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 .
Detail Action
2. This office action is response to the application filed on 10/29/2024. Claims 1-16 are pending in this communication.
Claim Interpretation
35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
3. Claim limitation “A system for operating an automation technology field device via machine-to-machine communication between an operating unit and the field device….. wherein the system is configured to….”; as recited in independent claim 16 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses a non-structural term “system”, “operating unit” and “field device” coupled with functional language (the system is configured to: create an order ticket) without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Furthermore, the non-structural terms are not preceded by a structural modifier. The claimed “system”, “operating unit” and “field device” are non- structural terms having no specific structural meaning, and thus may be a substitute for “means for”.
A review of the specification is unclear as to the corresponding structure or acts described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitations.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitations treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may amend the claims so that they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or present a sufficient showing that the claims recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
For more information, see Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
4. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, with regard to claimed element “A system for operating an automation technology field device via machine-to-machine communication between an operating unit and the field device, ….. wherein the system is configured to: create an order ticket….”, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written descriptions fail to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function(s) and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function(s). In particular, the Specification does not appear to disclose the structure for performing the means of the system, unit, device, or at the least, does not explicitly disclose what structure performs the claimed functions. Therefore, claim 16 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitations will no longer be interpreted as limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written descriptions of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform all the entire claimed functions, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the functions recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the functions so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written descriptions of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed functions, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written descriptions of the specification, perform the claimed functions. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
5. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (35 U.S.C. 101 Judicial Exception) without significantly more. The claims 1 and 16 recite “create an order ticket…. to carry out defined tasks….. transfer the order ticket…. execution of the tasks defined in the order ticket ….. is authorized for a predetermined period of time”, which is an observation and evaluation, which is a concept performed in the human mind and thus grouped as Mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the abstract idea, as they are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the courts.
Based upon consideration of all the relevant factors with respect to the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this determination is explained infra:
The following are Principles of Law:
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof”; 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has consistently held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable; See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, an application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection; See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293–94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The test for determining subject matter eligibility requires a first step of determining whether the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claims are directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories, then the Examiner must perform a two-part analysis to determine whether a claim that is directed to a judicial exception recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception. The first part of the second step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second part of the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step in the analysis is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’‒ i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
In the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), the USPTO has prepared revised guidance for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility based upon rulings by the courts.
The Examiner is bound by and applies the framework as set forth by the Court in Mayo and reaffirmed by the Court in Alice and follows the 2019 PEG for determining whether the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
Step 1: Are the claims at issue directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “create an order ticket…. to carry out defined tasks….. transfer the order ticket…. execution of the tasks defined in the order ticket ….. is authorized for a predetermined period of time”, which is an observation and evaluation, which is a concept performed in the human mind and thus grouped as Mental processes.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application?
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
In determining whether the abstract idea was integrated into a practical application, the Examiner has considered whether there were any limitations indicative of integration into a practical application, such as:
(1) Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; See MPEP § 2106.05(a)
(2) Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; See Vanda Memo (Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals)
(3) Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; See MPEP § 2106.05(b)
(4) Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; See MPEP § 2106.05(c)
(5) Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; See MPEP § 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The Examiner notes that clam features of: “create an order ticket…. to carry out defined tasks….. transfer the order ticket…. execution of the tasks defined in the order ticket ….. is authorized for a predetermined period of time”, do not improve the functioning of a computer or technical field, do not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not apply or use a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Instead, the claim features of “create an order ticket…. to carry out defined tasks….. transfer the order ticket…. execution of the tasks defined in the order ticket ….. is authorized for a predetermined period of time”, merely use a general-purpose computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and merely generally link the use of the abstract idea to a field of use (See MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Thus, the Examiner finds that the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Is there something else in the claims that ensures that they are directed to significantly more than a patent-ineligible concept?
The claims, as a whole, require nothing significantly more than generic computer implementation or can be performed entirely by a human. The additional element(s) or combination of element(s) in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than recitation of generic computer structure (e.g. computer-readable medium, machines, processors, and memory) that serves to perform generic computer functions (e.g. receiving/creating data and transferring data) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. The claimed historical sessions, monitored sessions, and risk score are all numbers, data structures, or datum. Each of these elements are individually dispositive of patent eligibility because of the following legal holdings:
“Data in its ethereal, non-physical form is simply information that does not fall under any of the categories of eligible subject matter under section 101.” Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Supreme Court has also explained that “[a]bstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment,” i.e., an abstraction. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007).
A claim that recites no more than software, logic, or a data structure (i.e., an abstract idea) – with no structural tie or functional interrelationship to an article of manufacture, machine, process or composition of matter does not fall within any statutory category and is not patentable subject matter; data structures in ethereal, non-physical form are non-statutory subject matter. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1357.
Furthermore, the claimed invention does not have a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities, nor is it a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts; See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Rather, the claims are merely directed towards “create an order ticket…. to carry out defined tasks….. transfer the order ticket…. execution of the tasks defined in the order ticket …..”,, which is similar to ideas that the courts have found to be abstract, as noted supra, and the claims are without a “practical application” or anything “significantly more”.
The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the steps of using generic computer components. The claims do not purport, for example, to improve the functioning of the computer system itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components. This is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
The dependent claims likewise incorporate the deficiencies of a claim upon which they ultimately depend and are also directed to non-patent-eligible 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.
6. Claims 1-8,10-16 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alber et al (US 20210158244 A1) in view of Zovi et al. (US 20200160355 A1)
Regarding Claim 1:
Alber discloses:
a. A method for operating an automation technology field device (Abstract; “method for …. operation of a field device in automation engineering….”) via machine-to-machine communication between an operating unit and the field device, (Abstract, Para.0016; “an order ticket via …. an order management system….. to perform a defined work order on a …… field device”, “The order ticket is transmitted to the field device …. via an operating tool…. for example, a USB stick….” an operating tool/a USB stick is construed as an operating unit) comprising:
b. creating an order ticket using a ticket server, (Para.0012; “creating an order ticket using an order management system” an order management system is construed as ticket server) wherein the order ticket contains an authorization for the operating unit to carry out defined tasks on the field device (Para.0016, Para.0031, Abstract; “The order ticket is transmitted …. via an operating tool….. for example a USB stick…”, “The order ticket …. contains …. instructions as …. which service technician …. is authorized to perform which work order at which field device”, “a defined work order on a defined field device” a defined work order on a defined field device is construed as defined tasks on the field device) and information on the temporal validity; (Para.0014; “the time period in which the work order is to be performed”)
transferring the order ticket from the ticket server to an operating unit; (Para.0012, Para.0016; “creating an order ticket using an order management system”, “The order ticket is transmitted …. via an operating tool….. for example a USB stick, ….”)
transmitting the order ticket from the operating unit to the field device; (Para.0016, Para.0017; “The order ticket …. via an operating tool…... for example a USB stick…. is transmitted …... to the field device”, “The field device can be logged into by inputting secure login information into the field device….. by using …. an operating tool ….”)
c. registering the operating unit with the field device if the field device can verify that the order ticket is valid; (Para.0017, Para.0012; “inputting secure login information into the field device…... by using ... an operating tool …… to perform the work order by conveying the order ticket to the field device…...the order ticket …. contains the access authorization to the field device…. (e.g., name of the user) and ….. (e.g., …. a password …) …. the login data which authorize the …. defined work order are …… transmitted to the field device” inputting secure login information e.g., name of the user/password into the field device by using an operating tool to perform a specific work order is construed as registering the operating unit with the field device, “checking the order ticket ….and the authentication data by …..the field device” the field device checks the order ticket and the authentication data whether the specific work order is supposed to be performed through the order ticket to the field device, which is construed as the field device can verify that the order ticket is valid)
d. if the field device can successfully verify the order ticket, execution of the tasks defined in the order ticket on the field device is authorized (Para.0033; “The field device …. checks the order ticket …. If the check is positive, the service technician …. receives authorization to perform the …. defined work order. The work order may be …. control, maintenance…... of the field device…...”) for a ….. period of time, (Para.0031; “The order ticket …. contains …. instructions …... to perform which work order at which field device …. in which time period”) ….and
e. automatically terminating the authorization by the field device ….. (Para.0034, Para.0024; “After the defined work order has been performed once on the defined field device …. the order ticket …. becomes invalid; it expires”, “the order ticket automatically becomes invalid after the defined work order has been performed once on the defined field device”)
however, Alber does not explicitly disclose:
d. …. predetermined period of time, predetermined period has an end point that is determined by the information on time validity contained in the …..ticket
e. …. terminating the ….. after the predetermined period of time has elapsed.
In an analogous reference Zovi discloses:
d. …. predetermined period of time, predetermined period has an end point that is determined by the information on time validity contained in the …. ticket (Para.0186, Para.0019; “the ticket can include both the creation-time field as well as an expiration-time…. determine duration of the ticket”, “assigns ….. for a predetermined period of time …. an attestation ticket for …. future interactions. At the lapse of the time period, the attestation …. can be re-initialized …. to attest …. for the second time”)
e. …. terminating the …. after the predetermined period of time has elapsed. (Para.0066, Para.0016, Para.0029; “When the ticket expires, …. the attestation ticket … be invalidated”, “….to attest a payment device….. validate a session between the payment device and …. The attestation and validation together indicate that the device is …. secure for …. exchange of financial information”, “the attestation occurs …. and the attestation ticket is valid until it expires”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Alber’s method for tamper-proof operation of a field device in automation engineering by enhancing Alber’s method to include Zovi’s method for physical and logical detections for fraud and tampering.
The motivation: when any ticket in a financial transaction associated with a device includes both the creation-time field as well as an expiration-time, helps determine validity and duration of the ticket. The validation indicate that the device is determined to be secure for all communication, such as exchange of financial information.
With respect to independent claim 16, a corresponding reasoning was given earlier in this section with respect to claim 1; therefore, claim 16 rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds as set forth for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2:
Alber in view of Zovi discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the operating unit registers with the field device if the field device can verify that the order ticket is valid, wherein in case of successful registration, the operating unit is authorized for the …. period of time, (Alber, Para.0012, Para.0016, Para.0031; “if the check is positive, authorization is given to perform the defined work order….on the defined field device”, “The order ticket is transmitted to the field device via ….an operating tool…. for example a USB stick”, “The order ticket …. contains …. instructions …... to perform which work order at which field device …. in which time period”) and wherein the operating unit is automatically logged off by the field device (Para.0018, Para.0016; “…. Once the order has been performed, the order ticket is automatically invalidated”, “The order ticket is transmitted to the field device …. manually, via an operating tool…. for example, a USB stick”) …..
….. after the predetermined period of time has elapsed. (Zovi, disclosed in claim 1)
Regarding Claim 3:
Alber in view of Zovi discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the end point is a fixed date. (Zovi, Para.0031, Para.0029; “an expiration date or lifetime”, “the … ticket is valid until it expires”)
Regarding Claim 4:
Alber in view of Zovi discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the end point is the completion of the defined tasks on the field device. (Alber, Para.0034; “After the defined work order has been performed once on the defined field device …..the order ticket …..becomes invalid; it expires”)
Regarding Claim 5:
Alber in view of Zovi discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the end point has a fixed time interval from a starting point, wherein the predetermined time period is defined by the starting point and end point. (Zovi, Para.0186, Para.0019, Para.0029; “the ticket can include both the creation-time field as well as an expiration-time…. determine duration of the ticket”, “assigns ….. for a predetermined period of time …. an attestation ticket for …. future interactions. At the lapse of the time period, the attestation …. can be re-initialized …. to attest …. for the second time”, “the attestation occurs periodically or at …. time intervals and the …. ticket is valid until it expires”)
Regarding Claim 6:
Alber in view of Zovi discloses:
The method according to claim 5, wherein the …. immediately after the order ticket has been positively verified by the field device. (Alber, Para.0012; “checking the order ticket …. by means of the field device; if the check is positive, authorization is given to perform the defined work order….. on the defined field device”)
…..the starting point is the point in time ….. the …..ticket…. (Zovi, Para.0186; “the ticket …..include …..the creation-time …. helps determine duration of the ticket”)
Regarding Claim 7:
Alber in view of Zovi discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein authorization takes place only if the operating unit successfully authenticates itself to the field device. (Alber, Abstract, Para.0017; “logging-in of the …. defined field device by … the order ticket …checking the order ticket ….. by ….the field device, if the check is positive, authorization is given to perform the defined work order”, “The field device can be logged into …..the login can also take place….by using an authorized device, an operating tool”)
Regarding Claim 8:
Alber in view of Zovi discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein an industrial control unit…. is used as the operating unit, and is connected to the field device via an industrial network, in particular a fieldbus network. (Alber, Para.0016, Para.0022, Para.0030; “The order ticket is transmitted to the field device via ….an operating tool, via a wireless or wired network….”, “transmission of the order ticket to the defined field device …..via …. a field bus, into which the field device is integrated”, “field devices controlling or monitoring an industrial process or an automation system”)
…..in particular a programmable logic controller, is used….. (Zovi, Para.0053; “embodied as special-purpose hardware …. as programmable circuitry …. programmed with software and/or firmware”)
Regarding Claim 10:
Alber in view of Zovi discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein checking of parameterization data of the field device by the operating unit is provided as a defined task. (Alber, Para.0014, Para.0005; “order data for the work order to be performed …... the order data …. for example…. unlocking of a defined parameter”, “operation of the field device …. may …. be …. a parameterization or calibration process”)
Regarding Claim 11:
Alber in view of Zovi discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein parameterization of the field device is provided as a defined task, and wherein the order ticket includes at least one permitted value …..for parameter changes. (Alber, Para.0021, Para.0030; “unique identifier of the field device to be operated, e.g.….. specification of the work order to be performed …... includes…... unlocking of at least one parameter…...”, “the field devices ….. to be checked …... abnormal …. Values…... suggest a possible malfunction”)
…. at least one ……. range for parameter changes. (Zovi, Para.0272; “variations of …. process parameters (e.g., dimensions, configurations, components, process step order, etc.)”)
Regarding Claim 12:
Alber in view of Zovi discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein reading of logbooks of the field device by the operating unit is provided as a defined task. (Alber, Claim 7; “listing of …. two of the identifiers ….. relating to the performance of the defined work order ….. documentation of the performed work or documentation of the settings configured on the defined field device”)
Regarding Claim 13:
Alber in view of Zovi discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein a time server is used as an operating unit, (Alber, Para.0012, Para.0016; “creating an order ticket using an order management system….. the order ticket contains data authorizing …... to perform a defined work order on a defined field device”, “The order ticket is transmitted to the field device via ….. an operating tool…. for example a USB stick, and is transmitted ….. to the field device”) wherein synchronizing the system time of the field device with the system time of the time server is provided as a defined task. (Para.0024, Para.0025; “defined work order has been performed once on the defined field device. It …. cannot be used for performing further work orders”, “In order to document the performance of a work order on a defined field device, a corresponding confirmation … is …. transmitted to the order management system”)
Regarding Claim 14:
Alber in view of Zovi discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the order ticket contains cryptographic data, (Alber, Para.0027; “In order to ensure that the data cannot be manipulated by hacking attacks….. the order ticket ….. to be secured cryptographically”) wherein the cryptographic data is used to establish a secure communication connection after the operating unit has registered with the field device. (Alber, Para.0027, Para.0019; “In order to ensure that the data cannot be manipulated by hacking attacks…..the confirmation ticket ….. secured cryptographically, for example by means of encryption or the use of a signature”, “…..The performance of the defined work order is documented via the confirmation ticket”)
Regarding Claim 15:
Alber in view of Zovi discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the order ticket is transmitted from the ticket server to the operating unit via a network connection. (Alber, Para.0012, Para.0016; “creating an order ticket using an order management system”, “The order ticket is transmitted to the field device via ….an operating tool, via a wireless or wired network”)
Claims 9 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alber et al (US 20210158244 A1) in view of Zovi et al. (US 20200160355 A1) and further in view of WESSELMANN et al. (US 20160241663 A1)
Regarding Claim 9:
Alber in view of Zovi discloses:
The method according to claim 8, wherein communication between the control unit and the field device required for the steps of transmitting the order ticket and carrying out the defined tasks on the field device is carried out in …..the industrial network. (Para.0005, Para.0007, Para.0012, Para.0030; “Each field device ….. has a ….. access interface…. via which the field device can be operated……A service technician uses this access to perform the work order. ….”, “The ….access to the field device ….protected via user administration or access control”, “an order ticket ….. contains data authorizing …. to perform a defined work order ….. transmitting the order ticket to the defined field device”, “….field devices …..controlling or monitoring an industrial process ….”)
however, Alber in view of Zovi does not explicitly disclose:
….. asynchronous or acyclic communication phases of the industrial network.
In an analogous reference WESSELMANN discloses:
….. asynchronous or acyclic communication phases of the industrial network. (Para.0002; “in ….. industrial Ethernet…. there is ……. acyclic transmission of…. between the network participants, examples …. may be field devices and controllers”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Alber in view of Zovi’s method for tamper-proof operation of a field device in automation engineering by enhancing Alber in view of Zovi’s method to include WESSELMANN’s method for generating and handling component applications for physical components of a control system.
The motivation: acyclic transmission/communication between the network participants occur only when requested, allowing for flexible data exchange without disrupting real-time traffic.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAYEDA SALMA NAHAR whose telephone number is (703)756-4609. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00 PM to 6:00 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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached on (571) 270-3351. 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.
/SAYEDA SALMA NAHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/AMIR MEHRMANESH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2491