraph 0014-0015: microcontroller/processor generates test signal using ports on the microcontroller, logic level high and low correspond to voltage values).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Rubinsztain with the teaching of Arunachalam, i.e. using the processor to generate the voltage test signal, for the advantageous benefit of using a conventional, space saving method for producing the required voltage signal.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubinsztain (US 20220196739) in view of Scholl (US 20220089140), Rummele-Werner (WO2018114193), and Schmidt (US 20170234935).
Regarding claim 17, Rubinsztain does not expressly disclose wherein the voltage signal is generated with the aid of at least one capacitor provided on the electronic sensor circuit.
Scholl discloses wherein the voltage signal is generated with the aid of at least one voltage source provided on the electronic sensor circuit (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0045: voltage source 165).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Rubinsztain with the teaching of Scholl, i.e. using a voltage source to produce the test voltage, for the advantageous benefit of using conventional circuit components for producing an accurate test voltage value.
Rubinsztain, Scholl, and Rummele-Werner do not expressly disclose wherein the voltage source comprises at least one capacitor.
Schmidt discloses wherein the voltage source comprises at least one capacitor (see paragraph 0023: voltage source comprises a battery).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Rubinsztain with the teaching of Scholl, i.e. using a capacitor as a voltage source, for the advantageous benefit of using conventional, cost effective, and widely available circuit components, i.e. the capacitor, as a voltage source.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vittal (US 6934914) discloses determining characteristics associated with a signal path are determined during manufacture and stored in memory after manufacture.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J DALBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/MICHAEL J DALBO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857