DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 16-32 are pending.
This action is made final.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: representation unit configured to provide a coded representation of the identification in claim 16, communication module configured to authenticate a user device in claim 25, control and display unit is configured to display an identification of a field device in claim 31.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification, such as page 8 of the specification recites “the control and display unit 110 has a representation unit 112…. The representation unit 112 can, for example, be designed as a display. The representation unit 112 can be designed as a flashing LED that transmits a light signal”, pages 9 and 11 of the specification recites “The communication module 120 may be implemented, for example, as a radio module…. a near-field communication module, such as an RFID chip or an antenna of Bluetooth technology” as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 16-22, 25-29, 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fries et al. (hereinafter “Fries”) (US 20150215321 A1) in view of Milden et al. (hereinafter “Milden”) (US 20160357422 A1).
As to claim 16, Fries teaches a control and display unit for identifying a field device, comprising:
an internal register configured to store an identification of the field device [the filed device FG include a display to present QR code stored and/or generated in the filed device, therefore the filed device inherently includes at least a memory to store the QR code/flicker code] [0044-0045, 0064]; and
a representation unit configured to provide a coded representation of the identification, wherein the coded representation of the identification comprises an identifier [the display presents QR code to a portable communication device KG, the QR code includes coded information such as an identification number, device identifier or a serial number] [0044-00481, 0064-0067].
Fries teaches an industrial device have a display implemented as part of the industrial device to present identification information [0044-0045, 0064]. Fries does not explicitly teach the identifier is shown as a lock or idle screen on the display.
However, Milden teaches a control and display unit for identifying an industrial device ([0138] IG. 3 is a block diagram of an exemplary multifunction device with a display… In some embodiments, device 300 is… a control device (e.g., industrial controller)). Especially, Milden teaches allowing the user of the industrial device to personalize the lock screen to display a barcode or a Quick Response (QR) code, which encodes the device-identifying text string ([0212-0216] the lock screen of a personalized device displays a device-identifying text string or device identifier. In some embodiments, the lock screen displays a barcode or a Quick Response (QR) code, which encodes the device-identifying text string. As illustrated in FIG. 16, a user is able to create a device-identifying text string through an identification window 1600 displayed as part of the user interface 600 of the device configuration application. The identification window 1600 includes the name of the device 1602, for which the device identifier is created. In some embodiments, the identification window includes an option to generate a QR code 1604 of the device identifier. In some embodiments, the identification window 1600 includes an “Add Identifier” option 1606. This “Add Identifier” option 1606 allows appending different component identifiers 1608 to the device identifier. Each component identifier 1608 represents a different property of a device, which includes, for example, device location, device type, device capacity, device number, and the like. For each component identifier 1608, the user is able to specify a text substring 1608 representative of the property of the device, for which the device identifier is generated… as illustrated in FIG. 17, the updated lock screen image displays a device-identifying text string 1700 and/or a QR code 1702 encoding the device-identifying text string…).
Fries and Milden are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of configuring industrial devices for displaying particular information. At the time before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art to personalize the lock screen of the devices with identification codes so that the devices can be identified in an efficient manner. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Milden with the teachings of Fries for the purpose of presenting device identifier as a lock or idle screen on the display as specified in the claim 16.
As to claim 17, Fries teaches the coded representation of the identification further comprises an authentication feature [the system and the field device are provided with a shared secret. Furthermore, the portable communications device sends a date in addition to the first information and the second information to the system. The system uses the shared secret to calculate from the first information, the second information and the date, a first one-off password as the first piece of access information. The field device uses the shared secret to calculate from the second information and the date and from the first information known to the field device, a second one-off password as the second piece of access information] [0019-0021, 0048-0056, 0064-0072].
As to claim 18, Fries teaches the authentication feature is configured to authenticate a user device, and/or where the authentication feature is mutable [0019-0021, 0048-0056, 0064-0072].
As to claim 19, Fries teaches the identification feature and/or the authentication feature of the field device is receivable by means of the representation unit over a distance between 0 m and 2 m [Both the portable communications device KG and the field device FG using a near field communication (NFC) for communication] [0034, 0059-0060].
As to claim 20, Fries teaches the identification feature and/or the authentication feature of the field device is receivable by means of the representation unit over a distance between 0 m and 0.5 m [Both the portable communications device KG and the field device FG using a near field communication (NFC) for communication] [0034, 0059-0060].
As to claim 21, Fries teaches the identification feature and/or the authentication feature of the field device is receivable by means of the representation unit over a distance between 0 m and 20 cm [Both the portable communications device KG and the field device FG using a near field communication (NFC) for communication] [0034, 0059-0060].
As to claim 22, Fries teaches the representation unit is implemented as a display, a near-field communication, and/or a light signal [0044-0045, 0064].
As to claim 25, Fries teaches a communication module configured to authenticate a user device and/or to communicate with the user device [0019-0021, 0034, 0048-0056, 0059-0060, 0064-0072].
As to claim 26, Fries teaches a field device, comprising a control and display unit and/or a representation unit according to claim 16 [see claim rejection for claim 16 for detail explanation] [0044-0048, 0064-0067].
As to claim 27, Fries teaches method of representing an identification of a field device, the method comprising the steps of: providing the identification in an internal register of the field device [the filed device FG include a display to present QR code stored and/or generated in the filed device, therefore the filed device inherently includes at least a memory to store the QR code/flicker code] [0044-0045, 0064]; encoding the identification into an identifier [encoding device identification data to provide a coded representation of the identification such as a QR code] [0045, 0064]; and representing the coded identification by means of a representation unit according to claim 16 [the display presents QR code to portable communication device KG, the QR code includes coded information such as an identification number, device identifier or a serial number] [0044-0048 , 0064-0067], wherein the coded representation of the identification comprises an identification feature and an authentication feature [the system and the field device are provided with a shared secret. Furthermore, the portable communications device sends a date in addition to the first information and the second information to the system. The system uses the shared secret to calculate from the first information, the second information and the date, a first one-off password as the first piece of access information. The field device uses the shared secret to calculate from the second information and the date and from the first information known to the field device, a second one-off password as the second piece of access information] [0019-0021, 0048-0056, 0064-0072].
Fries teaches an industrial device have a display implemented as part of the industrial device to present identification information [0044-0045, 0064]. Fries does not explicitly teach the identifier is shown as a lock or idle screen on the display.
However, Milden teaches a control and display unit for identifying an industrial device ([0138] IG. 3 is a block diagram of an exemplary multifunction device with a display… In some embodiments, device 300 is… a control device (e.g., industrial controller)). Especially, Milden teaches allowing the user of the industrial device to personalize the lock screen to display a barcode or a Quick Response (QR) code, which encodes the device-identifying text string ([0212-0216] the lock screen of a personalized device displays a device-identifying text string or device identifier. In some embodiments, the lock screen displays a barcode or a Quick Response (QR) code, which encodes the device-identifying text string. As illustrated in FIG. 16, a user is able to create a device-identifying text string through an identification window 1600 displayed as part of the user interface 600 of the device configuration application. The identification window 1600 includes the name of the device 1602, for which the device identifier is created. In some embodiments, the identification window includes an option to generate a QR code 1604 of the device identifier. In some embodiments, the identification window 1600 includes an “Add Identifier” option 1606. This “Add Identifier” option 1606 allows appending different component identifiers 1608 to the device identifier. Each component identifier 1608 represents a different property of a device, which includes, for example, device location, device type, device capacity, device number, and the like. For each component identifier 1608, the user is able to specify a text substring 1608 representative of the property of the device, for which the device identifier is generated… as illustrated in FIG. 17, the updated lock screen image displays a device-identifying text string 1700 and/or a QR code 1702 encoding the device-identifying text string…).
Fries and Milden are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of configuring industrial devices for displaying particular information. At the time before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art to personalize the lock screen of the devices with identification codes so that the devices can be identified in an efficient manner. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Milden with the teachings of Fries for the purpose of presenting device identifier as a lock or idle screen on the display as specified in the claim 27.
As to claim 28, Fries teaches the encoding step further comprises additionally encoding the identification into an authenticator [0019-0021, 0048-0056, 0064-0072].
As to claim 29, Fries teaches capturing, by means of a capture unit in a mobile device, the identification feature and/or the authentication feature; transferring the identifier and/or the authentication feature to a server; and authenticating a communication between the field device and the mobile device [0019-0021, 0048-0056, 0064-0072].
As to claim 31, Fries teaches the control and display unit is configured to display an identification of a field device and/or to authenticate a user device [0019-0021, 0048-0056, 0064-0072].
As to claim 32, Fries teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by a processor of a field device, a mobile device, a server, and/or another computing device, causes the field device, the mobile device, the server, and/or the another computing device to perform the method according to claim 27 [see claim rejection for claim 27 for detail explanation] [0019-0021, 0044-0056, 0064-0067].
Claim(s) 23-24 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fries in view of Milden, and further in view of Schäuble et al. (hereinafter “Schäuble”) (US 20220014883 A1).
As to claim 23, Fries teaches the field device have a display implemented as part of the field device to present coded information [0044-0045, 0064]. Fries does not explicitly teach the representation unit is implemented as part of a detachably connected unit of the field device and/or as part of an external display device.
However, Schäuble teaches a system and method for operating a field device has a display, especially, Schäuble teaches the display which is formed either as part of the field device electronics or as a separate unit, is or can be connected to the field device electronics via an internal field-device interface [0017, 0026].
Fries and Schäuble are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of configuring a field device for task processing. At the time of the invention was filed it would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art to provide an interface to connect addition accessory device such as a display to the field device to display different task and device related data. The suggestion for doing so would have been obvious to prepare an interface so that the field device can be retrofitted subsequently to attach with different accessory device for different function such as detachably attach a display for data presentation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Schäuble with the teachings of Fries and Milden for the purpose of providing additional functionality to the field device by implementing the display as part of a detachably connected unit of the field device as specified in the claim 23.
As to claim 24, Schäuble teaches the control and display unit is implemented as part of a device arranged in a two-wire loop [0004-0005, 0022-0023].
As to claim 30, Schäuble teaches the providing of the identification is performed during manufacturing of the field device, by means of a transmission in a two-wire loop and/or by means of a detection unit [0004-0005, 0022-0023].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
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 ZHIPENG WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-7.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at 5712722279. 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.
/ZHIPENG WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 [0048] The portable communications device KG decodes the QR code and thus obtains first information IDFG about the field device FG, such as an identification number, device identifier or a serial number for example. The first information IDFG in the form of the serial number of the field device FG is sent to a server S via a telecommunications service (short message service, SMS). By sending the SMS message, the server S is simultaneously provided with second information IDKG identifying the portable communications device KG together with the first information IDFG. In this example, a telephone number of the portable communications device is transmitted for this purpose, where the second information IDKG additionally includes a role of the user. By transmitting the telephone number, at least part of information about the role of the user is simultaneously known to the server S, because the server S stores the cellphones within an automation system together with the role information associated with each. Thus the correct role is also assigned to a cellphone when a cellphone having a plurality of users is used, provided a cellphone is meant to be used in assigning the role.
Prosecution Insights