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 Amendment
2. This is in response to the amendments filed on 07/13/2026. Claims 1,8 and 16 have been amended. Claims 1-16 are currently pending and have been considered below.
The 112(b) rejection to the claim 16 and 101 rejection to the claims 1-16 has been reconsidered and withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On the Remarks, Applicant argues that;
Alber does not teach a time-window-based functional mode at the device that the device automatically ends on time-out -- which is claimed by Applicant. Zovi does not remedy the defects.
None of the prior art, including Alber and Zovi, teaches the combination of temporal limitation and task-specific authorization.
Neither Alber nor Zovi, discloses all elements of claims 1 and 16.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, it is noted that, Alber at Para.0033, Abstract, Para.0031 discloses, “the service technician …. receives authorization to perform the …. defined work order. The work order may be …. control, maintenance…... of the field device…...”, “the order ticket contains data authorizing a defined service technician to perform a defined work order on a defined field device”, “The order ticket …. contains …. instructions …... to perform which work order at which field device …. in which time period” which the examiner interpreted as being the claimed “…execution of only the tasks defined in the order ticket on the field device is authorized for a ….. period of time”. Also, Alber at Para.0034, Para.0024 discloses, “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” which the examiner interpreted as being the claimed “…automatically terminating the authorization by the field device …..”.
Then, Zovi at Para.0186, Para.0019, Para.0066 discloses, “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”, “When the ticket expires, …. the attestation ticket … be invalidated”, which the examiner interpreted as being the claimed “……. predetermined period of time, predetermined period has an end point that is determined by the information on time validity contained in the …. ticket” and “…. terminating the …. after the predetermined period of time has elapsed”.
Thus, from the above citations, it is clear that Alber teaches task-specific authorization for a period of time, [“the order ticket contains data authorizing a defined service technician to perform a defined work order on a defined field device”, “the order ticket automatically becomes invalid after the defined work order has been performed once on the defined field device”]. Zovi teaches a time-window-based functional mode …. automatically ends on time-out, [“the ticket can include both the creation-time field as well as an expiration-time…. determine duration of the ticket”, “When the ticket expires, …. the …. ticket … be invalidated”]
Second, in response to applicant's argument that Neither Alber nor Zovi, discloses all elements of claims 1 and 16, it is noted that, Alber at Para.0012, Para.0016, Para.0031, Abstract discloses “creating an order ticket using an order management system”, “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” which the examiner interpreted as being the claimed “creating an order ticket using a ticket server, wherein the order ticket contains an authorization for the operating unit to carry out defined tasks on the field device" because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “creating an order ticket using a ticket server, wherein the order ticket contains an authorization for the operating unit to carry out defined tasks on the field device" includes a defined work order on a defined field device equivalent to the claimed ‘defined tasks on the field device’. Also, Alber at Para.0014 discloses “the time period in which the work order is to be performed” which is equivalent to the claimed ‘…. the order ticket contains…... information on the temporal validity’.
In addition, it is noted that, Alber at Para.0017, Para.0012, discloses “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”, “checking the order ticket ….and the authentication data by …..the field device”, which the examiner interpreted as being the claimed “registering the operating unit with the field device if the field device can verify that the order ticket is valid;" because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “registering the operating unit with the field device if the field device can verify that the order ticket is valid;" includes 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 which is equivalent to the claimed ‘registering the operating unit with 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 equivalent to the claimed ‘…..the field device can verify that the order ticket is valid;’.
Moreover, Alber at Para.0033, Abstract, Para.0031 discloses, “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…...”, “the order ticket contains data authorizing a defined service technician to perform a defined work order on a defined field device”, “The order ticket …. contains …. instructions …... to perform which work order at which field device …. in which time period” which the examiner interpreted as being the claimed “if the field device can successfully verify the order ticket, execution of only the tasks defined in the order ticket on the field device is authorized for a ….. period of time”. Also, Alber at Para.0034, Para.0024 discloses, “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” which the examiner interpreted as being the claimed “…automatically terminating the authorization by the field device …..”.
Finally, Zovi discloses, the claimed “……. predetermined period of time, predetermined period has an end point that is determined by the information on time validity contained in the …. ticket” and “…. terminating the …. after the predetermined period of time has elapsed” [disclosed above].
It is clearly indicated that Alber nor Zovi, disclose all elements of claims 1 and 16, and the rejection of such is sustained below.
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.
4. 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 only the tasks defined in the order ticket on the field device is authorized (Para.0033, Abstract; “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…...”, “the order ticket contains data authorizing a defined service technician to perform a defined work order on a defined field device” performing a defined work order on a defined field device is construed as the claimed ‘…. execution of only the tasks defined in the order ticket on the field device’, the work order not defined in the order ticket will not be executed/performed) 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 a … is used as the operating unit, and is connected to the field device via 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”)
….. 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.
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
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
/BEEMNET W DADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights