DETAILED ACTION
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/16/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-18 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.
Claims 10-18 recite the limitation "the sensor element" in claim 10, line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10-18 recite the limitation "the actuator element" in claim 10, line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10-15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Strutt et al. (DE 102020123409 A – See English machine translation) (hereinafter Strutt I) in view of Strutt et al. (DE 102017130775 A – See English machine translation) (hereinafter Strutt II) and Korn et al. (US 9,543,712 B2).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claim 10, Strutt I (figure 1) discloses an intrinsically safe automation field device (10) for use in a potentially explosive area, comprising: a first and a second connection terminal (30a and 30b) for connecting a two-wire line (14) that can be used to supply a current (paragraph [0025]); a sensor and/or actuator module (16) for capturing and/or setting a process variable (paragraph [0025]); and a main electronics module (31, 32, 34 and 36) connected to the first and second connection terminals and designed separately from the input/output module, which carries the current that can be supplied via the two-wire line via a current path from the first to the second connection terminal, wherein the main electronics module has a voltage regulator (36) introduced into the current path which is designed to provide a power to a transducer circuit and sensor and/or actuator module based on the supplied current, wherein the main electronics module is further designed to transmit the process variable detected via the sensor element by setting the current to a corresponding value and/or to receive a process variable to be set by the actuator element by reading the current and to set the actuator element accordingly, wherein the main electronics module further has an energy store (34) that is designed to provide energy required for the circuit parts connected to the energy store (paragraphs [0029] and [0031]). Strutt I does not implicitly disclose an input/output module having a radio unit for wirelessly transmitting data; wherein voltage regulator is designed to provide a power supply at least for the input/output; the energy store to provide energy required for the radio unit for wirelessly transmitting data; and wherein at least the energy store on the main electronics module is encapsulated using a potting compound. However, Strutt II (figure 1) discloses a field device comprising an input/output module having a radio unit for wirelessly transmitting data; and voltage regulator in combination with the energy store to provide a power supply at least for the input/output module and the radio unit for wirelessly transmitting data (paragraphs [0025], [0030], [0035] and [0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the input/output module having a radio unit for wirelessly transmitting data; and voltage regulator in combination with the energy store to provide a power supply at least for the input/output module and the radio unit for wirelessly transmitting data of Strutt II to the field device of Strutt I for providing power to the input/output module and transmitting the measurement value. The combination of Strutt I and Strutt II does not explicitly disclose wherein at least the energy store on the main electronics module is encapsulated using a potting compound. However, Korn et al. (figure 3) disclose an energy store on the main electronics module is encapsulated using a potting compound (column 8, lines 51-58). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the teaching of encapsulating the energy store using a potting compound of Korn et al. to the energy store of Strutt I and Strutt II for preventing ignition spark.
Regarding claim 11, Strutt I, Strutt II and Korn et al. disclose the intrinsically safe automation field device according to claim 10 above. In addition, Strutt II discloses wherein the energy store includes at least one capacitor (C1) which has a capacitance of at least 10 µF (paragraph [0038], energy store includes at least one capacitor which has a capacitance of less than 300 µF which obviously be at least 10 µF). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the energy store includes at least one capacitor which has a capacitance of at least 10 µF of Strutt II to the field device of Strutt I, Strutt II and Korn et al. as a system design preference for storing energy within a limited space.
Regarding claim 12, Strutt I, Strutt II and Korn et al. disclose the intrinsically safe automation field device according to claim 10 above. In addition, Strutt I discloses wherein the energy store is arranged in front of the voltage regulator on the main electronics module (see figure 1, energy store 34 and voltage regulator 36).
Regarding claim 13, Strutt I, Strutt II and Korn et al. disclose the intrinsically safe automation field device according to claim 10 above. In addition, Strutt I discloses wherein the input/output module further includes a current limiter or regulator which limits a current from the main electronics module to a value in the range of 0.1-100 mA (paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 14, Strutt I, Strutt II and Korn et al. disclose the intrinsically safe automation field device according to claim 13 above. In addition, Strutt II discloses wherein the input/output module does not have a capacitor with a capacitance of greater than 100 µF (paragraphs [0025], [0028] and [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the input/output module does not have a capacitor with a capacitance of greater than 100 µF of Strutt II to the field device of Strutt I, Strutt II and Korn et al. as a system design preference for the circuitry within a limited space.
Regarding claim 15, Strutt I, Strutt II and Korn et al. disclose the intrinsically safe automation field device according to claim 10 above. In addition, Strutt II discloses wherein the input/output module and the main electronics module are connected to one another via an electrical interface (paragraphs [0025], [0028] and [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the electrical interface connecting the input/output module and the main electronics module of Strutt II to the field device of Strutt I, Strutt II and Korn et al. for connecting the input/output module and the main electronics module.
Regarding claim 17, Strutt I, Strutt II and Korn et al. disclose the intrinsically safe automation field device according to claim 14 above. In addition, Strutt II discloses wherein the input/output module further includes a display for displaying information and/or for operating the field device (paragraphs [0025], [0028] and [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt display of Strutt II to the field device of Strutt I, Strutt II and Korn et al. for displaying the measuring results and/or for operating the field device.
Regarding claim 18, Strutt I, Strutt II and Korn et al. disclose the intrinsically safe automation field device according to claim 17 above. Strutt I, Strutt II and Korn et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the display is a color display. However, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well known in the art for using color display to display a measurement result or operation of the electronic device. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the well known color display to the display of Strutt I, Strutt II and Korn et al. for showing better representation of the measuring results and/or for operating the field device.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Strutt et al. (DE 102020123409 A – See English machine translation) (hereinafter Strutt I) in view of Strutt et al. (DE 102017130775 A – See English machine translation) (hereinafter Strutt II), Korn et al. (US 9,543,712 B2) and further in view of Kielb et al. (US 2009/0253388 A1).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claim 16, Strutt I, Strutt II and Korn et al. disclose the intrinsically safe automation field device according to claim 15 above. Strutt I, Strutt II and Korn et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the input/output module is arranged in a cover of the field device. However, Kielb et al. (figure 3) disclose a field device with an input/output module arranged in a cover of the field device (paragraph [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the input/output module arranged in a cover of the field device of Kielb et al. to the field device of Strutt I, Strutt II and Korn et al. providing a intrinsically safe enclosure for the circuitry within.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McGuire et al. (US 8,852,775 B2) disclose an industrial process field device has a housing with a wall; the wall has a feedthrough opening between a battery compartment and an electronics compartment; the feedthrough connector seals the feedthrough opening and includes a power connector connected to industrial process field device electronics; a battery assembly includes a battery housing with a battery connector, and includes a battery and an energy limiter connected to the battery connector; the battery connector mates with the power connector to energize the industrial process field device electronics; and a seal seals the mating connection of the power connector and the battery connector.
Bohne et al. (US 8,805,455 B2) teach an intrinsic safety approach for a battery powered communication device; sparking is prevented at radio contacts during attachment and removal of a battery from a radio through the use of switches to isolate the radio capacitors from the radio contacts and/or dissipate energy from the radio capacitor through a discharge resistor.
Quaas et al. (US 10,295,984 B2) disclose a safety-related control device for controlling an actuator with a first processing device that is configured to provide a safety function for the generation and/or processing of a signal for a safety-related control of the actuator, and a second processing device that is configured to provide an operating and/or additional function for the generation, processing, diagnostics, reproduction and/or transmission of further signals associated with the operation of the control device and/or of the actuator, and wherein the second processing device is furthermore configured to provide a test function for monitoring the functionality of the safety function.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOCHIEN B VUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7902. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-06:00PM M-F.
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, ANTHONY ADDY can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/QUOCHIEN B VUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights