Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/389,950

AUTOMATION TECHNOLOGY FIELD DEVICE AND METHOD FOR SAFE OPERATION OF A FIELD DEVICE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 20, 2023
Examiner
TURCHEN, JAMES R
Art Unit
2439
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Endress+Hauser
OA Round
2 (Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
523 granted / 637 resolved
+24.1% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+33.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
661
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.0%
-30.0% vs TC avg
§103
48.2%
+8.2% vs TC avg
§102
25.1%
-14.9% vs TC avg
§112
10.2%
-29.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 637 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 1-13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welle (US 2023/0185287) hereafter Welle in view of Alber et al. (US 2021/0158244). 1. Welle discloses a field device of automation technology, comprising: wherein the field device has at least one sensor designed to detect a physical, chemical, or biological variable of a process engineering process and/or at least one actuator designed to influence a physical variable of a process engineering process, or such a sensor and/or actuator is assigned to the field device (para 11, 22); wherein the field device has at least one electronics unit for operating the field device, wherein at least two operating phases are defined in the field device (para 76, 85, 106-111, 119, user interface and functional units 108-111 are considered an electronics unit); wherein one or more authorization information items are assigned to each of the operating phases (para 108-111); wherein the authorization information items define at least one user authorized to access the field device and/or at least one permitted operating action on the field device (para 85, 108-111); and wherein the electronics unit is designed to operate the field device in a current operating phase, wherein the current operating phase is one of the defined operating phases (para 76, 85, 106, 119). Welle does not explicitly disclose wherein the electronics unit is designed to change the current operating phase when the following event occurs: receiving an order ticket via a communication interface of the field device, which order ticket contains a command for changing the operating phases. However, in an analogous art, Alber discloses tamper-proof operation of field devices including wherein the electronics unit is designed to change the current operating phase when the following event occurs: receiving an order ticket via a communication interface of the field device, which order ticket contains a command for changing the operating phases (para 30-34, order ticket AT is used to log into field device FG, FG checks the order ticket and authorizes the work order which is one of control, maintenance, unlocking of at least one parameter, calibration, exchange of a component of the field device, exchange of the field device. Depending on the work order, the service technician ST receives read or write access to the field device). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implementation of Welle with the implementation of Alber in order to ensure that a defined work order is carried out in a tamper-proof manner (para 11). 2. Welle and Alber disclose the field device according to claim 1, wherein the electronics unit is designed to check an access request to determine whether information items contained in the access request regarding the user and/or contained operating actions are contained in the authorization information items assigned to the current operating phase (Welle, para 76, 106-111). 3. Welle and Alber disclose the field device according to claim 2, wherein the access request is only permitted in case of a successful check (Welle, para 106-111). 4. Welle and Alber disclose the field device according to claim 1, wherein the electronics unit is designed to change the current operating phase, wherein, in the course of changing, the current operating phase is replaced with one of the defined operating phases which is not the current operating phase (Welle, para 76, 106-111). 5. Welle and Alber disclose the field device according to claim 1, wherein the electronics unit is designed to change the current operating phase when one or more of the following events occur: reception of an external control signal by the field device, in particular via a control line or a communication network (Welle, para 106-111), preferably a fieldbus system; dedicated selection or change of one of the operating phases by a user (Welle, para 106-111). 6. Welle and Alber disclose the field device according to claim 1, wherein the defined operating phases are at least two of the following: production phase; installation phase; regular operation; validated operation; and maintenance phase (Welle, para 66-67, 76-78, 117). 7. Welle and Alber disclose the field device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one operating action is one or more of the following: a calibration of the field device; a configuration or parameterization of the field device; a maintenance action on the field device or on a component of the field device; access to at least one communication interface of the field device (Welle, 76-106-111); and access to the field device via at least one operating element (Welle, 76-106-111). 8. Welle and Alber disclose the field device according to claim 1, wherein the users defined in the authorization information items and authorized to access the field device comprise at least one user group (Welle, para 106-111). Claim 9 is similar in scope to claims 1-3 and is rejected under similar rationale. 10. Welle and Alber disclose the method according to claim 9, wherein the access request is contained in an order ticket (Alber, para 30-34). 11. Welle and Alber disclose the method according to claim 9, wherein the access request is created by a first external unit and transmitted to the field device (Alber, para 31-32). 12. Welle and Alber disclose he method according to claim 11, wherein the first external unit is a computer unit, in particular a PC or a laptop, or a mobile terminal device, in particular a smartphone or a tablet (Alber, para 31-32). 13. Welle and Alber disclose the method according to claim 12, wherein the first external unit transmits the access request via a wired or wireless communication connection to the field device (Alber, para 31-32). 15. Welle and Alber disclose the method according to claim 9, wherein, in the course of the checking, it is additionally checked via which communication interface of the field device the access request has been received, wherein the access is only permitted if the user is authorized to access via this communication interface and/or if the execution of the operating action via this communication interface is permitted (Welle, para 108-111). 16. Welle and Alber disclose the method according to claim 9, wherein, but does not explicitly disclose after permitted access, a confirmation ticket is created by the field device and transmitted to the first external unit or to a second external unit, wherein the confirmation ticket contains an item of information about the current operating phase of the field device and about the executed operating action (Alber, para 34). Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welle and Alber as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Kuhl (US 2021/0157306) hereafter Kuhl. 14. The method according to claim 10, wherein the first external unit is an order server which, after request of a user, creates the order ticket and transmits it, in particular via a network, to the field device (Alber, para 22, 30-34). Welle and Alber do not explicitly disclose the internet. However, in an analogous art, Kuhl discloses checking the setting of predefined security functions of a field device including field devices equipped with internet interfaces. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implementation of Welle and Alber with the implementation of Kuhl in order to allow for a greater range of communication options including Internet, Ethernet, Bluetooth, or WLAN (para 7). Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JAMES R TURCHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7-3. 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, Luu Pham can be reached at 571-270-5002. 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. /JAMES R TURCHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 20, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 12, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 23, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602494
METHOD FOR SWITCHING EXECUTION ENVIRONMENT AND RELATED DEVICE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598163
SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND MEDIA FOR A CLOUD BASED SOCIAL MEDIA NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592931
NETWORKING TECHNIQUES FOR ENABLING COMMUNICATION BETWEEN MULTIPLE CLOUD ENVIRONMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585740
ON-CHAIN PUSH-MODE MULTI-FACTOR AUTHENTICATION METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR BLOCKCHAIN SERVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579289
MULTIMEDIA SHARING METHOD AND APPARATUS, AND DEVICE AND MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

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

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+33.7%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 637 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month