DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03 August 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
The amendment received on 03 August 2026 has been acknowledged and entered.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claim 8 has been canceled. No new claims have been added.
Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are currently pending.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 August 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (in REMARKS, pages 7-8) that regarding the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 101, even if the claims recite an exception, this exception is integrated into a practical application because Claim 1 is amended to recite that the method is carried out for devices of a system in a physical industrial plant and in an automated manner, without reliance on human execution. Claim 1 is further amended to include the subject matter of claim 8 to specify that the approval ticket includes a digital signature indicating a permission for the device configuration at the specific plant. This limitation underscores that the approval ticket is a cryptographically signed authorization token (i.e., a digital signature) verifying that an authorized entity has permitted the device changes. With these amendments, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, but rather to a specific improved industrial control technique. The claim language now clarifies that the method operates automatically, within a physical industrial plant, to configure a real-world device using a specialized verification mechanism (VoR) and cryptographically signed approval tickets. Far from being a mere business or human organizational plan, these features ensure correct and safe device operation in an industrial control system, which is a technological field. The focus of the claims is on technical operations that include collecting device-specific data, generating and refining machine-executable configuration tasks, verifying those tasks against machine-implemented safety rules (via the VoR component), and causing physical changes in an industrial device to carry out manufacturing processes. These are technological steps, not fundamental economic or mental practices, and they cannot be practically performed in the human mind or by using pen and paper.
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, 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, including a digital signature. Also, Applicant has not provided language which shows that a person is not involved (i.e. digital signature). 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 again 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 argues (in REMARKS, pages 7-8) that even assuming that some aspects of claim 1 are viewed as reciting an abstract idea, the claim as a whole is now clearly integrated into a practical application. For example, the method is applied in an industrial plant environment to configure a physical device that performs manufacturing or processing actions. Thus, the claim is tied to a particular real-world technological environment, and the outcome of the process is a configured device carrying out physical operations in a plant. The configuration yields an effect in the physical plant in which the configured devices are involved, demonstrating a tangible, real-world result of the claimed method. As mentioned, the claimed method employs a Verification on Request (VoR) component to perform safety verification before device changes are allowed, and the device must enforce the use of an approved ticket with a digital signature to execute those changes. This interaction between the VoR (which may be a specialized rule-based safety verification engine) and the device's enforcement mechanism is a specific technical arrangement of systems and security measures. It improves computer and device functionality by preventing unauthorized or unsafe configurations at the device level in real time, which enhances the reliability and safety of the overall industrial control system. The automation of the maintenance job generation and processing further indicates a practical integration. By automatically generating maintenance jobs and processing them with minimal or no human intervention, the claimed method reduces human error and latency in updating device configurations. Automation of device configuration tasks in this manner is a concrete technological implementation, not a mere instruction for a person to follow an abstract idea. For these reasons, the section 101 rejections are obviated and the claims are allowable.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes again that first, the claims do not provide a technical solution to a technical problem by enhancing the overall performance of the claimed device. Secondly, the utilizing step as claimed is post-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thirdly, reducing human error and latency in updating device configurations appears to be a business solution to a business problem. 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 since Applicant has presented an abstract-idea-based solution implemented with a generic technical component. Therefore, the Examiner suggest again 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.
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 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1-7 and 9-11 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 includes a signature indicating a permission whether configuration of the at least one device is allowed in the specific plant 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. Further, 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. 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, 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 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 2-7 and 9-11 have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent Claims 2-7 and 9-11, 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 2-7 and 9-11 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Hayashi et al. (JP 2005284854 A1) discloses DE102018102608 A1) discloses a method and device for managing plant inspection and maintenance record and method and device for confirming plant inspection and maintenance record which allow a certification body to ensure that the inspection/maintenance record for a power plant or the like has not been tampered with.
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
Prosecution Insights