DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is responsive to amendments filed September 25th, 2025. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 9 have been amended. Claims 6, 7, and 14 have been cancelled. Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 15-18 are presented for examination.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 9/25/25, with respect to the Specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 7/25/25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 9/25/25, with respect to claims 1, 4, 6, and 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim interpretation of 7/25/25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 9/25/25, with respect to claims 1-8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of 7/25/25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 filed 9/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims present statutory subject matter. Specifically, Applicant argues “the claims recite the converting or generating of an invoice using the transmitted performance indicators. Such a process or feature is not an abstract idea and/or provides significantly more than an abstract idea.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and begins by stating that the generation of an invoice is directed to the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in the form of fundamental economic practices. This conversion into an invoice is performed by an “apparatus”, however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0048 and 0051 and Figures 1-6. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 filed 9/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-12 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose the amended claims. Beginning on pages 10-11, Applicant argues “Biernat does not disclose or suggest an apparatus configured to transmit a time-dependent usage performance indicator together with an encrypted measurement value and a key index in a data packet to a billing system”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that cited Biernat discloses in paragraph [0110] the industrial blockchain ecosystem including the use of production numbers for billing purposes. This in addition to the cited passages discloses the amended limitations.
Applicant continues on page 11 of the provided remarks to argue, “Biernat does not teach or suggest where the transmitted time-dependent usage performance indicator is configured to be converted into an invoice comprising further user-dependent information items”. As the argued limitation has been amended into the claim, Examiner cites Taylor (U.S 2015/0046369 A1) to disclose the conversion of an invoice.
Further, Applicant argues on page 11 of the provided remarks, that cited Bhattacharyya does not make up for the deficiencies of Biernat. As stated above, Examiner cites Taylor (U.S 2015/0046369 A1) to disclose the amended limitations.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the final limitation beginning "wherein the third" recites "aparatus" which is a typographical error that should recite "apparatus". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1-3 & 18
Step 1: Independent claim 1 (apparatus), and dependent claims 2-3 & 18, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (i.e. machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claim recites access-restricted preparation of a time-dependent usage performance indicator for a processing device in a production installation, for further use of a first user and a second user, the apparatus comprising: a computer configured to determine the time-dependent usage performance indicator from a determined, use-dependent, time-dependent measurement value concerning the processing device, wherein an algorithm for calculation is known to the first user and the second user; and a physical device configured to produce a key index and generate a symmetric key based on the key index, for encrypting the use-dependent, time-dependent measurement value by the symmetric key, wherein the physical device comprises a universal serial bus (USB) dongle, a chip, or a programmable logic controller (PLC), wherein the apparatus is configured to transmit the time-dependent usage performance indicator together with the encrypted measurement value and the key index in a data packet to a billing system, and wherein the transmitted time-dependent usage performance indicator is configured to be converted into an invoice comprising further user-dependent information items (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are transmitting the time-dependent usage performance indicator to a billing system and converting it into an invoice comprising further user-dependent information items, which is a fundamental economic practice. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are transmitting the time-dependent usage performance indicator to a billing system and converting it into an invoice comprising further user-dependent information items, which recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are determining a time-dependent usage performance indicator from a determined use-dependent time-dependent measurement value; producing a key index; and generating a symmetric key based on the key index, which are functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgement, and evaluation. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are determining a time-dependent usage performance indicator from a determined use-dependent time-dependent measurement value; producing a key index; and generating a symmetric key based on the key index, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
In addition, dependent claim 2 further narrows the abstract idea and recites further defining the regeneration of symmetric keys at different time intervals. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite mental processes. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas. Dependent claims 3 and 18 will be discussed in Prong 2 analysis below.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “transmit the time-dependent usage performance indicator together with the encrypted measurement value and the key index in a data packet” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “An apparatus; a processing device; a computer; a physical device, wherein the physical device comprises a universal serial bus (USB) dongle, a chip, or a programmable logic controller (PLC)” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
In addition, dependent claim 2 further narrows the abstract idea and dependent claims 3 & 18 additionally recite the claimed “the apparatus is integrated into an automation component” and “wherein the automation component is a machine tool” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “An apparatus; a processing device; a computer; a physical device, wherein the physical device comprises a universal serial bus (USB) dongle, a chip, or a programmable logic controller (PLC)” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, apparatus claims 1-3 & 18 recite “An apparatus; a processing device; a computer; a physical device, wherein the physical device comprises a universal serial bus (USB) dongle, a chip, or a programmable logic controller (PLC)”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0048 and 0051 and Figures 1-6. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “transmit the time-dependent usage performance indicator together with the encrypted measurement value and the key index in a data packet” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claim 2 further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim. The Examiner notes that the dependent claim merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 3 and 18 additionally recite “the apparatus is integrated into an automation component” and “wherein the automation component is a machine tool” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 4-5 & 8
Step 1: Independent claim 4 (system), and dependent claims 5 & 8, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 4 is directed to a system (i.e. machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claim recites a system comprising: a first apparatus; a second apparatus, and a third apparatus, wherein, the first apparatus comprising: a computer configured to determine the time-dependent usage performance indicator from a determined, use-dependent, time-dependent measurement value concerning the processing device, wherein an algorithm for calculation is known to the first user and the second user; and a physical device configured to produce a key index and generate a symmetric key based on the key index, for encrypting the use-dependent, time-dependent measurement value by the symmetric key, wherein the physical device comprises a universal serial bus (USB) dongle, a chip, or a programmable logic controller (PLC), wherein the first apparatus is configured to transmit the time-dependent usage performance indicator together with the encrypted measurement value and the key index in a data packet, wherein the second apparatus is configured to produce a sequence of keys, receive the key index, and produce a series of symmetric keys with aid of a start value and a random number, and wherein the third apparatus is configured to convert the time-dependent usage performance indicator into an invoice comprising further user-dependent information items and store the time-dependent usage performance indicator and the encrypted measurement value (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are converting it into an invoice comprising further user-dependent information items, which is a fundamental economic practice. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are converting it into an invoice comprising further user-dependent information items, which recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are determining a time-dependent usage performance indicator from a determined use-dependent time-dependent measurement value; producing a key index; generating a symmetric key based on the key index; and producing a series of symmetric keys with aid of a start value, which are functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgement, and evaluation. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are determining a time-dependent usage performance indicator from a determined use-dependent time-dependent measurement value; producing a key index; generating a symmetric key based on the key index; and producing a series of symmetric keys with aid of a start value, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
In addition, dependent claim 8 further narrows the abstract idea and recites further defining the frequency at the request of symmetric key. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite mental processes. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas. Dependent claim 5 will be discussed in Prong 2 analysis below.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “transmit the time-dependent usage performance indicator together with the encrypted measurement value and the key index in a data packet; receive the key index; store the time-dependent usage performance indicator and the encrypted measurement value” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “A system comprising: a first apparatus; a second apparatus; a third apparatus; a computer; a processing device; a physical device, wherein the physical device comprises a universal serial bus (USB) dongle, a chip, or a programmable logic controller (PLC)” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
In addition, dependent claim 8 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 5 additionally recite the claimed “second apparatus is configured as a physical device” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “A system comprising: a first apparatus; a second apparatus; a third apparatus; a computer; a processing device; a physical device, wherein the physical device comprises a universal serial bus (USB) dongle, a chip, or a programmable logic controller (PLC)” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, system claims 4-5 & 8 recite “A system comprising: a first apparatus; a second apparatus; a third apparatus; a computer; a processing device; a physical device, wherein the physical device comprises a universal serial bus (USB) dongle, a chip, or a programmable logic controller (PLC)”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0048 and 0051 and Figures 1-6. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “transmit the time-dependent usage performance indicator together with the encrypted measurement value and the key index in a data packet; receive the key index; store the time-dependent usage performance indicator and the encrypted measurement value” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claim 8 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 5 additionally recite “second apparatus is configured as a physical device” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 9-13 & 15-18
Step 1: Independent claim 9 (method) and dependent claims 10-13 & 15-18, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 9 is directed to a method (i.e. process).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claim recites a method for access-restricted provision of a time- dependent usage performance indicator for a processing device in a production installation for further use of a first user and a second user, the method comprising: determining a use-dependent, time-dependent measurement value concerning the processing device; calculating the time-dependent usage performance indicator from the determined measurement value, wherein an algorithm for calculation is known to the first user and the second user; producing a key index and generating a symmetric key based on the key index; encrypting the use-dependent, time-dependent measurement value by the symmetric key; transmitting the time-dependent usage performance indicator together with the encrypted measurement value and the key index in a data packet; and converting the time-dependent usage performance indicator into an invoice comprising further user-dependent information items (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are converting it into an invoice comprising further user-dependent information items, which is a fundamental economic practice. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are converting it into an invoice comprising further user-dependent information items, which recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are determining a time-dependent usage performance indicator from a determined use-dependent time-dependent measurement value; producing a key index; generating a symmetric key based on the key index; and encrypting the use-dependent time-dependent measurement value by the symmetric key, which are functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgement, and evaluation. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are determining a time-dependent usage performance indicator from a determined use-dependent time-dependent measurement value; producing a key index; generating a symmetric key based on the key index; and encrypting the use-dependent time-dependent measurement value by the symmetric key, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
In addition, dependent claims 11-12 and 15-16 further narrows the abstract idea and recites further defining the changing of the key index; the generating of the symmetry key using serial numbers and time stamps; deletion of the symmetric key after use; and examples of use-dependent time-dependent measurement values. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite mental processes. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas. Dependent claims 10, 13, and 17 will be discussed in Prong 2 analysis below.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “transmitting the time-dependent usage performance indicator together with the encrypted measurement value and the key index in a data packet” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “a processing device” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
In addition, dependent claims 11-12 and 15-16 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 10, 13, and 17 additionally recite “wherein the data packet furthermore contains a signature of a sender”; “wherein the time-dependent usage performance indicator transmitted in the data packet is stored separately together with the encrypted measurement value and the key index”; and “the automation component is a machine tool” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “processing device” and “automation tool” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “processing device” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, method claims 9-13 & 15-17 recite “a processing device”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0048 and 0051 and Figures 1-6. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “transmitting the time-dependent usage performance indicator together with the encrypted measurement value and the key index in a data packet” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 11-12 and 15-16 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 10, 13, and 17 additionally recite “wherein the data packet furthermore contains a signature of a sender”; “wherein the time-dependent usage performance indicator transmitted in the data packet is stored separately together with the encrypted measurement value and the key index”; and “the automation component is a machine tool” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “processing device” and “automation tool” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biernat (U.S 2019/0340269 A1) in view of Bhattacharyya (U.S 10,630,682 B1) in view of Taylor (U.S 2015/0046369 A1).
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1, Biernat discloses the following:
An apparatus for access-restricted preparation of a time-dependent usage performance indicator for a processing device in a production installation, for further use of a first user and a second user, the apparatus comprising [see at least Paragraph 0002 for reference to industrial automation systems, and, more particularly, to storage, management, and distribution of manufacturing and supply chain data; Paragraph 0034 for reference to a component being an apparatus with specific functionality provided by mechanical parts operated by electric or electronic circuitry which is operated by a software or a firmware application executed by a processor; Figure 1 and related text regarding the example industrial control environment; Figure 11 and related text regarding the blockchain-enabled industrial device]
a computer configured to determine the time- dependent usage performance indicator from a determined, use-dependent, time-dependent measurement value concerning the processing device, wherein an algorithm for calculation is known to the first user and the second user [see at least Paragraph 0045 for reference to MES systems being used to collect manufacturing data generated by the industrial assets including key performance indicators (KPI); Paragraph 0049 for reference to industrial blockchains and associated smart contracts can be used to track machine usage and operating statistics in connection with subscription-based machine operation or maintenance management; Paragraph 0063 for reference to the blockchain-enabled industrial device being a computer; Paragraph 0066 for reference to input data received by the user interface component including user-defined control programs or routines including blockchain configuration parameters; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 104 ‘MES System’; Figure 11 and related text regarding the blockchain-enabled industrial device; Figure 24 and related text regarding item 2444 ‘Remote Computer(s)’]
a physical device configured to produce a key index and generate a key based on the key index, for encrypting the use-dependent, time-dependent measurement value by the key [see at least Paragraph 0065 for reference to the cryptographic component leveraging private keys and public keys in connection with encryption and decryption of blockchain information; Paragraph 0083 for reference to blockchain engine including public and private keys to be used by the controller to share information; Figure 11 and related text regarding item 1122 ‘Private Key’ and item 1124 ‘Public Key’; Figure 14 and related text regarding item 1122 ‘Private Key’ and item 1124 ‘Public Key’]
wherein the physical device comprises a universal serial bus (USB) dongle. a chip, or a programmable logic controller (PLC) [see at least Paragraph 0167 for reference to the example environment containing a system bus; Figure 11 and related text regarding item 1122 ‘Private Key’ and item 1124 ‘Public Key’ developed within the ‘Blockchain-Enabled Industrial Device’; Figure 14 and related text regarding item 1122 ‘Private Key’ and item 1124 ‘Public Key’; Figure 24 and related text regarding the example environment including item 2418 ‘system bus’]
wherein the apparatus is configured to transmit the time-dependent usage performance indicator together with the encrypted measurement value and the key index in a data packet to a billing system [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to the components communicating in accordance with a signal having one or more data packets (e.g., data from one component interacting with another component in a local system, distributed system, and/or across a network such as the Internet with other systems via the signal); Paragraph 0083 for reference to blockchain engine including public and private keys to be used by the controller to share information; Paragraph 0110 for reference to as part of the process of installing a new production line, plant owners may obtain financing from a bank or purchase design services from an engineering firm in which the OEM may be interests primarily in production numbers for billing purposes in a subscription based contract; Paragraph 0110 for reference to the diverse entities involved in the machine's lifecycle (e.g., designer, OEM, manufacturer, financial institution, etc.) can each be afforded layered levels of access to blockchain data generated for the machine at all stages of its lifecycle (e.g., design, commission, operation, and maintenance); Paragraph 0174 for reference to communication occurring in the form of a data packet adapted to be transmitted between two or more computer processes; Figure 11 and related text regarding item 1122 ‘Private Key’ and item 1124 ‘Public Key’; Figure 14 and related text regarding item 1122 ‘Private Key’ and item 1124 ‘Public Key’]
While Biernat discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose generate a symmetric key based on the key index, for encrypting the use-dependent, time-dependent measurement value by the symmetric key; wherein the transmitted time-dependent usage performance indicator is configured to be converted into an invoice comprising further user-dependent information items.
However, Bhattacharyya discloses the following:
generate a symmetric key based on the key index, for encrypting the use-dependent, time-dependent measurement value by the symmetric key [see at least Col 2 lines 18-21 for reference to the server and the client device using a key-derivation algorithm to generate a symmetric encryption key from the shared secret; Col 12 lines 12-14 for reference to the device deriving a symmetric cryptographic key from the shared secret using a key derivation algorithm; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 410 ‘Derive a Symmetric Key from the Shared Secret to Encrypt Communications Over the Connection’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the key generation of Biernat to include the symmetric key generation of Bhattacharyya. Doing so would provide mutual authentication and encryption, and require fewer resources, as stated by Bhattacharyya (Col 3 lines 44-47).
While the combination of Biernat and Bhattacharyya disclose the limitations above, they do not disclose wherein the transmitted time-dependent usage performance indicator is configured to be converted into an invoice comprising further user-dependent information items.
However, Taylor discloses the following:
wherein the transmitted time-dependent usage performance indicator is configured to be converted into an invoice comprising further user-dependent information items [see at least Paragraph 0071 for reference to invoicing being linked to the commitment triggering event so that when the event occurs, the system automatically updates the invoice due date; Paragraph 0071 for reference to the invoice amount being calculated based on the number of units produced as listed in the production report; Examiner notes the ‘number of units produced’ within the ‘production report’ as analogous to the ‘time-dependent usage performance indicator’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the indicator transmission of Biernat to include the invoice conversion of Thomas. Do so provides increased visibility, collaboration and quantification to address substantive legal concerns via user selected self-service interfaces, including but not limited to, a portal, a ribbon, or mobile device, as stated by Thomas (Paragraph 0010).
Claim 2
While the combination of Biernat, Bhattacharyya, and Thomas disclose the limitations above, Biernat does not disclose wherein the symmetric key is regenerated at time intervals after initiation by the key index and it is possible to adjust the time intervals at which the symmetric key is changed.
Regarding Claim 2, Bhattacharyya discloses the following:
wherein the symmetric key is regenerated at time intervals after initiation by the key index and it is possible to adjust the time intervals at which the symmetric key is changed [see at least Col 14 lines 16-20 for reference to the server and the device deriving matching new symmetric keys from the shared secret key; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 606 ‘Derive a New Symmetric Key (S1.1) from the Shared Secret’; Figures 9-11 and related text regarding differing methods regarding the generation of a new symmetric key following the receipt of messages]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the key generation of Biernat to include the new symmetric key generation of Bhattacharyya. Doing so would provide mutual authentication and encryption, and require fewer resources, as stated by Bhattacharyya (Col 3 lines 44-47).
Claim 3
While the combination of Biernat, Bhattacharyya, and Thomas disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 3, Biernat discloses the following:
wherein the apparatus is integrated into an automation component [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to a component being an apparatus with specific functionality provided by mechanical parts operated by electric or electronic circuitry which is operated by a software or a firmware application executed by a processor; Figure 1 and related text regarding the example industrial control environment; Figure 11 and related text regarding the blockchain-enabled industrial device]
Claim 4
Regarding Claim 4, Biernat discloses the following:
A system comprising: a first apparatus; and a second apparatus, and a third apparatus, wherein the first apparatus comprises [see at least Paragraph 0002 for reference to industrial automation systems, and, more particularly, to storage, management, and distribution of manufacturing and supply chain data; Paragraph 0034 for reference to a component being an apparatus with specific functionality provided by mechanical parts operated by electric or electronic circuitry which is operated by a software or a firmware application executed by a processor; Paragraph 0040 for reference to industrial controllers executing control programs to facilitate monitoring and control of industrial devices; Figure 1 and related text regarding the example industrial control environment; Figure 11 and related text regarding the blockchain-enabled industrial device]
a computer configured to determine a time-dependent usage performance indicator from a determined, use-dependent, time-dependent measurement value concerning a processing device, wherein an algorithm for calculation is known to a first user and a second user [see at least Paragraph 0045 for reference to MES systems being used to collect manufacturing data generated by the industrial assets including key performance indicators (KPI); Paragraph 0049 for reference to industrial blockchains and associated smart contracts can be used to track machine usage and operating statistics in connection with subscription-based machine operation or maintenance management; Paragraph 0063 for reference to the blockchain-enabled industrial device being a computer; Paragraph 0066 for reference to input data received by the user interface component including user-defined control programs or routines including blockchain configuration parameters; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 104 ‘MES System’; Figure 11 and related text regarding the blockchain-enabled industrial device; Figure 24 and related text regarding item 2444 ‘Remote Computer(s)’]
a physical device configured to produce a key index and generate a key based on the key index, for encrypting the use-dependent, time-dependent measurement value by the key [see at least Paragraph 0065 for reference to the cryptographic component leveraging private keys and public keys in connection with encryption and decryption of blockchain information; Paragraph 0083 for reference to blockchain engine including public and private keys to be used by the controller to share information; Figure 11 and related text regarding item 1122 ‘Private Key’ and item 1124 ‘Public Key’; Figure 14 and related text regarding item 1122 ‘Private Key’ and item 1124 ‘Public Key’]
wherein the physical device comprises a universal serial bus (USB) dongle. a chip, or a programmable logic controller (PLC) [see at least Paragraph 0167 for reference to the example environment containing a system bus; Figure 11 and related text regarding item 1122 ‘Private Key’ and item 1124 ‘Public Key’ developed within the ‘Blockchain-Enabled Industrial Device’; Figure 14 and related text regarding item 1122 ‘Private Key’ and item 1124 ‘Public Key’; Figure 24 and related text regarding the example environment including item 2418 ‘system bus’]
wherein the first apparatus is configured to transmit the time- dependent usage performance indicator together with the encrypted measurement value and the key index in a data packet [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to the components communicating in accordance with a signal having one or more data packets (e.g., data from one component interacting with another component in a local system, distributed system, and/or across a network such as the Internet with other systems via the signal); Paragraph 0083 for reference to blockchain engine including public and private keys to be used by the controller to share information; Paragraph 0174 for reference to communication occurring in the form of a data packet adapted to be transmitted between two or more computer processes; Figure 11 and related text regarding item 1122 ‘Private Key’ and item 1124 ‘Public Key’; Figure 14 and related text regarding item 1122 ‘Private Key’ and item 1124 ‘Public Key’]
wherein the third apparatus is configured to store the time-dependent usage performance indicator and the encrypted measurement value [see at least Paragraph 0042 for reference to the industrial controllers storing persisted data values including measured or calculated values representing operational states of a controlled machine or process (e.g., tank levels, positions, alarms, etc.) or captured time series data that is collected during operation of the automation system (e.g., status information for multiple points in time, diagnostic occurrences, etc.); Paragraph 0044 for reference to the data historian aggregating and storing production information collected from the industrial controllers]
While Biernat discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose generate a symmetric key based on the key index, for encrypting the use-dependent, time-dependent measurement value by the symmetric key; wherein the second apparatus is configured to produce a sequence of keys, receive the key index, and produce a series of symmetric keys with aid of a start value and a random number; and wherein the third apparatus is configured to convert the time-dependent usage performance indicator into an invoice comprising further user-dependent information items.
However, Bhattacharyya discloses the following:
generate a symmetric key based on the key index, for encrypting the use-dependent, time-dependent measurement value by the symmetric key [see at least Col 2 lines 18-21 for reference to the server and the client device using a key-derivation algorithm to generate a symmetric encryption key from the shared secret; Col 12 lines 12-14 for reference to the device deriving a symmetric cryptographic key from the shared secret using a key derivation algorithm; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 410 ‘Derive a Symmetric Key from the Shared Secret to Encrypt Communications Over the Connection’]
wherein the second apparatus is configured to produce a sequence of keys, receive the key index, and produce a series of symmetric keys with aid of a start value and a random number [see at least Col 5 lines 30-34 for reference to both parties deriving new keys from the same shared secret in the same sequence and, therefore, the new cryptographic keys match; Col 14 lines 62-67 for reference to the new symmetric keys being made utilizing a pseudorandom number generator that allows both the server and device to generate a matching sequence of derived keys from matching seed values; Col 16 lines 20-24 for reference to successive symmetric keys are generated for successive messages by driving a sequence of symmetric keys from a shared secret generated with a key-exchange algorithm]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the key generation of Biernat to include the new symmetric key generation of Bhattacharyya. Doing so would provide mutual authentication and encryption, and require fewer resources, as stated by Bhattacharyya (Col 3 lines 44-47).
While the combination of Biernat and Bhattacharyya disclose the limitations above, they do not disclose wherein the third apparatus is configured to convert the time-dependent usage performance indicator into an invoice comprising further user-dependent information items.
However, Thomas discloses the following:
wherein the third apparatus is configured to convert the time-dependent usage performance indicator into an invoice comprising further user-dependent information items [see at least Paragraph 0071 for reference to invoicing being linked to the commitment triggering event so that when the event occurs, the system automatically updates the invoice due date; Paragraph 0071 for reference to the invoice amount being calculated based on the number of units produced as listed in the production report; Examiner notes the ‘number of units produced’ within the ‘production report’ as analogous to the ‘time-dependent usage performance indicator’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the indicator transmission of Biernat to include the invoice conversion of Thomas. Do so provides increased visibility, collaboration and quantification to address substantive legal concerns via user selected self-service interfaces, including but not limited to, a portal, a ribbon, or mobile device, as stated by Thomas (Paragraph 0010).
Claim 5
While the combination of Biernat, Bhattacharyya, and Thomas disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 5, Bienat discloses the following:
wherein the second apparatus is configured as a physical device [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to a component being an apparatus with specific functionality provided by mechanical parts operated by electric or electronic circuitry which is operated by a software or a firmware application executed by a processor; Paragraph 0040 for reference to industrial controllers executing control programs to facilitate monitoring and control of industrial devices; Figure 1 and related text regarding the example industrial control environment; Figure 11 and related text regarding the blockchain-enabled industrial device]
Claim 8
While the combination of Biernat, Bhattacharyya, and Thomas disclose the limitations above, Biernat does not disclose wherein a frequency with which the symmetric key is configured to be requested is restricted by the second apparatus.
Regarding Claim 8, Bhattacharyya discloses the following:
wherein a frequency with which the symmetric key is configured to be requested is restricted by the second apparatus [see at least Col 14 lines 16-20 for reference to the server and the device deriving matching new symmetric keys from the shared secret key; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 606 ‘Derive a New Symmetric Key (S1.1) from the Shared Secret’; Figures 9-11 and related text regarding differing methods regarding the generation of a new symmetric key following the receipt of messages]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the key generation of Biernat to include the new symmetric key generation of Bhattacharyya. Doing so would provide mutual authentication and encryption, and require fewer resources, as stated by Bhattacharyya (Col 3 lines 44-47).
Claim 9
Regarding Claim 9, Biernat discloses the following:
A method for access-restricted provision of a time- dependent usage performance indicator for a processing device in a production installation for further use of a first user and a second user, the method comprising [see at least Paragraph 0160 for reference to the methodology for generating industrial blockchains having multiple levels of access permission; Figure 23 and related text regarding example methodology for generating industrial blockchains having multiple levels of access permission]
determining a use-dependent, time-dependent measurement value concerning the processing device [see at least Paragraph 0045 for reference to MES systems being used to collect manufacturing data generated by the industrial assets; Paragraph 0049 for reference to industrial blockchains and associated smart contracts can be used to track machine usage and operating statistics in connection with subscription-based machine operation or maintenance management; Paragraph 0063 for reference to the blockchain-enabled industrial device being a computer; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 104 ‘MES System’; Figure 11 and related text regarding the blockchain-enabled industrial device; Figure 24 and related text regarding item 2444 ‘Remote Computer(s)’]
calculating the time-dependent usage performance indicator from the determined measurement value, wherein an algorithm for calculation is known to the first user and the second user [see at least Paragraph 0045 for reference to MES systems being used to collect manufacturing data generated by the industrial assets including key performance indicators (KPI); Paragraph 0063 for reference to the blockchain-enabled industrial device being a computer; Paragraph 0066 for reference to input data received by the user interface component including user-defined control programs or routines including blockchain configuration parameters; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 104 ‘MES System’; Figure 11 and related text regarding the blockchain-enabled industrial device; Figure 24 and related text regarding item 2444 ‘Remote Computer(s)’]
producing a key index and generating a key based on the key index [see at least Paragraph 0065 for reference to the cryptographic component leveraging private keys and public keys in connection with encryption and decryption of blockchain information; Paragraph 0083 for reference to blockchain engine including public and private keys to be used by the controller to share information; Figure 11 and related text regarding item 1122 ‘Private Key’ and item 1124 ‘Public Key’; Figure 14 and related text regarding item 1122 ‘Private Key’ and item 1124 ‘Public Key’]
encrypting the use-dependent, time-dependent measurement value by the key [see at least Paragraph 0065 for reference to cryptographic component being configured to encrypt and decrypt transaction data, recipe data, or other information exchanged with other blockchain-enabled industrial devices within a blockchain system or ecosystem; Paragraph 0088 for reference to the keys being used to encrypt information shared with other devices or entities on the blockchain]
transmitting the time-dependent usage performance indicator together with the [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to the components communicating in accordance with a signal having one or more data packets (e.g., data from one component interacting with another component in a local system, distributed system, and/or across a network such as the Internet with other systems via the signal); Paragraph 0083 for reference to blockchain engine including public and private keys to be used by the controller to share information; Paragraph 0174 for reference to communication occurring in the form of a data packet adapted to be transmitted between two or more computer processes; Figure 11 and related text regarding item 1122 ‘Private Key’ and item 1124 ‘Public Key’; Figure 14 and related text regarding item 1122 ‘Private Key’ and item 1124 ‘Public Key’]
While Biernat discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose generating a symmetric key based on the key index and encrypting the use-dependent, time-dependent measurement value by the symmetric key; and converting the time-dependent usage performance indicator into an invoice comprising further user-dependent information items.
However, Bhattacharyya discloses the following:
generate a symmetric key based on the key index [see at least Col 2 lines 18-21 for reference to the server and the client device using a key-derivation algorithm to generate a symmetric encryption key from the shared secret; Col 12 lines 12-14 for reference to the device deriving a symmetric cryptographic key from the shared secret using a key derivation algorithm; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 410 ‘Derive a Symmetric Key from the Shared Secret to Encrypt Communications Over the Connection’]
encrypting the use-dependent, time-dependent measurement value by the symmetric key [see at least Col 2 lines 18-21 for reference to the server and the client device using a key-derivation algorithm to generate a symmetric encryption key from the shared secret; Col 4 lines 19-21 for reference to the cryptographic key being used to encrypt further communication between the network-connected device and the registration service; Col 12 lines 12-14 for reference to the device deriving a symmetric cryptographic key from the shared secret using a key derivation algorithm; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 410 ‘Derive a Symmetric Key from the Shared Secret to Encrypt Communications Over the Connection’; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 614 & 624 ‘Encrypt a Message with Symmetric Key’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the key generation of Biernat to include the symmetric key generation of Bhattacharyya. Doing so would provide mutual authentication and encryption, and require fewer resources, as stated by Bhattacharyya (Col 3 lines 44-47).
While the combination of Biernat and Bhattacharyya disclose the limitations above, they do not disclose converting the time-dependent usage performance indicator into an invoice comprising further user-dependent information items.
However, Thomas discloses the following:
converting the time-dependent usage performance indicator into an invoice comprising further user-dependent information items [see at least Paragraph 0071 for reference to invoicing being linked to the commitment triggering event so that when the event occurs, the system automatically updates the invoice due date; Paragraph 0071 for reference to the invoice amount being calculated based on the number of units produced as listed in the production report; Examiner notes the ‘number of units produced’ within the ‘production report’ as analogous to the ‘time-dependent usage performance indicator’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the indicator transmission of Biernat to include the invoice conversion of Thomas. Do so provides increased visibility, collaboration and quantification to address substantive legal concerns via user selected self-service interfaces, including but not limited to, a portal, a ribbon, or mobile device, as stated by Thomas (Paragraph 0010).
Claim 10
While the combination of Biernat, Bhattacharyya, and Thomas disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 10, Biernat discloses the following:
wherein the data packet furthermore contains a signature of a sender [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to the components communicating in accordance with a signal having one or more data packets (e.g., data from one component interacting with another component in a local system, distributed system, and/or across a network such as the Internet with other systems via the signal); Paragraph 0057 for reference to participants in the network being uniquely identified with digital signatures granted by the network; Paragraph 0174 for reference to communication occurring in the form of a data packet adapted to be transmitted between two or more computer processes]
Claim 11
While the combination of Biernat, Bhattacharyya, and Thomas disclose the limitations above, Biernat does not disclose wherein the key index is changed at previously known, uniform time intervals.
Regarding Claim 11, Bhattacharyya discloses the following:
wherein the key index is changed at previously known, uniform time intervals [see at least Col 14 lines 16-20 for reference to the server and the device deriving matching new symmetric keys from the shared secret key; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 606 ‘Derive a New Symmetric Key (S1.1) from the Shared Secret’; Figures 9-11 and related text regarding differing methods regarding the generation of a new symmetric key following the receipt of messages]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the key generation of Biernat to include the new symmetric key generation of Bhattacharyya. Doing so would provide mutual authentication and encryption, and require fewer resources, as stated by Bhattacharyya (Col 3 lines 44-47).
Claim 12
While the combination of Biernat, Bhattacharyya, and Thomas disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 12, Biernat discloses the following:
wherein further data comprising serial numbers received from another processing device or time stamps influence the generating of the key generation [see at least Paragraph 0087 for reference to timestamps for the transaction being included in each block of the blockchain; Paragraph 0109 for reference to information being stored in the private blockchain including chip serial numbers; Figure 4 and related text regarding individual blocks of the blockchain including ‘timestamps’]
While Biernat discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose further data comprising serial numbers received from another processing device or time stamps influence the generating of the symmetry key generation.
However, Bhattacharyya discloses the following:
further data comprising serial numbers received from another processing device or time stamps influence the generating of the symmetry key generation [see at least Col 7 lines 22-25 for reference to registration information including device serial numbers; Col 7 lines 52-56 for reference to the server using registration information to establish an encrypted connection using a double-ratchet protocol]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the key generation using timestamps and serial numbers of Biernat to include the symmetric key generation using serial numbers of Bhattacharyya. Doing so would provide mutual authentication and encryption, and require fewer resources, as stated by Bhattacharyya (Col 3 lines 44-47).
Claim 13
While the combination of Biernat, Bhattacharyya, and Thomas disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 13, Biernat discloses the following:
wherein the time-dependent usage performance indicator transmitted in the data packet is stored separately together with the encrypted measurement value and the key index [see at least Paragraph 0084 for reference to each blockchain-enabled industrial device including a secure storage area separate from the storage used for real-time monitoring and control; Paragraph 0084 for reference to control components containing a memory stored in the control program and a data table that stores real-time values of the controller’s digital and analog inputs and outputs, setpoint values, calculated values, or other data tag values; Figure 11 and related text regarding item 1118 ‘memory’; Figure 15 and related text regarding item 1504 ‘memory’ and item 1508 ‘data table’]
Claim 16
While the combination of Biernat, Bhattacharyya, and Thomas disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 16, Biernat discloses the following:
wherein the processing device is an automation component [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to a component being an apparatus with specific functionality provided by mechanical parts operated by electric or electronic circuitry which is operated by a software or a firmware application executed by a processor; Figure 1 and related text regarding the example industrial control environment; Figure 11 and related text regarding the blockchain-enabled industrial device]
the use-dependent, time-dependent measurement value is at least one of the following measurement values per unit time from the automation component: production time, production duration, processing speed, processing intensity, expended force, or number of parts produced [see at least Paragraph 0045 for reference to MES systems being used to collect manufacturing data generated by the industrial assets including production statistics, equipment health statistics, asset lifecycle management, inventory, key performance indicators (KPI), power consumption, or other factors; Paragraph 0049 for reference to industrial blockchains and associated smart contracts can be used to track machine usage and operating statistics in connection with subscription-based machine operation or maintenance management; Paragraph 0063 for reference to the blockchain-enabled industrial device being a computer; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 104 ‘MES System’; Figure 11 and related text regarding the blockchain-enabled industrial device]
Claim 17
While the combination of Biernat, Bhattacharyya, and Thomas disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 17, Biernat discloses the following:
wherein the automation component is a machine tool [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to a component being an apparatus with specific functionality provided by mechanical parts operated by electric or electronic circuitry which is operated by a software or a firmware application executed by a processor; Figure 1 and related text regarding the example industrial control environment; Figure 11 and related text regarding the blockchain-enabled industrial device]
Claim 18
While the combination of Biernat, Bhattacharyya, and Thomas disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 18, Biernat discloses the following:
wherein the automation component is a machine tool [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to a component being an apparatus with specific functionality provided by mechanical parts operated by electric or electronic circuitry which is operated by a software or a firmware application executed by a processor; Figure 1 and related text regarding the example industrial control environment; Figure 11 and related text regarding the blockchain-enabled industrial device]
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biernat (U.S 2019/0340269 A1) in view of Bhattacharyya (U.S 10,630,682 B1) in view of Taylor (U.S 2015/0046369 A1), as applied in claim 9, in view of Davidovics (U.S 10,841,286 B1).
Claim 15
While the combination of Biernat, Bhattacharyya, and Thomas disclose the limitations above, they do not disclose wherein the symmetric key is deleted after a single use.
Regarding Claim 15, Davidovics discloses the following:
wherein the symmetric key is deleted after a single use [see at least Col 19 lines 38-41 for reference to the server erasing the private symmetric key of the patient following the expiration of the authorization]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the symmetric key of Bhattacharyya to include the deletion after use of Davidovics. Doing so would minimize possible breaches and unauthorized access to PHR data for multiple patients, as stated by Davidovics (Col 4 lines 22-24).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DOCUMENT ID
INVENTOR(S)
TITLE
US 2003/0036918 A1
Pintsov, Leon A.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TRUSTED SELF-BILLING AND PAYMENT FOR UTILITIES INCLUDING AUDIT, VERIFICATION, RECONCILIATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION
US 8,015,056 B1
Fenstermaker et al.
Method For Visual Presentation Of Key Performance Indicators Of a Business Utilizing A Squarified Tree Map
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIN ELIZABETH GAVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 PM EST.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/KRISTIN E GAVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights