DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
2. Claims 8-27 have been examined and rejected. This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed on January 15, 2026, which has been entered in the above identified application.
Drawings
3. The replacement sheet for Figure 3 submitted on January 15, 2026 has been considered and is entered into the application. The objections to the drawings have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,703,546) in view of Qureshi et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,916,233).
5-1. Regarding claim 8, Clark teaches the claim comprising: receiving, via at least one processor, an indication of an industry profile associated with an industrial automation system; determining, via the at least one processor, a plurality of data processing tasks to perform based on the industry profile, by disclosing a system 100 that includes a configuration device 102, a supervisory device 104, a communications infrastructure 106, and an exemplary plant, such as a fluid processing system 108 [column 2, lines 48-52; figure 1]. The configuration device 102 is adapted to provide a development environment that enables the design, development, and deployment of applications that are executed by process controllers 110 to controls aspects of the fluid processing system 108 [column 2, lines 60-64], and the supervisory device 104 is adapted to enable management of the applications [column 3, lines 5-20]. The fluid processing system 108 is adapted for changing or refining raw materials to create end products, and may include other processes such as those in the chemical, oil and gas, food and beverage, pharmaceutical, water treatment, and power industries [column 3, lines 41-50].
Clark teaches identifying, via the at least one processor, a first portion of a plurality of devices to perform the plurality of data processing tasks based on a compute surface available for each of the plurality of devices, by disclosing that the fluid processing system 108 comprises process controllers 110 adapted to control and/or monitor aspects of the fluid processing system 108 [column 2, lines 53-59; column 3, lines 65-67]. Each process controller includes an application object 210, such as application object 210-B [column 4, lines 11-17], which is a data container that represents a certain component of the fluid processing system 108 [column 4, line 65 to column 5, line 5; figure 2].
Clark teaches deploying, via the at least one processor, a first set of containers to the first portion of the plurality of devices, wherein each of the first set of containers is configured to perform at least one of the plurality of data processing tasks, by disclosing that the development environment 208 is adapted to enable design, development, and deployment of applications (e.g., application object 210) that are executed by the process controllers 110 to control aspects of the fluid processing system 108 [column 4, lines 48-64].
Clark teaches receiving, via the at least one processor, a request to send an update to one of the plurality of devices from a gateway device, by disclosing that a user changes one or more aspects of multiple application objects 210-A in order to ultimately change those aspects in a corresponding component of the fluid processing system 108 [column 10, lines 36-40]. The user then initiates an update in order to deploy the changes made on application objects 210-A to application objects 210-B executing in the runtime environment 220 on multiple process controllers 110 [column 10, lines 40-44]. Controllers 110 provide a gateway between components of the fluid processing system 108 (e.g., valves 114, sensors 116, pump 118) and other components of system 100 (e.g., configuration device 102, supervisory device 104) [column 3, lines 52-56].
Clark teaches determining, via the at least one processor, whether a second portion of the plurality of devices are in a first state, wherein the one of the plurality of devices is part of the second portion of the plurality of devices, by disclosing that the application objects 110-B are notified of the requested deployment by a deploy state monitor 212, and the deploy state monitor 212 determines whether the portions of the processing system impacted by the update are able to accept the update at this time [column 10, lines 45-49]. That is, portions of the processing system impacted by the update must be in a certain state such that currently running processes will not be impacted by the update [column 10, lines 49-51].
Clark teaches sending, via the at least one processor, a request to the gateway device to receive the update in response to the second portion of the plurality of devices being in the first state, by disclosing that when it is determined that the impacted portions can accept the update, the deploy state monitor 212 deploys the update to all impacted process controllers 110 simultaneously [column 10, lines 57-60].
Clark does not expressly teach identifying, via the at least one processor, a plurality of containers to deploy to the second portion of the plurality of devices based on the update; deploying, via the at least one processor, a second set of containers to the second portion of the plurality of devices, wherein each container of each device of the second portion of the plurality of devices is configured to retrieve the update from the gateway device and enable the one of the plurality of devices to execute the update while maintaining the first state; and spinning down, via the at least one processor, the second set of containers. Qureshi discloses a device 102 that executes applications inside software containers [column 4, lines 18-34]. A test container is configured to receive software, such as updates to the version(s) of software currently installed in an active container, from a deployment service [column 4, line 65 to column 5, line 1]. The test container is further configured to determine whether the received software has any issues with the device [column 5, lines 5-9]. The device responds to the deployment service when it is ready to receive a software update (e.g., when the device is not actively in use by the user; idle) [column 5, lines 59-61], and the software update will be provided by the deployment service [column 6, lines 11-15]. The software update is encapsulated as a containerized set of computer-executable instructions (also referred to as a "software package"), which may represent an entire copy of the particular state of the software container at the time the software package was generated [column 6, lines 51-56]. The software package may be configured to launch and execute as a software container after the software package is obtained by the device (e.g., after the software package is provided to the test container of the device by the deployment service) [column 6, lines 56-60]. Software containers may be deprovisioned as needed to free resources [column 3, lines 38-40; column 11, lines 12-27; column 21, lines 48-51]. This would enable faster, more reliable software delivery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deploy and execute the update of Clark using containers, as taught by Qureshi. This would enable faster, more reliable software delivery.
5-2. Regarding claim 9, Clark-Qureshi teach all the limitations of claim 8, comprising determining whether a second portion of the plurality of devices comprises computing resources sufficient to execute the update, by disclosing that the deployment service may determine whether the device has sufficient resources to receive the software update [Qureshi, column 5, line 65 to column 6, line 4]. This would help ensure a successful update. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to determine if there are sufficient resources for an update, as taught by Qureshi. This would help ensure a successful update.
5-3. Regarding claim 10, Clark-Qureshi teach all the limitations of claim 8, wherein the industry profile comprises food and beverage, oil and gas, chemical processing, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, consumer electronics, batteries, consumer products, tires, medical devices, aerospace, military, automotive, mining, lumber, paper, pet food, textiles, agriculture, airport baggage handling, or any combination thereof, by disclosing that the fluid processing system 108 is adapted for changing or refining raw materials to create end products, and may include other processes such as those in the chemical, oil and gas, food and beverage, pharmaceutical, water treatment, and power industries [Clark, column 3, lines 41-50].
5-4. Regarding claim 11, Clark-Qureshi teach all the limitations of claim 8, wherein the industry profile identifies a process performed by the industrial automation system, by disclosing processor-executable applications that monitor and/or control components in industrial processes [Clark, column 1, lines 7-10].
5-5. Regarding claim 12, Clark-Qureshi teach all the limitations of claim 11, wherein the process performed by the industrial automation system comprises brewing beer, pasteurizing milk, bottling a beverage, refining oil, or any combination thereof, by disclosing that the fluid processing system 108 is adapted for changing or refining raw materials to create end products, and may include other processes such as those in the chemical, oil and gas, food and beverage, pharmaceutical, water treatment, and power industries [Clark, column 3, lines 41-50].
6. Claims 14, 15, 18-21, 22, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,703,546), in view of Roy (U.S. Patent No. 11,360,757), and further in view of Qureshi (U.S. Patent No. 9,916,233).
6-1. Regarding claims 14 and 21, Clark teaches the claim comprising: a plurality of devices configured to perform a plurality of operations within an industrial automation system, wherein each of the plurality of devices comprises a compute surface configured to perform one or more software tasks, by disclosing a system 100 that includes a configuration device 102, a supervisory device 104, a communications infrastructure 106, and an exemplary plant, such as a fluid processing system 108 [column 2, lines 48-52; figure 1]. The configuration device 102 is adapted to provide a development environment that enables the design, development, and deployment of applications that are executed by process controllers 110 to controls aspects of the fluid processing system 108 [column 2, lines 60-64], and the supervisory device 104 is adapted to enable management of the applications [column 3, lines 5-20]. The fluid processing system 108 comprises process controllers 110 adapted to control and/or monitor aspects of the fluid processing system 108 [column 2, lines 53-59; column 3, lines 65-67]. Each process controller includes an application object 210, such as application object 210-B [column 4, lines 11-17], which is a data container that represents a certain component of the fluid processing system 108 [column 4, line 65 to column 5, line 5; figure 2].
Clark teaches a gateway device configured to operate on an information technology (IT) network and an operational technology (OT) network, by disclosing that controllers 110 provide a gateway between components of the fluid processing system 108 (e.g., valves 114, sensors 116, pump 118) and other components of system 100 (e.g., configuration device 102, supervisory device 104) [column 3, lines 52-56].
Clark teaches a processor configured to: receive a request to send an update to one of the plurality of devices from the gateway device, by disclosing that a user changes one or more aspects of multiple application objects 210-A in order to ultimately change those aspects in a corresponding component of the fluid processing system 108 [column 10, lines 36-40]. The user then initiates an update in order to deploy the changes made on application objects 210-A to application objects 210-B executing in the runtime environment 220 on multiple process controllers 110 [column 10, lines 40-44]. As stated above, controllers 110 provide a gateway between components of the fluid processing system 108 (e.g., valves 114, sensors 116, pump 118) and other components of system 100 (e.g., configuration device 102, supervisory device 104) [column 3, lines 52-56].
Clark teaches determine whether the one of the plurality of devices and a portion of the plurality of devices are operating in a first state, wherein the one of the plurality of devices is part of the portion of the plurality of devices, by disclosing that the application objects 110-B are notified of the requested deployment by a deploy state monitor 212, and the deploy state monitor 212 determines whether the portions of the processing system impacted by the update are able to accept the update at this time [column 10, lines 45-49]. That is, portions of the processing system impacted by the update must be in a certain state such that currently running processes will not be impacted by the update [column 10, lines 49-51].
Clark does not expressly teach determine whether the one of the plurality of devices comprises computing resources sufficient to execute the update. Roy discloses that if a request involves installation of an update to a robotic device, a robotic device agent evaluates metadata obtained from the robotic device to determine whether the update can be installed using available robotic device nodes of the robotic device [column 13, lines 59-64]. For instance, using the metadata, the robotic device agent may determine whether the robotic device has sufficient resources (e.g., storage capacity, processing capability, etc.) available to install the update provided by the request oversight sub-system [column 13, line 64 to column 14, line 1]. This would help ensure a successful update. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to conduct a pre-check to determine if there are sufficient resources for an update, as taught by Roy. This would help ensure a successful update.
Clark-Roy teach send a request to the gateway device to receive the update in response to the portion of the plurality of devices being in the first state and the one of the plurality of devices comprising the computing resources sufficient to execute the update, by disclosing that when it is determined that the impacted portions can accept the update, the deploy state monitor 212 deploys the update to all impacted process controllers 110 simultaneously [Clark, column 10, lines 57-60].
Clark-Roy do not expressly teach identify a plurality of containers to deploy to the portion of the plurality of devices based on the update; deploy a container to each device of the portion of the plurality of devices, wherein each container of each device of the portion of the plurality of devices is configured to retrieve the update from the gateway device and enable the one of the plurality of devices to execute the update while maintaining the first state; and spinning down the plurality of containers. Qureshi discloses a device 102 that executes applications inside software containers [column 4, lines 18-34]. A test container is configured to receive software, such as updates to the version(s) of software currently installed in an active container, from a deployment service [column 4, line 65 to column 5, line 1]. The test container is further configured to determine whether the received software has any issues with the device [column 5, lines 5-9]. The device responds to the deployment service when it is ready to receive a software update (e.g., when the device is not actively in use by the user; idle) [column 5, lines 59-61], and the software update will be provided by the deployment service [column 6, lines 11-15]. The software update is encapsulated as a containerized set of computer-executable instructions (also referred to as a "software package"), which may represent an entire copy of the particular state of the software container at the time the software package was generated [column 6, lines 51-56]. The software package may be configured to launch and execute as a software container after the software package obtained by the device (e.g., after the software package is provided to the test computer of the device by the deployment service) [column 6, lines 56-60]. Software containers may be deprovisioned as needed to free resources [column 3, lines 38-40; column 11, lines 12-27; column 21, lines 48-51]. This would enable faster, more reliable software delivery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deploy and execute the update of Clark-Roy using containers, as taught by Qureshi. This would enable faster, more reliable software delivery.
6-2. Regarding claims 15 and 22, Clark-Roy-Qureshi teach all the imitations of claims 14 and 21 respectively, wherein a first device of the portion of the plurality of devices is in the first state when the first device is not actively performing a process, by disclosing that the update will only be provided to the device when the device is ready to receive a software update (e.g., when the device is not actively in use by the user; idle) [Qureshi, column 5, lines 59-61; column 6, lines 11-15]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the update of when the portions of the processing system impacted by the update are idle, as taught by Qureshi. This would minimize impact on productivity.
6-3. Regarding claims 18 and 25, Clark-Roy-Qureshi teach all the imitations of claims 14 and 21 respectively, wherein the gateway device is configured to: receive the update from a remote server; and transmit the update to the processor in response to receiving the request from the processor, by disclosing that when it is determined that the impacted portions can accept the update, the deploy state monitor 212 deploys the update to all impacted process controllers 110 simultaneously [Clark, column 10, lines 57-60]. As shown in [Clark, figure 2], the update is received from configuration device 102.
6-4. Regarding claims 19 and 26, Clark-Roy-Qureshi teach all the imitations of claims 14 and 21 respectively, wherein the computing resources configured to execute the update comprise memory to store the update, processing resources to execute the update, or both, by disclosing that using the metadata, the robotic device agent may determine whether the robotic device has sufficient resources (e.g., storage capacity, processing capability, etc.) available to install the update provided by the request oversight sub-system [Roy, column 13, line 64 to column 14, line 1].
6-5. Regarding claims 20 and 27, Clark-Roy-Qureshi teach all the imitations of claims 14 and 21 respectively, wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the one of the plurality of devices comprises the computing resources sufficient to execute the update comprises: estimating a first amount of resources used to execute an updated version of code after execution of the update; comparing the estimated amount of resources used to execute the updated version of code to a second amount of resources available on a first device; and determining that the one of the plurality of devices comprises the computing resources sufficient to execute the update based on the second amount of resources exceeding the first amount of resources, by disclosing that using the metadata, the robotic device agent may determine whether the robotic device has sufficient resources (e.g., storage capacity, processing capability, etc.) available to install the update provided by the request oversight sub-system [Roy, column 13, line 64 to column 14, line 1].
7. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,703,546), in view of Qureshi et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,916,233), and further in view of Hamlin (U.S. Patent No. 12,284,102).
7-1. Regarding claim 13, Clark-Qureshi teach all the limitations of claim 8. Clark-Qureshi do not expressly teach wherein identifying the first portion of the plurality of devices to perform the plurality of data processing tasks is based on a proximity to particular devices, resources available to execute the first set of containers, capability to perform one or more functions performed by the first set of containers, communication latency, resource allocation, or any combination thereof. Hamlin discloses that it was well known to provide updates to devices in response to a user’s proximity to the device [column 14, lines 1-4, 16]. This would provide more control to the user of when updates are performed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the update of Clark-Qureshi based on proximity of a user to the device, as taught by Hamlin. This would provide more control to the user of when updates are performed.
8. Claims 16 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,703,546), in view of Roy (U.S. Patent No. 11,360,757), in view of Qureshi et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,916,233), and further in view of Hamlin (U.S. Patent No. 12,284,102).
8-1. Regarding claims 16 and 23, Clark-Roy-Qureshi teach all the imitations of claims 14 and 21 respectively. Clark-Roy-Qureshi do not expressly teach wherein a first device of the portion of the plurality of devices is not in the first state when a person has been detected within a threshold distance of the first device within a threshold amount of time. Hamlin discloses that it was well known to provide updates to devices in response to a user’s proximity to the device [column 14, lines 1-4, 16]. This would provide more control to the user of when updates are performed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the update of Clark-Roy based on proximity of a user to the device, as taught by Hamlin. This would provide more control to the user of when updates are performed.
9. Claims 17 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,703,546), in view of Roy (U.S. Patent No. 11,360,757), in view of Qureshi et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,916,233), and further in view of Tsuji et al (U.S. Patent No. 11,934,821).
9-1. Regarding claims 17 and 24, Clark-Roy-Qureshi teach all the imitations of claims 14 and 21 respectively. Clark-Roy-Qureshi do not expressly teach wherein the processor is configured to authenticate a profile of a user overseeing the execution of the update before each container of each device of the portion of the plurality of devices enables the one of the plurality of devices to execute the update. Tsuji discloses a device management system that executes an update in which a user of the system individually specifies a task of update of firmware serving as software of an image forming apparatus and automatic F/W update in which the system automatically generates an F/W update task in response to an instruction issued by the user of the system [column 4, lines 30-39]. The user is authenticated before having access to the system [column 14, lines 17-27; figure 13]. This would ensure the proper updates are carried out. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to authenticate a profile of a user overseeing the updates, as taught by Tsuji. This would help ensure the proper updates are carried out.
Response to Arguments
10. The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s amendments to claims 8, 14, and 21.
Regarding independent claim 8, Applicant alleges Clark et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,703,546) does not teach "identifying, via the at least one processor, a plurality of containers to deploy to the second portion of the plurality of devices based on the update; deploying, via the at least one processor, a second set of containers to the second portion of the plurality of devices, wherein each container of each device of the second portion of the plurality of devices is configured to retrieve the update from the gateway device and enable the one of the plurality of devices to execute the update while maintaining the first state; and spinning down, via the at least one processor, the second set of containers," as has been amended to the claim. Examiner has rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,703,546) in view of Qureshi et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,916,233). Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Similar arguments have been presented for independent claims 14 and 21. Claims 14 and 21 have bene rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,703,546), in view of Roy (U.S. Patent No. 11,360,757), and further in view of Qureshi (U.S. Patent No. 9,916,233). Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant states that dependent claims 9-13, 15-20, and 22-27 recite all the limitations of the independent claims, and thus, are allowable in view of the remarks set forth regarding independent claims 8, 14, and 21. However, as discussed above, Clark in view of Qureshi are considered to teach claim 8, and Clark, in view of Roy, and further in view of Qureshi are considered to teach claims 14 and 21, and consequently, claims 9-13, 15-20, and 22-27 are rejected.
Conclusion
11. 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN H TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8595. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALVIN H TAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights