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 .
Response to Amendments
This communication is in response to the amendments filed on 2 January 2026:
Claims 1, 13 and 15 are amended.
Claims 3, 14 and 16 are canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-13, 15 and 17-21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s remarks filed on 2 January 2026:
a. Applicant’s arguments regarding the objection to claim 15 has been fully considered and is deemed fully persuasive. The objection to claim 15 has been withdrawn.
b. Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection on claims 9-12 have been fully considered and are deemed fully persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection on claims 9-12 have been withdrawn.
c. Applicant’s arguments that no combination of Hottgenroth, Frank, and Son teaches or suggests the claimed feature of a field device that receives first authorization data from a computer network service subsequent to providing user data to the service, and second authorization data from the user, wherein the field device compares the first and second authorization data has been fully considered but are deemed not-persuasive. Applicant’s attention is directed to Hottgenroth, Page 7, Paragraph 1, see “…The field device 3 transmits 14 the access identifier 10 or an access identifier 10 derived from the access identifier 10 to the authentication server 13”, where “authentication server 13” is being read as being a part of the computer network service. Applicant’s attention is further directed to Hottgenroth, Abstract, see “…the resulting authentication result is transmitted from the authentication server via the server communication connection to the field device…”, which is being read as receiving first authorization data from the computer network service. These disclosures of Hottgenroth teach the claimed feature of a field device that receives first authorization data from a computer network service subsequent to providing user data to the service. For the limitation of receiving second authorization data from the user and comparing the first with the second authorization data, Applicant’s attention is directed to Son, Paragraph [0129], see “The user terminal 100 may execute another user interface for acquiring the second authentication data…”. Applicant’s attention is further directed to Son, paragraph [0046], see “…when authentication is successful, the user terminal 100 may access…” and Son, Paragraph [0070], see “The second reference data may be authentication data that is to be compared to the second authentication data…When the second authentication data matches the second reference data, the second authentication unit may additionally authenticate the user…”, which is analogous to granting access if the first authorization data (e.g., second reference data) and the second authorization data (e.g., second authentication data) match.
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.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOTTGENROTH (EP 3705955), hereinafter Hottgenroth, in view of Frank et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2018/0262502), hereinafter Frank, in further view of SON (U.S. PGPub. 2020/0065472), hereinafter Son.
Regarding claim 1, Hottgenroth teaches An industrial automation field device (Hottgenroth, Page 6, Paragraph 6, see “…the field device 3 is in an operative relationship with a physical process 6, either the field device 3 receives measurement data from the physical process 6 or actively affects the physical process 6…The physical process 6 is often an automation system in an industrial application”), comprising:
a user interface configured to communicate with a user (Hottgenroth, Page 5, Paragraph 1, see “The introduction of scope of rights and also of session attributes enables the field device to provide the terminal with an individualized user interface…If the terminal itself does not have a display, it can also make sense for the field device to provide the individualized user interface on a physical display of the field device itself”); and
computer network interface circuitry configured to interface to a computer network (Hottgenroth, Page 3, Paragraph 4, see “It is also provided that the field device is connected to an authentication server via a server communication connection and the field device transmits the access identifier…”, where “authentication server” is being read as being comprised within a computer network service, and “server communication connection” is being read as comprising a computer network); and
control circuitry configured to
receive user data for local user access via the user interface (Hottgenroth, Page 7, Paragraph 1, see “It is initially provided that an individual access identifier 10 is stored in the terminal 5 and the terminal 5 – if there is contact between the terminal 5 and the field device 3 via the terminal communication link 4, the terminal 5 to the field device 5 its access identifier 10 transmits 11…”, which is being read as receiving user data (e.g., individual access identifier) for local user access via the user interface (e.g., via the terminal communication link 4)),
send the user data to the computer network service (Hottgenroth, Page 7, Paragraph 1, see “…The field device 3 transmits 14 the access identifier 10 or an access identifier 10 derived from the access identifier 10 to the authentication server 13”, where “authentication server 13” is being read as being a part of the computer network service),
receive first authorization data from the computer network service via the computer network interface circuitry (Hottgenroth, Abstract, see “…the resulting authentication result is transmitted from the authentication server via the server communication connection to the field device…”, which is being read as receiving first authorization data from the computer network service via the computer network interface circuitry), and
grant access to the field device depending on the first authorization data (Hottgenroth, Abstract, see “…depending on the authentication result transmitted to the field device is made available to the terminal device with resources of the field device”, which is being read as granting access to the field device (e.g., making the resources available) depending on the first authorization data (e.g., based on the authentication result)),
Hottgenroth does not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Frank: computer network interface circuitry configured to interface to a computer network with a central computer (Frank, Paragraph [0116], see “…The central server computer 103 is linked into the network such that it is possible for the interface 504 to be set up”, which is analogous to interfacing to a computer network with a central computer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Hottgenroth, by implementing techniques of interfacing with a central computer, disclosed of Frank.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for a field device network, comprising of interfacing with a central computer. This allows for better security management and automation of workflows by allowing different systems and devices to exchange data directly through the central computer. Frank is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of interfacing with a central computer (Frank, Paragraph [0116]).
Hottgenroth as modified by Frank do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Son: wherein the user interface is further configured to receive second authorization data (Son, Paragraph [0129], see “The user terminal 100 may execute another user interface for acquiring the second authentication data…”), and the control circuitry is further configured to compare the first authorization data with the second authorization data and to grant access if they match (Son, paragraph [0046], see “…when authentication is successful, the user terminal 100 may access…”) (Son, Paragraph [0070], see “The second reference data may be authentication data that is to be compared to the second authentication data…When the second authentication data matches the second reference data, the second authentication unit may additionally authenticate the user…”, which is analogous to granting access if the first authorization data (e.g., second reference data) and the second authorization data (e.g., second authentication data) match).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Hottgenroth, and techniques disclosed of Frank, by implementing techniques of receiving second authorization data and comparing the first with the second authorization data and to grant access if they match, disclosed of Son.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for a field device network, comprising of receiving second authorization data and comparing the first with the second authorization data and to grant access if they match. This allows for better security management by comparing two different authorization data and only granting access if they match, ultimately protecting against unauthorized threats. Son is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of receiving second authorization data and comparing the first with the second authorization data and to grant access if they match (Son, Paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 2, Hottgenroth as modified by Frank and further modified by Son teaches The field device according to claim 1, wherein the first authorization data includes a password or a sequence of digits (Hottgenroth, Page 3, Paragraph 8, see “…the individual access identifier has an individual terminal name and an individual terminal password”).
Regarding claims 9-10, 13 and 15, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1.
Claims 4 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hottgenroth, in view of Frank, in further view of Son, in further view of BIENFAIT (U.S. PGPub. 2021/0049585), hereinafter Bienfait.
Regarding claim 4, Hottgenroth as modified by Frank and further modified by Son do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Bienfait: The field device according to claim 1, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to output the first authorization data via the user interface (Bienfait, Paragraph [0018], see “…the user interface can further be configured to update the display to depict the authentication data element upon receiving an indication of user input from the user input sensor…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Hottgenroth, techniques disclosed of Frank, and techniques disclosed of Son, by implementing techniques of outputting the first authorization data via the user interface, disclosed of Bienfait.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for a field device network, comprising of outputting the first authorization data via the user interface. This allows for an improved user experience, better security and enhanced transparency by outputting the authorization data via a user interface. Bienfait is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of outputting the first authorization data via the user interface (Bienfait, Paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 17-18, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 4.
Claims 5 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hottgenroth, in view of Frank, in further view of Son, in further view of Karimzadeh et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2016/0080364), hereinafter Karimzadeh.
Regarding claim 5, Hottgenroth as modified by Frank and further modified by Son do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Karimzadeh: The field device according to claim 1, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to grant access to a second user device using an encryption method after receiving the first authorization data (Karimzadeh, Abstract, see “…initiating a timed access gate for receiving verification of authenticating credentials from the second user device, after the first user credentials associated with the first user device are verified”, where “after the first user credentials associated with the first user device are verified” is analogous to after receiving the first authorization data, verifying and granting access to a second user device using an encryption method) (Karimzadeh, Paragraph [0029], see “…The digital certificate may be encrypted with a predetermined authorized level of access granted to the second user for accessing the secure, privatized data…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Hottgenroth, techniques disclosed of Frank, and techniques disclosed of Son, by implementing techniques of granting access to a second user device using an encryption method, disclosed of Karimzadeh.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for a field device network, comprising of granting access to a second user device using an encryption method. This allows for better security management by offering a robust way to preserve confidentiality, maintain data integrity, and protect against a variety of cyber threats. Utilizing an encryption method ensures that only authorized devices can access sensitive information and be granted access. Karimzadeh is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of granting access to a second user device using an encryption method (Karimzadeh, Abstract).
Regarding claims 19-21, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 5.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hottgenroth, in view of Frank, in further view of Son, in further view of Lotter et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2018/0343339), hereinafter Lotter.
Regarding claim 6, Hottgenroth as modified by Frank and further modified by Son do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Lotter: The field device according to claim 1, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to send a log of activities on the field device to the computer network service after access has been granted (Lotter, Claim 27, see “…transmit the activity log to the administrator device via the communications port, wherein the administrator device comprises an alert monitor program configured to: transmit an alert of the at least one data service use based on the permission rules”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Hottgenroth, techniques disclosed of Frank, and techniques disclosed of Son, by implementing techniques of sending a log of activities on the field device to the computer network service, disclosed of Lotter.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for a field device network, comprising of sending a log of activities on the field device to the computer network service. This allows for better security management by providing a tamper-evident audit trail for real-time monitoring, threat detection and analysis. The log of activities helps identify and respond to unusual or malicious behavior by analyzing system access and user actions. Lotter is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of sending a log of activities on the field device to the computer network service (Lotter, Claim 27).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hottgenroth, in view of Frank, in further view of Son, in further view of SASAKI et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2024/0280598), hereinafter Sasaki.
Regarding claim 7, Hottgenroth as modified by Frank and further modified by Son do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Sasaki: The field device according to claim 1, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to send activities on the field device to the computer network service in real time via the computer network interface circuitry (Sasaki, Paragraph [0079], see “The various data that are entered to the control device 20 as described above are processed in real time by the processing apparatus 22, and transmitted as log files via the communication interface 23 to the server 30…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Hottgenroth, techniques disclosed of Frank, and techniques disclosed of Son, by implementing techniques of sending activities on the field device to the computer network service in real time, disclosed of Sasaki.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for a field device network, comprising of sending activities on the field device to the computer network service in real time. This allows for better security management by providing a tamper-evident audit trail for real-time monitoring, threat detection and analysis. The log of activities helps identify and respond to unusual or malicious behavior by analyzing system access and user actions. Sasaki is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of sending activities on the field device to the computer network service in real time (Sasaki, Paragraph [0079]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hottgenroth, in view of Frank, in further view of Son, in further view of Andrews et al. (U.S. Patent 10,862,877), hereinafter Andrews.
Regarding claim 8, Hottgenroth as modified by Frank and further modified by Son do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Andrews: The field device according to claim 1, wherein the computer network interface circuitry is further configured to establish a tunnel via the user interface to the computer network service (Andrews, Claim 1, see “…establishing a control tunnel via the user interface from the information handling system via the network through the managed system to the proxy-managed system…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Hottgenroth, techniques disclosed of Frank, and techniques disclosed of Son, by implementing techniques of establishing a tunnel via the user interface to the computer network service, disclosed of Andrews.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for a field device network, comprising of establishing a tunnel via the user interface to the computer network service. This allows for better security management by establishing a secure tunnel to mitigate eavesdropping and reduce the chance of unauthorized entities gaining access to sensitive data. Andrews is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of establishing a tunnel via the user interface to the computer network service (Andrews, Claim 1).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hottgenroth, in view of Frank, in further view of Son, in further view of Kim et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2013/0065648), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 11, Hottgenroth as modified by Frank and further modified by Son do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Kim: The field device network according to claim 10, further comprising a first user device configured to receive control commands from a first user, and configured to generate and send the first authorization data to the computer network service in dependence on the control commands (Kim, Paragraph [0169], see “If a control command is received from the user…the controller 180 may determine whether the received control command is a prescribed control command to authorize data communication with the object…”) (Kim, Paragraph [0188], see “…determine whether the input control command corresponds to one that authorizes data transfer when the data to be transmitted/received satisfies a prescribed condition…,” which is analogous to receiving control commands from a first user, and sending data to the service in dependence on the control commands (e.g., authorizing data transfer when the data to be transmitted satisfies a prescribed condition)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Hottgenroth, techniques disclosed of Frank, and techniques disclosed of Son, by implementing techniques of sending first data to the service in dependence on the control commands received from a first user, disclosed of Kim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for a field device network, comprising of sending first data to the service in dependence on the control commands received from a first user. This allows for better security management and offers a more user-friendly environment by sending first data to a computer network service dependent on control commands received from a user, ultimately improving data quality through the control commands. Kim is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of sending first data to the service in dependence on the control commands received from a first user (Kim, Paragraph [0188]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hottgenroth, in view of Frank, in further view of Son, in further view of Yu et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2021/0075841), hereinafter Yu.
Regarding claim 12, Hottgenroth as modified by Frank and further modified by Son do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Yu: The field device network according to claim 10, further comprising a second user device configured to provide user data of a second user (Yu, Paragraph [0145], see “…authenticate an identity of a user of the second device; to determine that the first data indicates the user is authorized to access the peripheral device”, which is analogous to providing user data of a second user to be authenticated) and to send an access request to the field device (Yu, Paragraph [0105], see “…the device management module 506b of the second device 108 sends an access request to the DMS 502”, which is analogous to the second user device sending an access request to the field device (i.e., DMS)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Hottgenroth, techniques disclosed of Frank, and techniques disclosed of Son, by implementing techniques of a second user device providing user data of a second user and sending an access request to the field device, disclosed of Yu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for a field device network, comprising of a second user device providing user data of a second user and sending an access request to the field device. This allows for better security management by evaluating the user data provided by the second user device in order to determine whether to grant access to the second user device. Yu is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of a second user device providing user data of a second user and sending an access request to the field device (Yu, Paragraph [0145]).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI whose telephone number is (571)272-8747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11:00am – 7:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Philip Chea can be reached on (571) 272-3951. 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.
/RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights