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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on May 4, 2023.
Claims 1-16 have been examined.
Specification
Please spell out “MQTT” at the first appearance in specification.
Claim Objection
Claims 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, please spell out “MQTT” at its first appearance in claims.
Claim 6, lines 2-3, “each container application” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7, lines 3-4, “the respective container application” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 9, lines 4-5, “the web user interface” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 11, line 3, “the distribution” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 13, line 3, “the cloud-based web user interface” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 14, line 6, “the wired or wireless data interface” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 16, lines 12-13, “the building automation network” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 10 depends on the objected claim and inherits the same isse.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
After search and analysis, Examiner concluded that the claimed invention has been recited in such a manner that dependent claim 8 is not taught by any prior reference found through search.
The primary reason for allowance of the claims in this case, is the inclusion of the limitations “The building automation network according to claim 4, wherein the web user interface is connected to a cloud-based container engine comprising a rule engine module adapted to validate automatically a configuration of a container application configured or updated by means of the cloud user interface,” which are not found in the prior art of record.
Incorporating intervening claim 4 and claim 8 into claims 1, 15, and 16 would put the case in condition for allowance.
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. - An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
7. Claims 1 and 11, limitations of “a container engine adapted to…” (page 15, lines 1-10) and “an edge application manager” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use generic placeholders coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
“an edge digital service agent” will not be interpreted under 112(f) since “agent” is modified by sufficient structure with “digital”.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The limitation “an edge application manager” is interpreted under 112(f). However, the specification does not disclose equivalent structure(s) for “an edge application manager” and it does not enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The limitation “an edge application manager” is interpreted under 112(f). However, the specification does not disclose equivalent structure(s) for “an edge application manager” and metes and bound of the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 11, 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0331843 to Bag et al. (hereafter “Bag”).
Claim 1.
Bag discloses a building automation network comprising:
an embedded edge device (FIG.1, FIG.2, 0010, 0031, 0046, Gateway 1 is an embedded edge device of building automation devices 2, the building automation devices 2 include HVAC units, alarms, door openers, sensors, actuators, etc.)
having a data interface (FIG.1, FIG.2, 0014, 0019, Gateway 1 has interfaces to communicate with both Protocol Server 7 and building automation devices 2)
an edge digital service agent adapted to automatically fetch container images of configured containers via the data interface (FIG.2, 0023, 0028, 0033, Protocol server 7 (an edge device of the server side) automatically fetches Software 15 via the interface between Protocol Server 7 and Gateway 1)
from a cloud-based container repository (FIG.2, 0029, 0032, 0039, cloud based Protocol Server 7 stores Software 15 and other software in its storage area/memory)
for deployment as a container application in a persistent memory (FIG.4, 0014, 0023, 0029, Software 15 is deployed in a persistent memory of Gateway 1; FIG.4, Gateway 1 includes storages/persistent memories 65 and 66); and
a container engine adapted to run the deployed container application for performing tasks in the building automation network (FIG.3, step 49, FIG.4, and 0032, 0040, 0047, processor 60 (the container engine) included in Gateway 1 runs the deployed Software 15 for establishing communication with building automation devices 2).
Claim 3.
Bag discloses the building automation network according to claim 1, wherein the container engine of the embedded edge device is adapted to run the container application deployed in the persistent memory to perform tasks in the building automation network in real time (FIG.3, block 48 install software to support communication protocol in block 49 based on real time issue in block 42 Not support packet protocol).
Claim 11.
Bag discloses the building automation network according to claim 1, wherein an edge application manager is provided in the cloud and is adapted to manage the distribution of a plurality of container applications deployed in different edge devices at multiple customer sites (FIG.1, deploying container applications to gateways, HVAC units, alarms, door openers, sensors, actuators, etc. at different locations).
Claim 12.
Bag discloses the building automation network according to claim 1, wherein the embedded edge device of the building automation network comprises a cloud gateway adapted to provide a cloud connectivity for building devices including sensors, actuators, and/or controllers installed in a building and adapted to communicate with each other via the building automation network (FIG.1, Gateway 1, and HVAC units, alarms, door openers, etc. sensors, actuators, etc. 2 at different buildings).
Claim 14.
Bag discloses the building automation network according to claim 1, wherein at least one container of the deployed container application is adapted to process data provided by building devices of the building automation network and to push messages and/or process data via the wired or wireless data interface of the edge device to the cloud (FIG.2, Software 15 deployed to process data exchanged between building automation devices 2, Gateway 1, and cloud side 7).
Claim 16.
Bag discloses a Building automation system comprising:
a plurality of building devices (FIG.2, 0010, 0014, 0019, HVAC units 2, sensors 2, door openers 2, Gateway 1);
wherein at least one of the building devices includes an embedded edge device having a data interface (FIG.4, Gateway 1 is an embedded edge device of building automation devices 2, and Gateway 1 includes interface 62)
an edge digital service agent (FIG.4, 0014, 0023, 0029, Protocol server 7 as an edge device of the server side)
adapted to automatically fetch container images of configured containers via the data interface from a cloud-based container repository for deployment as a container application (FIG.2, 0023, 0028, 0033, Protocol server 7 automatically fetch Software 15 from its storage/memory and deploy Software 15 in Gateway 1),
in a persistent memory (FIG.4, 0032, 0040, 0047, Gateway 1 includes storage areas/persistent memories 65 and 66)
a container engine adapted to run the deployed container application for performing tasks in the building automation network (FIG.4, 0032, 0040, 0047, processor 60 (the container engine) in Gateway 1 runs the deployed Software 15 and establish communication with building automation devices 2).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bag in view of US 2011/0191764 to Piorecki (hereafter “Piorecki”).
Claim 2.
Bag does not disclose the building automation network according to claim 1, wherein the deployed container application comprises a multi-container application composed of a group of multiple containers.
However, Piorecki further discloses the deployed container application comprises a multi-container application composed of a group of multiple containers (0075, 0076, 0079).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Piorecki’s teaching into Bag‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to facilitate easier distribution of firmware updates in environments where apparatuses having varying versions of firmware are deployed as suggested by Piorecki (0079).
Claims 4, 9, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bag in view of US 2015/0207758 to Mordani et al. (hereafter “Mordani”).
Claim 4.
Bag does not disclose the building automation network according to claim 1, wherein the container application stored in the cloud-based repository is configured and updated by a centralized web user interface provided in the cloud.
However, Mordani further discloses the container application stored in the cloud-based repository is configured and updated by a centralized web user interface provided in the cloud (FIG.3, web tier 244 and container database 243).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mordani’s teaching into Bag‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to provide access to container database as suggested by Mordani.
Claim 9.
Bag does not disclose the building automation network according to claim 1, wherein configuration parameters of each container of the container application are configurable individually using the web user interface provided in the cloud.
However, Mordani further disclose configuration parameters of each container of the container application are configurable individually using the web user interface provided in the cloud (FIG.3, web tier 244 and container database 243).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mordani’s teaching into Bag‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to provide access to container database as suggested by Mordani.
Claim 10.
Bag does not disclose the building automation network according to claim 9, wherein the configurable configuration parameters of a container comprise: a container image URL, at least one image tag, a service identifiable name of the respective container, a network mode, resource consumption limits, volume mounting, firewall settings, port mappings, environmental variables, and/or container communication parameters.
However, Mordani further discloses the configurable configuration parameters of a container comprises: a container image URL, at least one image tag, a service identifiable name of the respective container, a network mode, resource consumption limits, volume mounting, firewall settings, port mappings, environmental variables, and/or container communication parameters (FIG.3, web tier 244 and container database 243).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mordani’s teaching into Bag‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to provide access to container database as suggested by Mordani.
Claim 15.
Bag discloses a computer-implemented method for
operating a building automation network of a building connected to a cloud (FIG.1, 0010, 0031, 0046, operating building automation devices 2 such as HVAC units, sensors, door openers which are connected to a cloud based Protocol server 7)
via a data interface of an embedded edge device (FIG.1, building automation devices 2 are connected via interface 62 of Gateway 1, wherein Gateway 1 is an embedded edge device of building automation devices 2)
deploying the container application in a persistent memory of the embedded edge device (FIG.2, 0023, 0028, 0033, deploy Software 15 in memory of Gateway 1; FIG.4, Gateway 1 includes storage area/persistent memory 65 and 66); and
running the deployed container application by using a container engine of the embedded edge device (FIG.2, Gateway 1 uses processor 60 (the container engine) to run the deployed Software 15 and establish communication with building automation devices 2; FIG.4, processor 60 is the container engine included in the Gateway 1).
Bag does not disclose configuring a container application using a central web user interface of the cloud.
However, Mordani further discloses configuring a container application using a central web user interface of the cloud (FIG.3, web tier 244 and container database 243).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mordani’s teaching into Bag‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to provide access to container database as suggested by Mordani.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bag in view of US 2021/0167794 to Richart et al. (hereafter “Richart”).
Claim 5.
Bag does not disclose the building automation network according to claim 1, wherein the data interface of the embedded edge device comprises a wired or wireless data interface connected to a MQTT client of said edge device adapted to receive messages from a MQTT broker provided in the cloud.
However, Richart further discloses the data interface of the embedded edge device comprises a wired or wireless data interface connected to a MQTT client of said edge device adapted to receive messages from a MQTT broker provided in the cloud (FIG.9, messages exchanged between MQTT client 121/122, MQTT Broker 160, and Gateway 110).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Richart’s teaching into Bag‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to enable message-based communication in an environment monitoring system as suggested by Richart (0028).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bag in view of US 2020/0012488 to Koval et al. (hereafter “Koval”).
Claim 6.
Bag does not disclose the building automation network according to claim 1, wherein each container application comprises: a unique container application identifier; an application version identifier; and one or more container application attributes.
However, Koval further discloses each container application comprises: a unique container application identifier; an application version identifier; and one or more container application attributes (0451).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Koval’s teaching into Bag‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to indicate compatibility attributes as suggested by Koval (0451).
Claim 7.
Bag does not disclose the building automation network according to claim 6, wherein the container application attributes comprise a state and/or an update availability of the respective container application.
However, Koval further discloses the container application attributes comprise a state and/or an update availability of the respective container application (0451).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Koval’s teaching into Bag‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to indicate compatibility attributes as suggested by Koval (0451).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bag in view of US 2015/0331395 to Hepperla et al. (hereafter “Hepperla”).
Claim 13.
Bag does not disclose the building automation network according to claim 1, wherein access to the cloud-based web user interface provided to configure and/or to update a container application is only available to an authenticated user authorized to perform configurations and/or reconfigurations of the respective container application.
However, Hepperla further discloses access to the cloud-based web user interface provided to configure and/or to update a container application is only available to an authenticated user authorized to perform configurations and/or reconfigurations of the respective container application (0072).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hepperla’s teaching into Bag‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to apply control algorithm upon a building automation system as suggested by Hepperla (0072).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to examiner Thuy (Twee) Dao, whose telephone/fax numbers are (571) 272 8570 and (571) 273 8570, respectively. Examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday, 5:30am - 2:00pm ET.
If attempts to reach Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Hyung (Sam) Sough, can be reached at (571) 272 6799.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature of relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272 2100.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Thuy Dao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192