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 . Claims 1-10 have been elected in response to the Requirement for Restriction.
Amendment to the Speciation
The amendment to the specification dated 01/20/2026 is entered.
Drawing
The drawing replacement sheet filed on 07/11/2023 is entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The limitation “displaying a sub-menu” is unclear. The context of a sub-menu is ambiguous and it is not associate with any menu that be might be related to hierarchical display.
The scope of the clause authentication is unclear/vague and it lacking which entities/objects the authentication is targeting.
The limitation “performing a NOP-operation is unclear/ambiguous. Examiner suggests Applicant to clarify the scope of the limitation by amending the claim to capture “NOP-operation may be used
when an action does not make sense, e.g., when activating a display element "serial number", where (e.g.) an updating does not bring another result” as recited in paragraph of the instant specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brooks et al (hereinafter Brooks) US Publication No 20040073404.
As per claim 1, Brooks teaches:
A method for providing a controlling frontend for an operating device configured for operating a field device by utilizing operating elements of the field device, the method comprising:
providing an operational frame, wherein the operational frame serves as a generic user interface and is based on a companion specification;
(Fig, 125 and 127b and paragraphs [0077], [0080]-[0082], [0085] and [0889], wherein specification matching the selected component are obtained and paragraph [0092], wherein control mechanical component is the operation frame as recited in paragraph [0011] of the instant specification)
reading a field device specification from a database, wherein the field device specification comprises a structured set of field device attributes, which are related to the operating elements;
(Paragraphs [0724] and [0108], wherein operating characteristics (i. e temperature) is the attribute as recited in paragraph [0010] of the instant specification)
and generating, based on the field device specification and the operational frame, a structured set of display elements for the controlling frontend, wherein at least some of the display elements of the controlling frontend are connected to the operating elements of the field device.
(Fig, 125 and 127b and paragraphs [0077], [0080]-[0082] and [0084]- [0085] and [0700], wherein specification template matching component is obtained/generated)
As per claim 2, Brooks teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the operating elements are at least one of:
a sensor, an actuator, and/or a register entry.
(Paragraphs [0026] and [0042])
As per claim 3, Brooks teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the companion specification comprises a specification of a layout and/or of a graphical style of the display elements, and/or further elements of a company style.
(Paragraphs [0082], [0084]-[0085], wherein specification temple icon is matched component icon)
As per claim 4, Brooks teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the display elements are hierarchically structured.
(Fig. 8, 14 and paragraph [0911] and [0925] and [1374])
As per claim 7, Brooks teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein activating one of the display elements is related to a display element action, wherein the display element action comprises at least one of: displaying a sub-menu, steering an operating element of the field device, performing an authentication, and/or performing a NOP-operation.
(Fig. 8, 14 and paragraph [0911] and [0925] and [1374])
As per claim 8, Brooks teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the display elements of the controlling frontend being connected to the operating elements of the field device requires an authorization of the controlling frontend and/or of the operating device.
(Paragraph [1125])
As per claim 9, Brooks teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the operating device is a smartphone, a tablet, a laptop, a specialized device, or another type of mobile device, a stationary device, or a server.
(Paragraph [0028])
As per claim 10, Brooks teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the database is located on the field device, on the operating device, on a server, or on an aggregation server.
(Paragraph [0089] and [0243])
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brooks in view of Maksumov et al (hereinafter Maksumov) US Publication No. 20160127514.
As per claim 5, Brooks does not explicitly teach an address space of the device is compliant with a companion specification according to OPC 30081, OPC 10000-100, OPC Unified Architecture for IEC61850, MDIS OPC UA Companion Specification, OPC Unified Architecture for Analyzer Devices (ADI) and/or another companion specification and/or is compliant with an aggregated service, however in analogous art of content management, Maksumov teaches:
an address space of the device is compliant with a companion specification according to OPC 30081, OPC 10000-100, OPC Unified Architecture for IEC61850, MDIS OPC UA Companion Specification, OPC Unified Architecture for Analyzer Devices (ADI) and/or another companion specification and/or is compliant with an aggregated service.
(Paragraphs [0056], [0068] and [0071])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Brooks and Maksumov by incorporating the teaching of Maksumov into the method of Brooks. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Maksumov into the system of Brooks for the purpose of managing industrial control and improving communication to/from various device using different protocols.
As per claim 5, Brooks does not explicitly teach at least a part of the field device specification and/or the field device attributes is compliant with a Unified Architecture of Open Platform Communications, OPC UA, however in analogous art of content management, Maksumov teaches:
at least a part of the field device specification and/or the field device attributes is compliant with a Unified Architecture of Open Platform Communications, OPC UA.
(Paragraphs [0056], [0068] and [0071])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to combine Brooks and Maksumov by incorporating the teaching of Maksumov into the method of Brooks. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the content management of Maksumov into the system of Brooks for the purpose of managing industrial control and improving communication to/from various device using different protocols.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Chbouki whose telephone number is 571-2703154. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-2701760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAREK CHBOUKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 3/10/2026