DETAILED ACTION
This is Non-Final Office Action is a substitute for the non-final rejection mailed on October 21, 2025, which is hereby withdrawn, and is in response to amendment filed on November 7, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the IDS filed on November 19, 2025 has been considered and entered into record. A copy of the signed or initialed IDS is hereby attached.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite store/storing/registering registration information relating to an industrial asset; set/setting respective access permissions for the nodes of the asset model; collect/collecting industrial data collected by the gateway device and render/rendering at least a subset of the industrial data on a client device.
It should be noted that under the guidance of 2019 PEG, to decide whether a claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, the examiner evaluates whether the claim (1) recites an abstract idea grouping listed in the guidance and (2) fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, as noted above, the examiner then determines whether the claim recites an inventive concept. The 2019 PEG explains that, when making this determination, the examiner should consider whether the additional claim elements add “a specific limitation of combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field” or “simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry.”
Step 1: Is the claim directed to an abstract idea? Yes because it recites: registering/ registration information, organizing data into a hierarchical model, assigning access permissions, collecting data and displaying permitted subsets of data. The Courts routinely find these to be abstract concepts: data organization and modeling, access control/authorization and information collection and presentation. Even though the context is “industrial assets,” that’s typically treated as a field-of-use limitation, not a technological improvement.
Step 2: Is there an “inventive concept”? No because of the following reasons: 1. the claim recites generic computer components such as “memory”, “processor”, “gateway device,” and “client device.” The claim recites no specific additional elements except that the claim recites a “one or more processors” in the claim. This generic “one or more processors” recitation is no more than mere instructions to apply to exception using a generic computer component. 2. purely functional language like “configured to store,” “configured to collect,” “configured to render” and 3. There is no specific improvement to networking, gateways, data collection mechanisms, UI rendering techniques and industrial control performance. In conclusion, the claim reads on the concepts of use conventional computing components to organize industrial data and control who can see it. There is no clear technical mechanism for: how permissions are enforced at the data-tag level, how the asset model improves gateway performance and how rendering is technically improved versus conventional dashboards. Accordingly, these recitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected due to the similar analysis of claim 1. Claims 2-10, 12-18 and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element in claims 2-10, 12-18 and 20 represent a further mental process step. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component, then it falls within the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas. Each additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. An additional abstract idea (mental process step) is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed over the prior art of record. However, the claims will be allowed if they are rewritten in a form that overcomes the 101 issues.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 1, similar claim 11 and claim 19, the closest art, Asenjo et al. (US 20140337000 A1) disclose store, on a cloud platform (cloud platform of Fig.2 and ¶[0047], Asenjo), registration information relating to an industrial asset (¶[0047] and [0087], Asenjo) and submitted by a first entity classified as a manufacturer of the industrial asset (¶[0047], [0087] and [0098], Asenjo), the registration information comprising at least an identity of the industrial asset (¶[0047], [0087] and [0098], Asenjo) and an asset model defined for the industrial asset (¶[0044]-[0045], Asenjo), wherein the asset model models the industrial asset in terms of a hierarchical arrangement of nodes representing components of the industrial asset (Fig.5 and [0087], Asenjo, i.e., hierarchical relationship of industrial data’ s data classes). Sayyarrodsari et al. (US 20190018394 A1) discloses a system, comprising: a memory that stores executable components; and a processor, operatively coupled to the memory, that executes the executable components, the executable components comprising: a registration component configured to: store, on a cloud platform (cloud platform of Fig.4 and ¶[0039], Sayyarrodsari), registration information relating to an industrial asset (¶[0038]-[0039], [0099] and [0114], Sayyarrodsari) and submitted by a first entity classified as a manufacturer of the industrial asset (¶[0099] and [0114], Sayyarrodsari), the registration information comprising at least an identity of the industrial asset (¶[0038]-[0039], [0099] and [0114], Sayyarrodsari) and an asset model defined for the industrial asset (¶[0043]-[0044], Sayyarrodsari), wherein the asset model models the industrial asset in terms of a hierarchical arrangement of nodes representing components of the industrial asset (¶[0043]-[0044] and [0113]-[0114], Sayyarrodsari), a gateway interface component configured to collect, from a gateway device, industrial data collected by the gateway device from the data tags defined by the nodes of the asset model (¶[0053]-[0055], Sayyarrodsari); and user interface component configured to render, via a graphical data presentation formatted in accordance with the asset model, at least a subset of the industrial data on a client device associated with a second entity (¶[0049], [0098], Sayyarrodsari). Pantea et al. (US 20170126843 A1) discloses a system, comprising: a memory that stores executable components; and a processor, operatively coupled to the memory, that executes the executable components, the executable components comprising: a registration component configured to: store, on a cloud platform (cloud platform 1002 of Fig.10 and ¶[0076], Pantea), and user interface component configured to render, via a graphical data presentation formatted in accordance with the asset model, at least a subset of the industrial data on a client device associated with a second entity (¶[0037], [0058]-[0061] and [0064]-[0067], Pantea, i.e., render industrial data on a client device), wherein the subset of the industrial data corresponds to a subset of the nodes that the access permissions indicate are permitted to be accessed by the second entity (¶[0034], [0037] and [0078], Pantea, i.e., authorization of accessing to its store device data). However, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest “the registration information comprising at least an identity of the industrial asset and an asset model defined for the industrial asset, wherein the asset model models the industrial asset in terms of a hierarchical arrangement of nodes representing components of the industrial asset, and the nodes reference data tags defined on one or more industrial devices of the industrial asset, and the registration component is further configured to set respective access permissions for the nodes of the asset model in accordance with access privilege definitions submitted by the first entity, wherein the access permissions for a node, of the nodes, defines one or more entities that are permitted to access data associated with the node” as claimed in conjunction with remaining claims provisions.
The dependent claims, being further limiting to the independent claims, definite and enabled by the Specification are also allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Hou et al. (US 11410112 B2) disclose industrial data service, data modeling, and data application platform.
Thomsen et al. (US 11227080 B2) disclose industrial automation information contextualization method and system.
Hart et al. (US 10397331 B2) disclose development platform for industrial internet applications.
Maturana et al. (US 9866635 B2) disclose unified data ingestion adapter for migration of industrial data to a cloud platform.
Maturana et al. (US 9838476 B2) disclose on-premise data collection and ingestion using industrial cloud agents.
Singh et al. (US 20170302649 A1) disclose systems and methods for segmenting industrial asset services.
Wragg et al. (US 20170242935 A1) disclose user interface component for managing and presenting data corresponding to industrial assets.
Vasko et al. (US 20150074749 A1) disclose remote asset management services for industrial assets.
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH B THAI whose telephone number is (571)272-4029. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 7-4:30.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/HANH B THAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
January 21, 2026