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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 6-26, 35, 37-44 and 50-68 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
For examination purposes, the claims will be interpreted as being dependent on their parent independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yu (U.S. Patent No. 11658966 B2).
Regarding Claim 1:
Yu teaches a method at a field device of an industrial process plant, the method comprising: receiving, by a field device in a write-protected mode and having a digital write protection lock that is activated, a request of an other device to modify a configuration associated with the field device, (Column 4 lines 59-67 and Fig. 10, some devices may have security restrictions in place that stop write commands)
the field device being functionally operable during run-time of a process control system to perform physical actions responsive to control signals to thereby control an industrial process, (Column 3 lines 30-60, field devices of a process controller)
the write-protected mode indicative of the field device being functionally unresponsive to instructions to modify the configuration associated with the field device that are issued by devices other than devices that provide indications of respective digital write protection lock keys of one or more locking parties that activated one or more digital write protection locks at the field device; (Column 5 lines 45-67 and Fig. 10, write command is intercepted and an additional authentication is required in order to be able to write to the field device)
sending, by the field device to the other device, an indication of a locking party included in the one or more locking parties; (Column 5 lines 45-67 and Fig. 10, a prompt is provided for a second user to verify themselves and check the write command before the write command is let through)
responsive to the sent indication of the locking party, receiving, by the field device, an indication of a digital write protection lock key; and deactivating, by the field device, a digital write protection lock activated by the locking party at field device when the received digital write protection lock key corresponds to an actual digital write protection lock key corresponding to the locking party. (Column 5 lines 45-67 and Fig. 10, once the second user is verified as having permission the write command is let through)
Regarding Claim 2:
Yu additionally teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, at the field device, a locking instruction generated by the locking party; and activating, by the field device, the digital write protection lock responsive to receiving the locking instruction, including: storing the indication of the locking party and an indication of the actual digital write protection lock key corresponding to the locking party; and storing an indication that the field device is in the write-protected mode. (Column 16 lines 10-26, a control module may be designated or marked as protected and require higher permissions in order to be modified)
Regarding Claim 3:
Yu additionally teaches the method of the preceding claim, wherein deactivating the digital write protection lock of the field device comprises removing the stored indication of the locking party and removing the stored indication of the actual digital write protection lock key corresponding to the locking party. (Column 5 lines 45-67 and Fig. 10, once the second user is verified as having permission the write command is let through)
Regarding Claim 4:
Yu additionally teaches the method of any one of claims 2-3, wherein activating, by the field device, the digital write protection lock includes automatically generating, by the field device, the actual digital write protection lock key corresponding to the locking party. (Column 16 lines 10-26, a control module may be designated or marked as protected and require higher permissions in order to be modified)
Regarding Claim 5:
Yu additionally teaches the method of any one of claims 2-3, further comprising receiving the indication of the actual digital write protection lock key in conjunction with receiving the locking instruction. (Column 5 lines 45-67 and Fig. 10, a prompt is provided for a second user to verify themselves and check the write command before the write command is let through)
Regarding Claim 6:
Yu additionally teaches the method of any one of the preceding claims, wherein deactivating the digital write protection lock of the field device includes, when the field device is not subject to any other activated digital write protection lock, transitioning the field device from the write-protected mode into another mode in which the other device is permitted to modify a configuration of field device. (Column 5 lines 45-67 and Fig. 10, a prompt is provided for a second user to verify themselves and check the write command before the write command is let through)
Regarding Claim 7:
Yu additionally teaches the method of the preceding claim, wherein: transitioning the field device from the write-protected mode into the another mode comprises transitioning the field device from the write-protected mode into a read-write mode, thereby causing the field device to be functionally responsive to instructions to modify the configuration associated with the field device that are issued by the other device, and functionally unresponsive to instructions to modify the configuration associated with the field device or instructions to transition the mode of the field device that are issued by devices other than the other device. (Column 5 lines 45-67 and Fig. 10, a prompt is provided for a second user to verify themselves and check the write command before the write command is let through)
Regarding Claim 8:
Yu additionally teaches the method of the preceding claim, wherein transitioning the field device from the write-protected mode into the read-write mode includes activating, by the field device, the digital write protection lock including: storing an indication of the other device and an indication of a third digital write protection lock key corresponding to the other device; and storing an indication that the field device is in the read-write. (Column 5 lines 45-67 and Fig. 10, a prompt is provided for a second user to verify themselves and check the write command before the write command is let through)
Regarding Claim 9:
Yu additionally teaches the method of claim 6, wherein transitioning the field device from the write-protected mode into the another mode comprises transitioning the field device from the write-protected mode into an not protected mode, thereby causing the field device to be functionally responsive to instructions to modify the configuration associated with the field device that are issued by other devices and by process control system devices. (Column 5 lines 45-67 and Fig. 10, a prompt is provided for a second user to verify themselves and check the write command before the write command is let through)
Regarding Claim 10:
Yu additionally teaches the method of the preceding claim, wherein transitioning the field device from the write-protected mode into the not protected mode includes clearing, by the field device, a stored indication of any locking party and a stored indication of a digital write protection lock key corresponding to the any locking party. (Column 5 lines 45-67 and Fig. 10, a prompt is provided for a second user to verify themselves and check the write command before the write command is let through)
Regarding Claim 11:
Yu additionally teaches the method of any one of the preceding claims, further comprising, responsive to the received indication of the digital write protection lock key, comparing the received indication of the digital write protection lock key to an indication of the actual digital write protection lock key corresponding to the locking party, the indication of the actual digital write protection lock key stored at the field device. (Column 5 lines 45-67 and Fig. 10, a prompt is provided for a second user to verify themselves and check the write command before the write command is let through, second user must have permission to write to the field device)
Regarding Claim 12:
Yu additionally teaches the method of any one of the preceding claims, wherein: the indication of the locking party sent to the other device is a sent indication of the locking party; the method further comprises receiving an indication of the locking party in conjunction with receiving the indication of the digital write protection lock key and comparing the received indication of the locking party with an indication of the locking party stored at the field device; and deactivating the digital write protection lock of the field device when both the received digital write protection lock key corresponds to the actual digital write protection lock key and the received indication of the locking party corresponds to the stored indication of the locking party. (Column 5 lines 45-67 and Fig. 10, a prompt is provided for a second user to verify themselves and check the write command before the write command is let through, once the second user is verified as having permission to write the command is let through)
Regarding Claim 13:
Yu additionally teaches the method of any one of the preceding claims, wherein sending the indication of the locking party includes sending one or more of: an identifier of the locking party, a name of a user associated with the locking party, or an indication of contact information of the user. (Column 11 lines 4-20, information may include the type of relationship between two users needed to release the write command)
Regarding Claim 14:
Yu additionally teaches the method of any one of the preceding claims, wherein sending the indication of the locking party includes sending an indication of a user, a group of users, a device, or an application executing on the device. (Column 11 lines 4-20, information may include the type of relationship between two users needed to release the write command)
Regarding Claim 15:
Yu additionally teaches the method of any one of the preceding claims, wherein receiving the indication of the digital write protection lock key includes receiving the indication of the digital write protection lock key from the other device. (Column 5 lines 45-67 and Fig. 10, a prompt is provided for a second user to verify themselves and check the write command before the write command is let through)
Regarding Claim 16:
Yu additionally teaches the method of any one of claims 1-14, wherein receiving the indication of the digital write protection lock key includes receiving the indication of the digital write protection lock key from a device utilized by the locking party. (Column 5 lines 45-67 and Fig. 10, a prompt is provided for a second user to verify themselves and check the write command before the write command is let through)
Regarding Claim 17:
Yu additionally teaches the method of any one of claims 1-14, wherein receiving the indication of the digital write protection lock key includes receiving the indication of the digital write protection lock key from a host application, the host application having access to stored association of a plurality of locking parties and respective digital write protection lock keys of the plurality of locking parties. (Column 5 lines 45-67 and Fig. 10, a prompt is provided for a second user to verify themselves and check the write command before the write command is let through)
Regarding Claim 18:
Yu additionally teaches the method of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the locking party is one of: a configuration application executing on a process control device during the run-time of the process control system, the process control device, or an operator monitoring the run-time of the process control system. (Column 16 lines 10-26, a control module may be designated or marked as protected and require higher permissions in order to be modified)
Regarding Claim 19:
Yu additionally teaches the method of any one of claims 1-17, wherein the locking party is another other device, a maintenance application executing on the another other device, or maintenance personnel associated with the another other device. (Column 16 lines 10-26, a control module may be designated or marked as protected and require higher permissions in order to be modified)
Regarding Claim 20:
Yu additionally teaches the method of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the locking party is an owner of the field device, and wherein other parties are prohibited from obtaining ownership of the field device while the field device is in the write-protected mode. (Column 16 lines 10-26, a control module may be designated or marked as protected and require higher permissions in order to be modified)
Regarding Claim 21:
Yu additionally teaches the method of any one of the preceding claims, wherein a device status associated with the field device includes an indication that the field device is in the write-protected mode. (Column 16 lines 10-26, a control module may be designated or marked as protected and require higher permissions in order to be modified)
Regarding Claim 22:
Yu additionally teaches the method of any one of the preceding claims, further comprising recording each instance of activating and deactivating the digital write protection lock in a log file. (Column 14 lines 4-13, audit trail records changes and confirmer and verifiers)
Regarding Claim 23:
Yu additionally teaches the method of the preceding claim, wherein recording each instance of activating and deactivating the digital write protection lock in the log file includes recording the respective locking parties associated with each instance of activating and deactivating the digital write protection lock in the log file. (Column 14 lines 4-13, audit trail records changes and confirmer and verifiers)
Regarding Claim 24:
Yu additionally teaches the method of any one of claims 22-23, further comprising uploading the log file to a host computing device. (Column 14 lines 4-13, audit trail records changes and confirmer and verifiers)
Regarding Claim 25:
Yu additionally teaches a field device configured to perform the method of any one of the preceding claims. (Column 3 lines 30-60, field devices of a process controller)
Regarding Claim 26:
Yu additionally teaches a system including the field device of claim 25. (Column 3 lines 30-60, field devices of a process controller)
Regarding Claim 27;
Claim 27 contains limitations similar to those of claim 1 and are thus rejected under the same rational as cited above.
Regarding Claim 28:
Yu additionally teaches the method of claim 27, further comprising: displaying, on a user interface associated with the requesting device, the indication of the locking party; and responsive to the displayed indication of the locking party, obtaining, at the requesting device, the digital write protection lock key corresponding to the locking party. (Column 5 lines 45-67, prompt is shown on a display)
Regarding Claim 29:
Yu additionally teaches the method of claim 28, wherein obtaining the digital write protection lock key corresponding to the locking party at the requesting device comprises obtaining the digital write protection lock key corresponding to the locking party via the user interface associated with the requesting device. (Column 5 lines 45-67, prompt is shown on a display)
Regarding Claim 30:
Yu additionally teaches the method of claim 28, wherein obtaining the digital write protection lock key corresponding to the locking party at the requesting device comprises obtaining the digital write protection lock key corresponding to the locking party from another device via a communication interface of the requesting device. (Column 5 lines 45-67 and Fig. 10, a prompt is provided for a second user to verify themselves and check the write command before the write command is let through)
Regarding Claim 31:
Yu additionally teaches the method of claim 27, wherein the request to modify the configuration of the field device is a first request, and the method further comprises transmitting, by the requesting device to a locking party device associated with the locking party, a second request to modify the configuration of the field device. (Column 5 lines 45-67 and Fig. 10, a prompt is provided for a second user to verify themselves and check the write command before the write command is let through)
Regarding Claim 32:
Yu additionally teaches the method of claim 31, further comprising obtaining, by the requesting device from the locking party device responsive to the transmitted second request, the digital write protection lock key corresponding to the locking party from the locking party device; and wherein causing the digital write protection lock key to be transmitted to the field device includes transmitting, by the requesting device, an indication of the obtained digital write protection lock key to the field device. (Column 5 lines 45-67 and Fig. 10, a prompt is provided for a second user to verify themselves and check the write command before the write command is let through)
Regarding Claim 33:
Yu additionally teaches the method of claim 31, wherein the locking party device transmits an indication of the digital write protection lock key corresponding to the locking party to the field device. (Column 5 lines 45-67 and Fig. 10, a prompt is provided for a second user to verify themselves and check the write command before the write command is let through)
Regarding Claim 34:
Yu additionally teaches the method of any one of claims 27-33, wherein the field device transitions into a not protected mode based on the field device receiving the digital write protection lock key corresponding to the locking party, and modifying the configuration of the field device is based on the not protected mode. (Column 5 lines 45-67 and Fig. 10, a prompt is provided for a second user to verify themselves and check the write command before the write command is let through)
Regarding Claim 35:
Yu additionally teaches the method of the preceding claim, wherein: the requesting device is a process control device on which a process control system application executes; modifying the configuration of the field device comprises modifying, by the process control system application, the configuration of the field device; and the field device enters into the write-protected mode based on the process control system application modifying the configuration of the field device. (Column 16 lines 10-26, a control module may be designated or marked as protected and require higher permissions in order to be modified)
Regarding Claim 36:
Yu additionally teaches the method of any one of claims 27-33, wherein: the requesting device is a other device; the field device transitions into a read-write mode based on the field device receiving the digital write protection lock key corresponding to the locking party, the read-write mode indicative of the field device being functionally unresponsive to instructions to modify the configuration of the field device that are issued by devices other than the other device; and modifying the configuration of the field device is based on the read-write mode. (Column 5 lines 45-67 and Fig. 10, a prompt is provided for a second user to verify themselves and check the write command before the write command is let through)
Regarding Claim 37:
Yu additionally teaches the method of the preceding claim, wherein, subsequent to the other device modifying the configuration of the field device based on the read-write mode: the method further comprises releasing control of the configuration of the field device by the other device; and the field device transitions into a not protected mode based on the released control. (Column 5 lines 45-67 and Fig. 10, a prompt is provided for a second user to verify themselves and check the write command before the write command is let through)
Regarding Claim 38:
Yu additionally teaches the method of any one of claims 27-37, wherein: the locking party is a first locking party and the digital write protection lock key corresponding to the first locking party is a first digital write protection lock key; receiving the indication of the first locking party corresponding to the write-protected mode includes receiving an indication of a plurality of locking parties corresponding to the write-protected mode, the plurality of locking parties including the first locking party; causing the first digital write protection lock key to be transmitted to the field device includes causing a plurality of digital write protection lock keys respectively corresponding to the plurality of locking parties to be transmitted to the field device; and modifying the configuration of the field device is based on the transmitted plurality of digital write protection lock keys. (Column 5 lines 45-67 and Fig. 10, a prompt is provided for a second user to verify themselves and check the write command before the write command is let through)
Regarding Claim 39:
Yu additionally teaches the method of any one of claims 27-38, further comprising obtaining contact information corresponding to the locking party, and wherein causing the digital write protection lock key corresponding to the digital write protection lock key to be transmitted to the field device is based on the contact information. (Column 11 lines 4-20, information may include the type of relationship between two users needed to release the write command)
Regarding Claim 40:
Yu additionally teaches the method of any one of claims 27-39, wherein the locking party is an owner of the field device, and wherein other parties are prohibited from obtaining ownership of the field device while the field device is in the write-protected mode. (Column 16 lines 10-26, a control module may be designated or marked as protected and require higher permissions in order to be modified)
Regarding Claim 41:
Yu additionally teaches the method of any one of claims 27-40, wherein a device status associated with the field device includes an indication that the field device is in the write-protected mode. (Column 16 lines 10-26, a control module may be designated or marked as protected and require higher permissions in order to be modified)
Regarding Claim 42:
Yu additionally teaches the method of any one of claims 27-41, further comprising recording each instance of activating and deactivating the digital write protection lock in a log file. (Column 14 lines 4-13, audit trail records changes and confirmer and verifiers)
Regarding Claim 43:
Yu additionally teaches the method of the preceding claim, wherein recording each instance of activating and deactivating the digital write protection lock in the log file includes recording the respective locking parties associated with each instance of activating and deactivating the digital write protection lock in the log file. (Column 14 lines 4-13, audit trail records changes and confirmer and verifiers)
Regarding Claim 44:
Yu additionally teaches the method of any one of claims 42-43, further comprising uploading the log file to a host computing device. (Column 14 lines 4-13, audit trail records changes and confirmer and verifiers)
Regarding Claims 45-68:
Claims 45-68 contain limitations similar to those of claims 1-17 and 20-26 respectively and are thus rejected under the same rational as cited above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Massengill (U.S. Patent No. 7099941 B1) discloses locking a logical port in a network.
Shveidel et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0026541 A1) discloses locking a storage object in a storage system.
Das Sharma et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0186057 A1) discloses returning the node ID of the lock owner when a device attempts to lock an already locked device.
Smith et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0310378 A1) discloses methods for write protecting field devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER DEAN HEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-5803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Thomas Lee can be reached at (571) 272-3667. 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.
/T.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/VINCENT H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115