Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/700,601

INTRINSICALLY SAFE AUTOMATION FIELD DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 11, 2024
Examiner
FAUBERT, SAMANTHA LYNETTE
Art Unit
2838
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Endress+Hauser
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
33 granted / 38 resolved
+18.8% vs TC avg
Minimal -8% lift
Without
With
+-7.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
62
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
51.7%
+11.7% vs TC avg
§102
31.4%
-8.6% vs TC avg
§112
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 38 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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. 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. Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schauble et al., US11956093 (hereinafter referred to as Schauble) and in view of DIN EN 60079-11 (hereinafter referred to as NPL U). In regards to claim 7, Schauble teaches an intrinsically safe (current-limiting; [Col. 3, Ln. 39-44]) field device (field device; [Col. 3, Ln. 39-44]) of automation (HART; [Abstract]) technology for use in an explosion- hazard area (explosion-protection; [Col. 3, Ln. 39-44]), comprising: a first (connection element 11a; [Fig. 2]) and a second connection terminal (connection element 11b; [Fig. 2]) for connecting a two-wire line (implicit in a HART system and Fig. 2) via which a current (current I on the 11a line; [Fig. 2]) can be supplied (implicit of control system unit 31; [Col. 6, Ln. 63-Col. 7, Ln. 3] & [Fig. 2]); a sensor and/or actuator element (device electronics unit 4; [Fig. 2]) for detecting and/or setting (implicit of a load within a HART 2-wire system; [Fig. 2]) a process variable (variable output of the device electronics unit 4); and a field device electronic system (control system unit 31; [Fig. 2]) that is connected to the first and second connection terminals (implicit; [Fig. 2]) and conducts the current (implicit; [Fig. 2]), which can be supplied via the two-wire line (implicit; [Fig. 2]), from the first to the second connection terminal via a current path (current I with arrows; [Fig. 2]), wherein the field device electronic system is designed to transmit process variables detected via the sensor element via the two-wire line and/or to receive a process variable to be set by the actuator element via the two-wire line, and/or to correspondingly set the actuator element (implicit of a HART 2-wire system), and wherein the field device electronic system has a shunt resistor circuit (protection measures 28; [Fig. 2]) with a shunt resistor (resistors; [Col. 7, Ln. 17-24]), which is introduced into the current path (the resistors are in series with the current; [Fig. 2]), and a diode (Z-diode or Zener-diode within first and second supply circuits 15a & 15b; [Col. 7, Ln. 17-24]), each of which is connected in parallel to the shunt resistor (implicit; [Fig. 2]), wherein the diodes are wired such that the diodes are introduced into the current path in the flow direction (the diodes are in series with the current; [Fig. 2]). Schauble does not teach the field device electronic system has two diodes, each of which is connected in parallel. NPL U teaches the field device electronic system ( , Schauble) has two diodes (diodes & two… current paths; [8.7.1]), each of which is connected in parallel (two parallel diode; [8.7.1]) (Examiner’s Note: Please see the English translation of 8.7.1 below). PNG media_image1.png 243 700 media_image1.png Greyscale In regards to claim 8, Schauble teaches wherein the shunt resistor (shunt regulator; [Col. 4, Ln. 1-4]) has a resistance value in the range of 5-40 ohms (Examiner’s Note: One of ordinary skill in the art would select a shunt resistor to be in the range of milliohms to ~100ohms. Therefore, 5-40 ohms is within that range.). In regards to claim 9, Schauble teaches wherein the two diodes are silicon diodes having a forward voltage of approximately 0.6 to 0.7 V (Zener diode; [Col. 5, Ln. 54-56]) (Examiner’s Note: One of ordinary skill in the art would know that a Zener diode would have a forward voltage of approximately 0.6 to 0.7 V. Below is a screenshot of a Google result.). PNG media_image2.png 190 680 media_image2.png Greyscale Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schauble et al., US11956093 (hereinafter referred to as Schauble) in view of DIN EN 60079-11 (hereinafter referred to as NPL U) and in further view of Seifried, US20160141955A1 (hereinafter referred to as Seifried). In regards to claim 10, Schauble & NPL U do not teach wherein the field device electronics are configured to transmit a value corresponding to the process variable according to the Profibus PA or Foundation Fieldbus FF standard and/or to receive a value corresponding to the process variable for setting the actuator element according to the Profibus PA or Foundation Fieldbus FF standard. Seifried teaches wherein the field device electronics are configured to transmit a value corresponding to the process variable according to the Profibus PA or Foundation Fieldbus FF standard (Profibus standard PA; [0007]) and/or to receive a value corresponding to the process variable for setting the actuator element according to the Profibus PA or Foundation Fieldbus FF standard (Profibus standard PA; [0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schauble & NPL U to incorporate wherein the field device electronics are configured to transmit a value corresponding to the process variable according to the Profibus PA or Foundation Fieldbus FF standard and/or to receive a value corresponding to the process variable for setting the actuator element according to the Profibus PA or Foundation Fieldbus FF standard as taught by Seifried. The motivation for doing so would be to have the device compliant with the appropriate communications protocol. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schauble et al., US11956093 (hereinafter referred to as Schauble) and in view of DIN EN 60079-11 (hereinafter referred to as NPL U) and in further view of Seifried, US20160141955A1 (hereinafter referred to as Seifried) and in further view of Friedl, US5793589 (hereinafter referred to as Friedl). In regards to claim 11, Schauble, NPL U, and Seifried do not teach wherein the shunt resistor circuit further has an inductance connected in series to the shunt resistor for increasing the stability of a communication according to the Profibus PA or Foundation Fieldbus FF standard, and wherein the diodes are connected in parallel to the shunt resistor and the inductance Friedl teaches wherein the shunt resistor circuit (current sensor 8; [0007]) (protection measures 28, Schauble) further has an inductance (inductor 9; [0007]) connected in series (series; [0007]) to the shunt resistor (measuring resistor 10; [0007]) (resistor, Schauble) for increasing the stability of a communication according to the Profibus PA or Foundation Fieldbus FF standard (Profibus standard PA, Seifried), and wherein the diodes are connected in parallel to the shunt resistor and the inductance (implicit in [Fig. 2], Schauble). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schauble, NPL U, & Seifried to incorporate wherein the shunt resistor circuit further has an inductance connected in series to the shunt resistor for increasing the stability of a communication according to the Profibus PA or Foundation Fieldbus FF standard, and wherein the diodes are connected in parallel to the shunt resistor and the inductance as taught by Friedl. The motivation for doing so would be to improve the current sensor by substituting the protection measures resistor which performs a current sensing function with Friedl's current sensor 8. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schauble et al., US11956093 (hereinafter referred to as Schauble) and in view of DIN EN 60079-11 (hereinafter referred to as NPL U) and in further view of Nakashima et al., US3818273 (hereinafter referred to as Nakashima). In regards to claim 12, Schauble & NPL U do not teach wherein the field device electronic system has a bridge rectifier which is connected on the input side to the connection terminals and which is designed to rectify a terminal voltage applied to the input side and to provide the rectified terminal voltage on the output side for supplying power to the field device electronic system. Nakashima teaches wherein the field device electronic system has a bridge rectifier (diodes D53-D56; [Fig. 9]) which is connected on the input side to the connection terminals (input terminals E/Es; [Fig. 9]) and which is designed to rectify a terminal voltage applied to the input side (implicit; [Fig. 9]) and to provide the rectified terminal voltage on the output side for supplying power to the field device electronic system (implicit in Fig. 2, Schauble). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schauble & NPL U to incorporate wherein the field device electronic system has a bridge rectifier which is connected on the input side to the connection terminals and which is designed to rectify a terminal voltage applied to the input side and to provide the rectified terminal voltage on the output side for supplying power to the field device electronic system as taught by Nakashima. The motivation for doing so would be to apply a regulated power to the system that would be within the control system unit 31. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US3818273, US5179488, & US11349297 are relevant references for adding a diode and resistor in parallel with different diode orientations to the flow of current. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA L FAUBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-1311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 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, Crystal Hammond can be reached at 5712701682. 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. SAMANTHA LYNETTE FAUBERT Examiner Art Unit 2836 /CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 11, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599448
OPERATION ENABLING CONTROL SYSTEM AND ROBOT-ASSISTED SURGICAL DEVICE HAVING THE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597764
SAFETY TEST CIRCUIT AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12573597
PLASMA PROCESSING APPARATUS AND ELECTROSTATIC CHUCK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12574026
DRIVE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567732
POWER CORD LEAKAGE DETECTION AND PROTECTION CIRCUIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (-7.6%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 38 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month