CTNF 18/641,635 CTNF 79781 DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-17 are pending. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 – software per se Claim 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim refers to software per se. The claim(s) recite that a computer program carries out the ‘entire’ method of claim 1. Therefore, it seems like claims 11-12 define the method of claim 1 as software per se. Furthermore, it can be noted that the differences between a program and a program product are not clearly and specifically recited. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20020097031 (hereinafter Cook) in view of Krause, Bob. "Designing Linear Amplifiers Using the IL300 Optocoupler Appnote 50" Infineon Technologies Corp., San Jose, CA (2001) (hereinafter Krause) . Regarding claims 1 and 5-10, the combination of Cook and Krause teaches all the claimed limitations, as outlined below. Regarding claim 1, Cook teaches a method for operating a field device which, for deploying a plurality of functions, comprises a plurality of components, the method comprising: b) creating a plurality of operating configurations having a different compilation of functions of the field device, respectively; c) ascertaining one power requirement each for the operating configurations from step b) in each case of at least one predefinable operating profile; d) ascertaining deployable operating configurations and operating profile associated with each deployable operating configuration (Fig 7, Fig 9 and Para 0089-0099), in which a respective power requirement is lower than the available electrical input power (Fig 8A Para 0114), and ascertaining an associated function profile, respectively; wherein the function profiles of the field device ascertained in step d) are provided for selection (Fig 7, Fig 9 and Para 0089-0099). Cook fails to clearly specify the field device being supplied with an electrical input power via an isolating amplifier, the method comprising: a) activating the isolating amplifier and ascertaining an available electrical input power. However, Krause teaches a field device being supplied with an electrical input power via an isolating amplifier, comprising: activating the isolating amplifier and ascertaining an available electrical input power (See Page 11-1 Section labeled “Introduction”). The applied prior art is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they relate to same field of endeavor. They relate to process control systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above process control system, as taught by Cook, and incorporating the concept of isolation, as taught by Krause. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide a quality link that is accurate and stable, as suggested by Krause (See Page 11-1 Section labeled “Introduction”). Regarding claims 5-10, Cook further teaches: Claim 5. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein a first and a second function profile of the field device are ascertained and a predefinably alternating application of the first and second function profiles is made available for selection (Fig 7, Fig 9 and Para 0089-0099). Claim 6. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein a third function profile is ascertained which has a power requirement which exceeds the available electrical input power; and wherein a differential power requirement is ascertained and shown to the user (Fig 8A and Para 0114). Claim 7. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein power requirements of components are ascertained by automatic separate activation and deactivation of components (Fig 8A and Para 0114). Claim 8. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein step b) is performed for automatically ascertained operating profiles which differ from an operating profile predefined by the user, and for at least one automatically ascertained operating profile, a corresponding function profile is made available for selection (Fig 7, Fig 9 and Para 0089-0099). Claim 9. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein during operation of the field device, the available electrical input power is detected in a further step e) and with a decline in the available electrical input power, at least steps c) and d) are performed and at least one saving function profile is ascertained as the function profile to be applied (Fig 8A and Para 0114). Claim 10. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method is performed independently of a data exchange between the field device and a higher-order control unit of an associated automation system (Para 0036, 0046, 0117 – see central control) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-4, 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0097031 (hereinafter Cook) in view of Krause, Bob. "Designing Linear Amplifiers Using the IL300 Optocoupler Appnote 50" Infineon Technologies Corp., San Jose, CA (2001) (hereinafter Krause) in view of Kephart et al., US Patent No. 8,527,252 (hereinafter Kephart) . Regarding claims 2-4, 11-12, and 13-17, the combination of Cook and Krause teaches all the claimed limitations, as outlined above. The combination of Cook and Krause fails to clearly specify: 2. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the power requirements are ascertained in step b) via a simulation program product. 3. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the predefinable operating profiles comprise at least one of a clock variable, a display rule and an environment variable respectively. 4. The method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the predefinable operating profiles comprise at least one of a clock variable, a display rule and an environment variable respectively. 11. A computer program product which is configured for receiving and processing measured values of power-based electrical values and which is configured to ascertain and output control commands via which a function profile of a field device is predefinable, wherein the computer program product is configured to perform the method as claimed in claim 1. 12. The computer program product as claimed in claim 11, wherein the computer program product comprises a simulation program product of the associated field device configured as a digital twin. 13. A field device comprising: a plurality of separately operable components, via which a plurality of functions of the field device are deployable; and a local control unit upon which a computer program product for operating the field device is executably stored; and a data interface for a higher-order control unit upon which a further computer program product for operating the field device is executably stored; wherein the computer program product is configured as claimed in claim 11. 14. A field device comprising: a plurality of separately operable components, via which a plurality of functions of the field device are deployable; and a local control unit upon which a computer program product for operating the field device is executably stored; and a data interface for a higher-order control unit upon which a further computer program product for operating the field device is executably stored; wherein the computer program product is configured as claimed in claim 12. 15. A higher-order control unit for an automation system which is connectable to a plurality of field devices via communicative data links, wherein a computer program product for operating at least one of the field devices is executably stored on the higher-order control unit, wherein the computer program product is configured as claimed in claim 11. 16. A higher-order control unit for an automation system which is connectable to a plurality of field devices via communicative data links, wherein a computer program product for operating at least one of the field devices is executably stored on the higher-order control unit, wherein the computer program product is configured as claimed in claim 12. 17. An automation system comprising a higher-order control unit, which is connected to a plurality of field devices, wherein at least one of field device of the plurality of field devices and the higher-order control unit is configured as claimed in claim 15. However, Kephart teaches: 2. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the power requirements are ascertained in step b) via a simulation program product (Fig 2, C7 L4-18, C8 L16-22) 3. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the predefinable operating profiles comprise at least one of a clock variable, a display rule and an environment variable respectively (C8 L53-58). 4. The method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the predefinable operating profiles comprise at least one of a clock variable, a display rule and an environment variable respectively (C8 L53-58) 11. A computer program product which is configured for receiving and processing measured values of power-based electrical values and which is configured to ascertain and output control commands via which a function profile of a field device is predefinable, wherein the computer program product is configured to perform the method as claimed in claim 1 (Fig 2, C7 L4-18, C8 L16-22). 12. The computer program product as claimed in claim 11, wherein the computer program product comprises a simulation program product of the associated field device configured as a digital twin (Fig 2, C7 L4-18, C8 L16-22). The applied prior art is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they relate to same field of endeavor. They relate to process control systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above process control system, as taught by the combination of Cook and Krause, and incorporating the concept/features of visual feedback and quickly providing synchronized simulations, as taught by Kephart. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide real-time synchronization, as suggested by Kephart (See Abstract). Regarding claims 13-17, Cook further teaches: 13. A field device comprising: a plurality of separately operable components, via which a plurality of functions of the field device are deployable; and a local control unit upon which a computer program product for operating the field device is executably stored; and a data interface for a higher-order control unit upon which a further computer program product for operating the field device is executably stored; wherein the computer program product is configured as claimed in claim 11 (Para 0036, 0046, 0117 – see central control). 14. A field device comprising: a plurality of separately operable components, via which a plurality of functions of the field device are deployable; and a local control unit upon which a computer program product for operating the field device is executably stored; and a data interface for a higher-order control unit upon which a further computer program product for operating the field device is executably stored; wherein the computer program product is configured as claimed in claim 12 (Para 0036, 0046, 0117 – see central control). 15. A higher-order control unit for an automation system which is connectable to a plurality of field devices via communicative data links, wherein a computer program product for operating at least one of the field devices is executably stored on the higher-order control unit, wherein the computer program product is configured as claimed in claim 11 (Para 0036, 0046, 0117 – see central control). 16. A higher-order control unit for an automation system which is connectable to a plurality of field devices via communicative data links, wherein a computer program product for operating at least one of the field devices is executably stored on the higher-order control unit, wherein the computer program product is configured as claimed in claim 12 (Para 0036, 0046, 0117 – see central control). 17. An automation system comprising a higher-order control unit, which is connected to a plurality of field devices, wherein at least one of field device of the plurality of field devices and the higher-order control unit is configured as claimed in claim 15 (Para 0036, 0046, 0117 – see central control). Citation of Pertinent Prior Art The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ghahremani, Esmaeil, and Innocent Kamwa. "Optimal placement of multiple-type FACTS devices to maximize power system loadability using a generic graphical user interface." IEEE transactions on power systems 28.2 (2012): 764-778. Ehlers et al., US Patent No. 5572438 – relates to energy management and building automation systems. Verissimo et al., US Patent No. 5841654 – relates to device configuration an control. Jundt et al., US Patent No. 6618630 – relates to user interface that integrates a process control configuration system and field device management system. Farkas et al., US Patent No. 7127625 – relates to application management based on power consumption. Smith, US Patent No. 7646107 – relates to programmable power adaptor. Chary, US Patent No. 7725094 – relates to power prioritization among functions of a multi-function device. Lee, US Patent No. 7853813 – relates to anticipatory power management for battery-powered electronic device. Budike, Jr., US Patent No. 7870080 – relates to multi-utility energy control and facility automation control system with dashboard having a plurality of interface gateways. Eryurek et al., US Patent No. 8200783 – relates to field-based asset management device and architecture. Meagher et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20120191440 – relates to system and methods for real-time dc microgrid power analytics for mission-critical power systems. Seiler et al., US Patent No. 8898498 – relates to method for optimizing parameter settings of energy supply parameters of a field device power supply module. Law et al., US Patent No. 8949665 – relates to integrated bus controller. Fiedler et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20160099754 – relates to supplying power to a field device. De Lind van Wijngaarden et al., US Patent No. 9374787 – relates to smart power management. Platenius-Mohr et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20220066436 – relates to industrial field device replacement system. Ens et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20220261490 – relates to providing a digital twin for a nondigital automation engineering field device. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS R ORTIZ RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3766. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 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, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /CARLOS R ORTIZ RODRIGUEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/641,635 Page 2 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/641,635 Page 3 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/641,635 Page 4 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/641,635 Page 5 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/641,635 Page 6 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/641,635 Page 7 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/641,635 Page 8 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/641,635 Page 9 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/641,635 Page 10 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/641,635 Page 11 Art Unit: 2119 Application/Control Number: 18/641,635 Page 12 Art Unit: 2119
Prosecution Insights