CTFR 19/048,158 CTFR 70195 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Status of the Claims The amendment received on 25 February 2026 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 9-10 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Claims 1-11 are currently pending. Response to Amendments and Arguments Applicant's amendments filed 25 February 2026 , with respect to the objection to the drawings, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the objection to the drawings has been withdrawn. Applicant's amendments filed 25 February 2026 , with respect to the objection to claim 9, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the objection to claim 9 has been withdrawn. Applicant's amendments filed 25 February 2026 , with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2 nd paragraph have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2 nd paragraph has been withdrawn. Applicant's amendments filed 28 December 2009, with respect to the objection to the Abstract, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the objection to the Abstract has been withdrawn. 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 25 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (in REMARKS, pages 9-10) that regarding the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 101, even if the claims recite an exception, this exception is integrated into a practical application because the claims include additional elements that are an improvement to technology that does not manage personal behavior or relationships. The claims are amended to recite utilizing the configured at least one device to perform manufacturing or processing actions. This limitation is not open-ended because it ties the configuration process to the utilization and use of manufacturing and process control devices. The performance of manufacturing or processing actions with these devices is not and does not amount to managing personal behavior or relationships and is not a method of doing business. The claims also require the configuration or physical changing of a device. Again, physically configuring a device is not managing personal behavior or relationships and is not a method of doing business. The claimed approach additionally provides meaningful technical advantages in the technical field of manufacturing and process control machinery configuration and operation because the claimed approach is implemented in real time, is automated, and avoids the problems of previous systems. For example, increased efficiency is created in part by removing possible human errors when configuring devices of a plant system. Efficiency is also created by enabling autonomous systems to automatically apply corrections and changes to a device in a safe and secure manner when a problem is detected. Consequently, plant safety is increased and enhanced in meaningful ways. For all these reasons, these additional claim features integrate any exception into a practical application. Consequently, and for the reasons discussed above, the § 101 rejections are obviated and the claims are allowable. In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that first, the claims as amended do not take out the Method of organizing human activity grouping which includes Managing personal behavior, and relationships or interactions between people . For instance, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. The claims as currently amended are directed to persons following instructions for processing a maintenance job based on an approval. Secondly, the claims do not provide a technical solution to a technical problem by enhancing the performance of the claimed device. Further, the utilizing step as claimed is post-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea as Applicant has presented an abstract-idea-based solution implemented with a generic technical component. Therefore, the Examiner suggest that Applicant show a teaching in the specification on how the invention improves a technology or establishes a clear nexus between the claim language and the improvement to technology where both the claims and the specification support the asserted technical improvement. Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, pages 10-11, filed 25 February 2026 , with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C has been withdrawn for reasons stated below . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Claims 1-11 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1-11 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention. Step 2A Prong 1 Independent claim 1 substantially recites: providing first data of the at least one device related device-specific data of the at least one device ; generating at least a first maintenance job describing a change request requirement applied based on the first data ; cross-checking the first maintenance job using a verification on request (VoR) component to match safety criteria of a specific plant where the at least one device is deployed; creating at least a first approval ticket based on a first verification check procedure of the generated first maintenance job of the at least one device ; wherein the first approval ticket is issued by the VoR component and is enforced by the at least one device, the ticket describing approved changes in the at least one device; processing the at least first maintenance job with the at least first approval ticket to perform the configuration of the at least one device; utilizing the configured at least one device with the configuration to perform manufacturing or processing actions. These limitations as a whole recite a method or organizing human activity. Processing a maintenance job based on an approval is the managing of personal behavior or relationships. Step 2A Prong 2 This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claimed computer components in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., “computer-implemented” in claim 1 to perform the “providing,” “generating,” “creating,” “processing,” and “utilizing” steps), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Each of the additional limitations in claim 1 is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (computer-implemented). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible. Step 2B The independent claims 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 of “providing,” “generating,” “creating,” “processing,” and “utilizing” steps being computer-implemented amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, the independent claim is not patent eligible. As per dependent claim 2 , the recitations, “ refining the first maintenance job after generating the first approval ticket”; “ generating a second maintenance job based on the generated first maintenance job…”; “ cross-checking the second maintenance job using a verification on request (VoR) rule- based component to match the safety criteria of the specific plant where the at least one device is deployed”; “ creating a second approval ticket based on a second verification check procedure…” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. As per dependent claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, the limitation merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Dependent claim 3 recites the first data comprises at least one of the following: a number of devices of the system, a static information and/or a dynamic information of the at least one device. Dependent claim 4 recites the second data comprises further device-specific data that specifies the second maintenance job. Dependent claim 5 recites the first data and/or the second data are at least partly obtained by an external data provider. Dependent claim 6 recites the maintenance jobs are initiated by a user command and/or automatically. Dependent claim 7 recites the first maintenance job is generated on a first system level of the system and the second maintenance job is generated on a second system level of the system. Dependent claim 8 recites the first verification check procedure includes a digital signature of the first approval ticket indicating a permission whether configuration of the at least one device is allowed. The “digital” signature is no more than a general link to the technological field of electronic verification. A general link is not enough to show integration into a practical application. Dependent claim 9 recites the second verification check procedure includes at least one of a safety criteria check on the at least one device, check of at least one device-related setting and/or parameter of the at least one device. Dependent claim 10 recites the result of the first verification check procedure and/or the second verification check procedure is stored at least partly in the corresponding approval ticket. Dependent claim 11 recites the wherein the at least one approval ticket comprises a cryptographic signature of the corresponding maintenance job. The “cryptographic ” signature is no more than a general link to the technological field of electronic verification. A general link is not enough to show integration into a practical application. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 4, 9, and 10, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent Claims 2-11 have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent Claims 2-11 , when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea of the independent claims. The dependent claims recite no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the judicial exception and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, dependent claims 2-11 are rejected as being ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis. Prior Art Discussion As per claim 1, the best prior art, Foreign prior art, and NPL prior art: 1) Nixon et al . (US PG Pub. 2014/0282257 A1) discloses generating checklists in a process control environment where cooperation between the expert and supervisory systems and the user-interface devices may facilitate automatic generation, assignment, and management of work items related to operator and/or maintenance personnel activities. 2) Dillon et al. (US PG Pub. 2008/0288321 A1) discloses automatic maintenance estimation in a plant environment by using cross referencing and scheduling to assist process personnel in recognizing best options, such as, multiple maintenance orders on a particular unit should be executed together to minimize down time of the unit or that delaying an entire schedule in response to a delay in the execution of a particular maintenance event, instead of re-scheduling maintenance orders to avoid downtime completely. 3) Dillon et al. (US Patent No. 12,072,695 B2) discloses an enhanced work order generation and tracking system including a user interface that enables maintenance personnel to review diagnostic data, recommendations, and other information from one or more of the remote or in-plant diagnostic systems regarding potential or recommended changes to plant assets, and to initiate the generation of work orders to implement recommendations or corrections based on information from the diagnostic systems. 4) Hottgenroth (EP 3705955) discloses a method for secure communication between a field device for automation technology and a terminal and system for secure communication between a field device and a terminal to ensure that any influence on the field device can be traced and determine which measures have been carried out via the terminal device communication link, whereby conclusions can be drawn about, for example, operation, operability, maintenance intensity and possible sources of error. 5) Prabhakaran Kasinathan et al . “Secure Remote Maintenance via Workflow-Driven Security Framework”, 2021 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain, pages 29-37 discloses a shop floor engineer creates a maintenance request via the workflow execution app, the Approval1 transition and creates a maintenance order, then maintenance request must be approved by the responsible shop floor manager and enterprise manager via his/her instance of the WF-App; and once the approvals are completed, the system programmatically interacts with the Software Defined Network (SDN) / Software Defined Perimeter (SDP) enabled firewall to configure rules which enable access for the maintainer to reach the target network. However, neither of above cited prior art fairly discloses or teaches: cross-checking the first maintenance job using a verification on request (VoR) component to match safety criteria of a specific plant where the at least one device is deployed; wherein the first approval ticket is issued by the VoR component and is enforced by the at least one device, the ticket describing approved changes in the at least one device Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) Casilli (US PG Pub. 20200311503 A1) a system and method for configuring and managing field devices of a building by providing point information which includes data associated with the building automation system that may be monitored or controlled in realtime by one or more field devices, wherein the point information may include a request mode, a maintenance assist result, and a textual code . The request mode is associated with the visual code. The function of the particular field device may be executed automatically or in response to a message from the mobile device; and when responding to the message of the mobile device, then the point information may further include one or more confirmation buttons 958, 960 (such as “Confirm” and “Cancel”) to determine whether to proceed with the function or cancel the request for the function from the mobile device. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDA A. NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7076. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00am - 6:30pm. 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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. /F.A.N/Examiner, Art Unit 3628 /SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/048,158 Page 2 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/048,158 Page 3 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/048,158 Page 4 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/048,158 Page 5 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/048,158 Page 6 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/048,158 Page 7 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/048,158 Page 8 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/048,158 Page 9 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/048,158 Page 10 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/048,158 Page 11 Art Unit: 3628
Prosecution Insights