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 .
Claims 1, 2, 7-9, 11, 14, and 15 are currently amended. Claims 3 and 10 are currently canceled. No new claims have been added. Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-20 are currently pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
In response to the applicant’s arguments, pg. 9, that a reason to combine Coan and Aparicio Ojea has not been identified, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Each reference is used for its disclosed purpose in a straightforward way: Coan for the configuring and instantiation of application instances and Aparicio Ojea for the instantiation of skill functions/applications within an industrial automation environment. A POSITA would be motivated to use Aparicio Ojea’s industrial automation skill functions to allow modifications of autonomous industrial systems which improve safety and do not require adjusting the remaining code base. These rationales are grounded in the references’ own teachings rather than in Applicant’s claim language, and the resulting system combines known techniques in a predictable manner; accordingly, Applicant’s improper hindsight arguments are not persuasive and the §103 rejections are properly maintained.
In response to the applicant’s arguments, pgs. 9-11, that Coan in view of Aparicio Ojea fails to disclose the amended limitations of independent claims 1 and 8, the examiner concedes. As such, new references are relied upon to disclose the industrial computing device and control systems being physically mounted to a rail coupled to a data backplane (Flood (US 20200103861 A1)), as well as the user profile information specifying communication restrictions (Huffman (US 20210352110 A1)).
In response to the applicant’s arguments, pgs. 11-12, that Feng in view of Coan fails to disclose the amended limitations of claim 15, the examiner concedes. As such, a new reference is relied upon to disclose the user profile information specifying communication restrictions (Huffman (US 20210352110 A1)).
As per the applicant’s arguments regarding the dependent claims, pgs.12-13, the rejection of the independent claims under 35 USC 103 is maintained, and as such, the dependent claims remain rejected under 35 USC 103 as well.
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coan (US 20220188078 A1) in view of Flood (US 20200103861 A1) in further view of Huffman (US 20210352110 A1).
As per claim 1, Coan discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause a processor system to perform operations comprising: receiving a request to install an application for execution via an industrial computing device (“Non-transitory computer program products (i.e., physically embodied computer program products) are also described that store instructions, which when executed by one or more data processors of one or more computing systems, causes at least one data processor to perform operations herein. Similarly, computer systems are also described that may include one or more data processors and memory coupled to the one or more data processors. The memory may temporarily or permanently store instructions that cause at least one processor to perform one or more of the operations described herein.”, 0005 ; “receiving, from the user interface, an indication to initiate the build of the application instance", 0003)
retrieving an image file associated with the application from a storage component ("The slave 154 may also get templates from repository 160C. These templates may correspond to Docker images of a base image for the application being built.", 0034 ; Examiner Note: base images for an application being built equate to image files associated with applications)
retrieving a profile file associated with the application form the storage component ("obtaining, from at least one repository, build information including at least one of a command script, a dataset, and an application instance template", 0003 ; "Referring again to FIG. 1, the master 152, based on the selections 202A-E and 204A-D and the indication 206, may assign one or more slaves, such as the slave 154, to build the application instance(s). In response, the slave 154 may then get, from one or more repositories 160A-C, information to configure the build.", 0031 ; Examiner Note: the repository equates to a storage component)
sending the image file and the one or more parameters to the industrial computing device, wherein the industrial computing device is configured to install the application and adjust one or more settings of the application based on the one or more parameters. (“assigning at least one slave node to build, based on the configuration information, the application instance”, 0003 ; “The container image may include an executable package for running the application instance on the slave.”, 0004 ; Examiner Note: in order for the slave to build the application instance with the configuration and container image, equating to an image file and parameters, they must necessarily be sent from where they are stored.)
Although Coan fully discloses the above limitations of claim 1, they do not disclose the industrial computing device being communicatively coupled to one or more control systems via a data backplane.
However, Flood discloses:
an industrial computing device configured to communicate data with one or more controls systems configured to control one or more operations of a plurality of industrial devices within an industrial system (“With reference to FIG. 1, an industrial automation system 5 includes a first (or primary) industrial automation controller 10 and a second (or secondary) industrial automation controller 15. As illustrated, the first and second industrial automation controllers 10 and 15 are modular and may be made up of numerous different modules connected together on a rack or rail (represented by dashed line 18). Additional modules may be added or existing modules removed and the first and second industrial automation controllers 10 and 15 reconfigured to accommodate the new configuration”, 0016)
the industrial computing device is directly communicatively coupled to the one or more control systems via a data backplane separate from the industrial computing device and the one or more control systems (“FIG. 4 is a block diagram showing one example arrangement for the processor 145 and memory 150 of a controller module 25. In FIG. 4, the processor 145 includes multiple computer processing units. The first computer processing unit (CPU) 305 is a system CPU that executes application code and messages for communication with other components of the industrial automation system 5. The second CPU 310 is a backplane CPU that transfers I/O data and other module data on a backplane. The two CPUs 305 and 310 operate independently from each other. “, 0023)
the industrial computing device and the one or more control systems are configured to physically mount to a rail and communicatively couple to the data backplane when physically mounted to the rail (“As illustrated, each remote rack 85 and 90 is modular and may include numerous different modules connected together in a rack or mounted to a rail. “, 0019 ; “Communication between nodes mounted in the same rack or contained within a single housing occurs via a backplane 160 and a corresponding backplane connector 165.”, 0021)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Coan with those of Flood in order to provide a data backplane which removes the need for a dedicated high speed link and related modules, thus lowering the cost of the industrial automation system (Flood, [0025]).
Coan in view of Flood fully discloses the above limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose the user profile comprising one or more communication restrictions.
However, Huffman discloses:
the profile file comprises one or more communication restrictions for transferring data via the data backplane, wherein the one or more communication restrictions comprise one or more time periods to exchange data, one or more communication channels, one or more encryption methods, or any combination thereof (“In one or more embodiments, the configuration system can maintain a model of an industrial environment that inventories industrial devices and network infrastructure devices distributed throughout a plant environment, as well as networked interconnections and relationships between the various devices. A user interface associated with the configuration system allows a user to group sets of devices that share a common security context into security zones using an integrated modeling tool. This model can be used to define policies for secure communication between devices, event originator policies, or other security aspects. For example, each security zone defined in the model can comprise devices that are to communicate with one another in a secure manner as part of normal operation of an automation system, and which share common security requirements. Devices outside a given security zone can be prevented from communicating with devices within the zone.”, 0053 ; Examiner Note: the model equates to a profile, and the security zones equate to designated communication channels)
presenting one or more visualizations based on the profile file, wherein the one or more visualizations comprise one or more input fields configured to receive user input for defining one or more parameters of the one or more communication restrictions associated with the application (“ Graphical interface component 204 can be configured to generate a set of graphical user interface displays with which a user can interact in order to define security zones, assign industrial and networking devices to defined zones, define conduits between devices and/or zones, download or distribute security configuration instructions to appropriate devices that make up an industrial automation environment, and other such functions.”, 0058)
the one or more settings correspond to the one or more communication restrictions (“An example model 216 may define each device in terms of the device vendor and model, the device's current software or firmware revisions, current network settings (e.g., network addresses), current security settings, and other relevant information”, 0066)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Coan in view of Flood with those of Huffman in order to simplify the process of configuring the security parameters for each individual device through the defining of security settings (or communication channels) (Huffman, [0063]).
As per claim 8, it is a method claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 1, as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coan (US 20220188078 A1) in view of Flood (US 20200103861 A1) in further view of Huffman (US 20210352110 A1) in further view of Li (US 20210065566 A1).
As per claim 2, Coan in view of Flood in further view of Huffman fully discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Huffman discloses:
the industrial computing device is directly communicatively coupled to the industrial device via the data backplane (“The native controller I/O can include digital I/O that transmits and receives discrete voltage signals to and from the field devices, or analog I/O that transmits and receives analog voltage or current signals to and from the devices. The controller I/O can communicate with a controller's processor over a backplane such that the digital and analog signals can be read into and controlled by the control programs.”, 0046)
Coan in view of Flood in further view of Huffman fully discloses the above limitations, but does not disclose the image file being sent to an industrial device from the industrial computing device.
However, Li discloses:
the image file is sent to an industrial device of the plurality of industrial devices via the industrial computing device. (“The MEC node may provide an edge detect and avoid (edge-DAA) function for use in the airspace.”, 0003 ;“the Mobile Edge Orchestrator may prepare a virtualization infrastructure manager with the application image (e.g., by sending the application image to an appropriate virtualization infrastructure manager).”, 0109 ; see fig 4: the mobile edge orchestrator equates to an industrial computing device, and the mobile edge host equates to an industrial device ; “ By way of example, the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c, 102d, any of which may be referred to as a station (STA), may be configured to transmit and/or receive wireless signals and may include a user equipment (UE), … , an industrial device and applications (e.g., a robot and/or other wireless devices operating in an industrial and/or an automated processing chain contexts)”, 0032)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the system of Coan in view of Flood in further view of Huffman with that of Li in order to provide advantages such as the flexibility of feature application deployment closer to the edge of the access network (Li, [0087]).
As per claim 4, Coan in view of Flood in further view of Huffman in further view of Li fully discloses the limitations of claim 2.
Furthermore, Coan discloses:
the computer- executable instructions are configured to cause the processor system to perform the operations further comprising: receive device data associated with the industrial device via the industrial computing device; determine the one or more parameters based on the device data; and populate the one or more input fields with the one or more parameters. (“The memory may temporarily or permanently store instructions that cause at least one processor to perform one or more of the operations described herein.”, 0005 ; “For example, the slave 154 may access, based on the configuration information received selections 202A-E and 204A-D, obtain a command script from a repository 160A.", 0046 ; "obtaining, from at least one repository, build information including at least one of a command script, a dataset, and an application instance template", 0003 ; "The user interface may include a fourth selectable user interface element to enable selection of one or more datasets to include with the build of the", 0004 ; "The configuration information may be received, based on one or more selections performed via the user interface, wherein the configuration information enables the build of the application instance. ", 0004)
As per claim 6, Coan in view of Flood in further view of Huffman fully discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose the retrieval of the image file via a cloud-based computing system.
However, Li discloses:
retrieve the image file via a cloud-based computing system communicatively coupled to the storage component. (“ The MEC platform may support transparent deployment of mobile applications. In other words, the WTRU may interact with a mobile application without being aware of the location of the application server. As shown in FIG. 21, a UAV may access the UTM service using the core UTM protocol over the Edge Type-A interface between the UAV and the edge instance of its USS as if it accesses the UTM application server in the cloud directly over the UTM1 interface.”, 0183 ; “the Mobile Edge Orchestrator may prepare a virtualization infrastructure manager with the application image (e.g., by sending the application image to an appropriate virtualization infrastructure manager).”, 0109)
As per claim 9, it is a method claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 2, as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As per claim 11, it is a method claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 4, as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As per claim 13, it is a method claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 6, as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coan (US 20220188078 A1) in view of Flood (US 20200103861 A1) in further view of Huffman (US 20210352110 A1) in further view of Petit (US 20220046095 A1).
As per claim 5, Coan in view of Flood in further view of Huffman fully discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose deploying the image file via a container to the industrial computing device.
However, Petit discloses:
deploying the image file via a container to the industrial computing device. ("The embedded application metadata can include deployment configurations for the embedded applications in the IOT gateways 500-1 to 500-N. The embedded application systems 510-1 to 510-N can implement Docker engines to execute the embedded application images based on the configurations described in the embedded application metadata.", 0022)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the system of Coan in view of Flood in further view of Huffman with that of Petit, in order to provide the development of a model of the execution of the embedded application, within the context of industrial automation, in the remote gateway device, so that the server can dynamically update the embedded application without having to deploy a different embedded application to the remote gateway device (Petit, [0007]).
As per claim 12, it is a method claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 5, as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coan (US 20220188078 A1) in view of Flood (US 20200103861 A1) in further view of Huffman (US 20210352110 A1) in further view of Li (US 20210065566 A1) in further view of Dalloro (US 20200285213 A1).
As per claim 7, Coan in view of Flood in further view of Huffman in further view of Li fully discloses the limitations of claim 6, but does not disclose a marketplace platform configured to provide applications.
However, Dalloro discloses:
a marketplace platform configured to provide a plurality of applications for deployment to an industrial device of the plurality of industrial devices via the industrial computing device directly communicatively coupled to the industrial device via the data backplane. (“The repository may be a commonly accessible data store, such as an online Marketplace that provides various functionality solutions to users with access to the data store. Additionally, according to aspects of embodiments described herein, the PLC may autonomously dispose of unwanted or unneeded functionality with the aim of managing processing resources most effectively.”, 0005)
Although Dalloro does not explicitly disclose a data backplane, Flood discloses:
“In FIG. 4, the processor 145 includes multiple computer processing units. The first computer processing unit (CPU) 305 is a system CPU that executes application code and messages for communication with other components of the industrial automation system 5. The second CPU 310 is a backplane CPU that transfers I/O data and other module data on a backplane. The two CPUs 305 and 310 operate independently from each other. “, 0023
The system of Coan in view of Flood in further view of Huffman in further view of Li in further view of Dalloro would possess a marketplace platform configured to provide applications for deployment to an industrial device coupled to an industrial computing device communicatively coupled to a data backplane. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the system of Coan in view of Flood in further view of Huffman in further view of Li with that of Dalloro in order to provide means for a device to autonomously dispose of unwanted/uneeded functionality in order to manage processing resources most effectively (Dalloro, [0005]).
As per claim 14, Coan in view of Flood in further view of Huffman in further view of Li fully discloses the limitations of claim 13, but does not disclose querying a marketplace platform configured to provide applications.
However, Dalloro discloses:
querying a marketplace platform provided by the cloud-based computing system, wherein the marketplace platform is configured to provide a plurality of applications for deployment to an industrial device of the plurality of industrial devices via the industrial computing device directly communicatively coupled to the industrial device via the data backplane. (“The application manager examines the information relating to the computer applications and in a case where the computerized control system does not presently possess the requested functionality, the application manager queries an outside marketplace or repository to determine if the marketplace or repository includes additional computer applications that are able to provide the requested functionality 205.", 0040)
Although Dalloro does not explicitly disclose a data backplane, Flood discloses:
“In FIG. 4, the processor 145 includes multiple computer processing units. The first computer processing unit (CPU) 305 is a system CPU that executes application code and messages for communication with other components of the industrial automation system 5. The second CPU 310 is a backplane CPU that transfers I/O data and other module data on a backplane. The two CPUs 305 and 310 operate independently from each other. “, 0023
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flood (US 20200103861 A1) in view of Coan (US 20220188078 A1) in further view of Huffman (US 20210352110 A1).
As per claim 15, Flood discloses:
A system, comprising: an industrial computing device configured to communicate data with one or more control systems configured to control one or more operations of a plurality of industrial devices in an industrial system, wherein the industrial computing device is directly communicatively coupled to the one or more control systems via a data backplane separate from the industrial computing device and the one or more control systems (“FIG. 4 is a block diagram showing one example arrangement for the processor 145 and memory 150 of a controller module 25. In FIG. 4, the processor 145 includes multiple computer processing units. The first computer processing unit (CPU) 305 is a system CPU that executes application code and messages for communication with other components of the industrial automation system 5. The second CPU 310 is a backplane CPU that transfers I/O data and other module data on a backplane. The two CPUs 305 and 310 operate independently from each other. “, 0023)
the industrial computing device and the one or more control systems are configured to physically mount to a rail and communicatively couple to and a plurality of industrial devices via the data backplane when physically mounted to the rail (“As illustrated, each remote rack 85 and 90 is modular and may include numerous different modules connected together in a rack or mounted to a rail. “, 0019 ; “Communication between nodes mounted in the same rack or contained within a single housing occurs via a backplane 160 and a corresponding backplane connector 165.”, 0021)
an additional computing device configured to execute computer-readable instructions that cause one or more processors to execute a design software configured to program one or more industrial automation devices (“The processors and operating systems of industrial controllers allow for real-time control and execute languages for ready customization of programs to comport with a variety of different controller applications. Industrial controllers may have a user interface for accessing, controlling, and monitoring the industrial controller.”, 0002)
Flood discloses the above limitations of claim 15, but does not disclose receiving a request to install an application, retrieving an image file or profile, presenting one or more visualizations, or receiving the parameters.
However, Coan discloses:
receiving a request to install an application for execution via an industrial computing device within an industrial system (“Non-transitory computer program products (i.e., physically embodied computer program products) are also described that store instructions, which when executed by one or more data processors of one or more computing systems, causes at least one data processor to perform operations herein. Similarly, computer systems are also described that may include one or more data processors and memory coupled to the one or more data processors. The memory may temporarily or permanently store instructions that cause at least one processor to perform one or more of the operations described herein.”, 0005 ; “receiving, from the user interface, an indication to initiate the build of the application instance", 0003)
retrieving an image file associated with the application from a storage component ("The slave 154 may also get templates from repository 160C. These templates may correspond to Docker images of a base image for the application being built.", 0034 ; Examiner Note: base images for an application being built equate to image files associated with applications)
retrieving a profile file associated with the application form the storage component ("obtaining, from at least one repository, build information including at least one of a command script, a dataset, and an application instance template", 0003 ; "Referring again to FIG. 1, the master 152, based on the selections 202A-E and 204A-D and the indication 206, may assign one or more slaves, such as the slave 154, to build the application instance(s). In response, the slave 154 may then get, from one or more repositories 160A-C, information to configure the build.", 0031 ; Examiner Note: the repository equates to a storage component)
sending the image file and the one or more parameters to the industrial computing device, wherein the industrial computing device is configured to install the application and adjust one or more settings of the application based on the one or more parameters. (“assigning at least one slave node to build, based on the configuration information, the application instance”, 0003 ; “The container image may include an executable package for running the application instance on the slave.”, 0004 ; Examiner Note: in order for the slave to build the application instance with the configuration and container image, equating to an image file and parameters, they must necessarily be sent from where they are stored.)
The combination of Flood in view of Coan would provide the method of Coan within the industrial automation context, and with the data backplane, of Flood. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the systems of Flood and Coan, in order to provide automated configuration of application instances, such as databases instances, in a reproducible and consistent manner (Coan, [0014]).
Flood in view of Coan discloses the above limitations of claim 15, but does not disclose a user profile comprising a communication restriction.
However, Huffman discloses:
the profile file comprises one or more communication restrictions for transferring data via the data backplane, wherein the one or more communication restrictions comprise one or more time periods to exchange data, one or more communication channels, one or more encryption methods, or any combination thereof (“In one or more embodiments, the configuration system can maintain a model of an industrial environment that inventories industrial devices and network infrastructure devices distributed throughout a plant environment, as well as networked interconnections and relationships between the various devices. A user interface associated with the configuration system allows a user to group sets of devices that share a common security context into security zones using an integrated modeling tool. This model can be used to define policies for secure communication between devices, event originator policies, or other security aspects. For example, each security zone defined in the model can comprise devices that are to communicate with one another in a secure manner as part of normal operation of an automation system, and which share common security requirements. Devices outside a given security zone can be prevented from communicating with devices within the zone.”, 0053 ; Examiner Note: the model equates to a profile, and the security zones equate to designated communication channels)
presenting one or more visualizations based on the profile file, wherein the one or more visualizations comprise one or more input fields configured to receive user input for defining one or more parameters of the one or more communication restrictions associated with the application (“ Graphical interface component 204 can be configured to generate a set of graphical user interface displays with which a user can interact in order to define security zones, assign industrial and networking devices to defined zones, define conduits between devices and/or zones, download or distribute security configuration instructions to appropriate devices that make up an industrial automation environment, and other such functions.”, 0058)
the one or more settings correspond to the one or more communication restrictions (“An example model 216 may define each device in terms of the device vendor and model, the device's current software or firmware revisions, current network settings (e.g., network addresses), current security settings, and other relevant information”, 0066)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Flood in view of Coan with those of Huffman in order to simplify the process of configuring the security parameters for each individual device through the defining of security settings (or communication channels) (Huffman, [0063]).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flood (US 20200103861 A1) in view of Coan (US 20220188078 A1) in further view of Huffman (US 20210352110 A1) in further view of Aparicio Ojea (US 20230050387 A1).
As per claim 16, Flood in view of Coan in further view of Huffman fully discloses the limitations of claim 15, but does not disclose an add-on profile.
However, Aparicio Ojea discloses:
the profile file comprises an add-on profile implemented in a design software environment. ("The method further comprises selecting one or more basic skill functions, from the plurality of basic skill functions, to configure the controllable physical device to perform a defined task. The method further comprises determining a decorator skill function specifying at least one constraint. The decorator skill function is configured to impose, at run-time, the at least one constraint, on the one or more basic skill functions.", 0006 ; Examiner Note: a decorator skill function equates to an add-on profile)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the system of Flood in view of Coan in further view of Huffman with that of Aparicio Ojea, in order to allow modifications of autonomous robots or machine behavior which improve safety and do not require adjusting the remaining code base (Aparicio Ojea, [0032]).
As per claim 17, Flood in view of Coan in further view of Huffman fully discloses the limitations of claim 15, but does not explicitly disclose an industrial device comprising one or more i/o modules.
However, Aparicio Ojea discloses:
the plurality of industrial devices comprises one or more controllers, one or more input/output (I/O) modules, one or more motor control centers, one or more human machine interfaces (HMIs), one or more operator interfaces, one or more drives, one or more protection devices, or any combination thereof (see fig.1 : I/O adapter 112 and interface adapter 126)
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flood (US 20200103861 A1) in view of Coan (US 20220188078 A1) in further view of Huffman (US 20210352110 A1) in further view of Bush (US 20190236313 A1).
As per claim 18, Flood in view of Coan in further view of Huffman fully discloses the limitations of claim 15, but does not disclose sending a request for security credentials.
However, Bush discloses:
the additional computing device is configured to send a request for one or more security credentials to the industrial computing device prior to sending the image file. ("Also, a non-transitory computer-readable medium is provided having stored thereon executable instructions that, in response to execution, cause a, industrial controller module comprising at least one processor to perform operations, the operations comprising detecting installation of a modular device on a backplane of an industrial controller; in response to the detecting, sending a request for security credential data to the modular device via the backplane; in response to receiving the security credential data via the backplane, determining whether the security credential data is authentic; in response to determining that the security credential data is authentic, generating challenge data based on information contained in the security credential data; sending the security challenge data to the modular device via the backplane", 0005)
The system of Flood in view of Coan in further view of Huffman in further view of Bush would be capable of sending a request for one or more security credentials prior to sending the image file of Coan. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the system of Flood in view of Coan in further view of Huffman with that of Bush in order to provide security at the level of the backplane, thus protecting the industrial devices from security threats (Bush, [0005]).
As per claim 19, Flood in view of Coan in further view of Huffman in further view of Bush fully discloses the limitations of claim 18.
Furthermore, Bush discloses:
the one or more security credentials comprise a security certificate. ("In some embodiments, authentication of authorized modules can be based on one or both of vendor certificate data 524 (issued to the processor module 502 during manufacture of the module) or user certificate data 526 (issued to the processor module 502 by the end user using a trust authority), which can be stored on memory 522 of the processor module 502.", 0052)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flood (US 20200103861 A1) in view of Coan (US 20220188078 A1) in further view of Huffman (US 20210352110 A1) in further view of Dalloro (US 20200285213 A1).
As per claim 20, Flood in view of Coan in further view of Huffman fully discloses the limitations of claim 15, but does not disclose retrieving an image file from a marketplace.
However, Dalloro discloses:
the additional computing device is configured to retrieve the image file from a marketplace platform. (“The PLC pulls desired functionality from an application (APP) repository. The repository may be a commonly accessible data store, such as an online Marketplace that provides various functionality solutions to users with access to the data store.”, 0005 ; Examiner Note: the desired functionality corresponds to an image file)
The system of Flood in view of Coan in further view of Huffman in further view of Dalloro would be capable of retrieving an image file from a marketplace platform. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the system of Flood in view of Coan in further view of Huffman with that of Dalloro in order to provide means for a device to autonomously dispose of unwanted/uneeded functionality in order to manage processing resources most effectively (Dalloro, [0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Selva (US 11176443 B1) – discloses a system wherein automation controls and associated text in images displayed by a computer application are automatically detected by way of region-based R-FCN and Faster R-CNN engines. Datasets comprising images containing application controls, where the application controls include images of application where width is greater than height, width is equal to height and height is greater than width are retrieved and each dataset is processed with the R-FCN and Faster R-CNN engines to generate a software robot configured to recognize corresponding application controls.
Watanabe (US 11936828 B1) - obtain a virtual image forming apparatus that emulates a physical image forming apparatus; determine whether an application launched in the virtual image forming apparatus corresponds to an application installed in the physical image forming apparatus; based on the determination, acquire setting information of the application launched in the virtual image forming apparatus, the setting information comprising a setting made for the application launched in the virtual image forming apparatus.
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 ROSS MICHAEL VINCENT whose telephone number is (703)756-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, April Blair can be reached at (571) 270-1014. 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.
/R.M.V./
Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights