DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This action is in response to the following communication: Amendment to application No. 18/277,702 filed on 05/26/2026.
3. Claims 1-23 were previously cancelled.
Claims 24, 26, 37, 38 and 41 have been amended.
Claims 24-45 now remain pending.
Claims 24 and 37 are independent claims.
Specification Objection
4. Prior objection is overcome by specification modifications.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
5. Prior objection is circumvented by claim amendments.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to newly amended independent claims 24 and 37, claims 25-36 and 38-45 on pages 12-22 of the response have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection - see Lawson (Art of record) and Narayanan (Art newly made of record) as applied below, as they further teach such use. Moreover, Examiner respectfully reminds the applicant that "during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow". (MPEP 2111.01 [R-5] I)
Applicant contends with respect to claims 24 and 37 (p. 13, 3rd para. – p. 15, 4th para.) that “in other words, the computer program itself does not leave the premises and is not transferred into the cloud” and “It is clear that the relied upon paragraph [0041] of Lawson is replete with references to applications and search criteria being sent and received via the cloud, which is excluded by the claim language” - (p. 14, 2nd para., p. 15, 4th para.). Examiner respectfully disagrees, as an initial matter, with respect to claims 24 and 37, Lawson is not relied upon for such limitations; rather Narayanan is cited as disclosing such limitations. Moreover, the features with respect to which the Applicant relied upon (i.e. “the computer program itself does not leave the premises and is not transferred into the cloud”) is not recited in the rejected claims (emphasis added). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant contends with respect to claims 24 and 37 (p. 15, last para. – p. 16, 2nd para.) that “Applicant respectfully notes that paragraph [0008] of Lawson has nothing to do with the claimed ‘such that during the interaction the management component defines an allowed Installation context having rules to control which computer programs are allowed to be installed on the one or more industrial devices… Determining ‘potential relevance’ is simply not ‘such that during the interaction the management component defines an allowed Installation context having rules to control which computer programs are allowed to be installed on the one or more industrial devices’". Examiner respectfully disagrees, Lawson teaches such use at/on: (p. 1, [0008]), “in another aspect, the industrial application provisioning system can search for or filter applications in the cloud-based library based on contextual data obtained from the client”. Filtering is very much the same as an interaction, and it’s inherent that such filtering implies that rules are invoked to determine which applications to install and which application not to install.
Applicant contends with respect to claims 24 and 37 (p. 16, last para. – p. 17, 1st para.) that “Lawson merely describes a matching of search criteria and delivering the identified applications to the originator of the search request, which is simply not ‘such that during the interaction the management component defines an allowed Installation context having rules to control which computer programs are allowed to be installed on the one or more industrial devices’”. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Lawson teaches such use at/on: (p. 1, [0008]), “in another aspect, the industrial application provisioning system can search for or filter applications in the cloud-based library based on contextual data obtained from the client” (emphasis added). Filtering is very much the same as an interaction, and it’s inherent that such filtering implies that rules are invoked to determine which applications to install and which application not to install.
Applicant contends with respect to claims 24 and 37 (p. 17, 2nd para.) that “the abstract of Lawson also has nothing to do with the claimed ‘such that during the interaction the management component defines an allowed Installation context having rules to control which computer programs are allowed to be installed on the one or more industrial devices’". Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the abstract of Lawson alone isn’t relied upon to teach such limitations.
Applicant contends with respect to claims 24 and 37 (p. 17, 3rd para.) that “Applicant respectfully believes that paragraphs [0008 and 41] and the abstract of Lawson fail to provide a proper basis of anticipation for the claimed ‘such that during the interaction the management component defines an allowed Installation context having rules to control which computer programs are allowed to be installed on the one or more industrial devices’". Examiner respectfully disagrees, as noted above and below, Lawson teaches such use at/on: (p. 1, [0008]), “in another aspect, the industrial application provisioning system can search for or filter applications in the cloud-based library based on contextual data obtained from the client” (emphasis added). Filtering is very much the same as an interaction, and it’s inherent that such filtering implies that rules are invoked to determine which applications to install and which application not to install.
Applicant contends with respect to claims 24 and 37 (p. 17, 4th para.) that “the Examiner's conclusion is incorrectly directed to ‘rules’ and does not even come close to addressing the claimed ‘such that during the interaction the management component defines an allowed Installation context having rules to control which computer programs are allowed to be installed on the one or more industrial devices’". Examiner respectfully disagrees, Lawson teaches such use at/on: (p. 12, [0101]), see "a library of stored industrial applications is filtered according to the received search criteria. The stored industrial applications can be cataloged in the library according to an industry-specific classification hierarchy, as described in previous examples, and the industrial application provisioning system can filter the stored applications to identify a subset of industrial applications matching the received search criteria. At 1406, a selection of one of the filtered industrial applications is received from the client device, where the selection indicates that the identified industrial application is to be made available for use by a user of the client device or an industrial enterprise with which the user is affiliated" (emphasis added). Applicant should indicate why such filtered applications made available to industrial client devices, isn’t very much the same as such context rules for allowable computer program that are allowed to be installed on the industrial devices.
Applicant contends with respect to claims 24 and 37 (p. 18, 1st para.- p. 19, 2nd para.) that “Applicant respectfully notes that paragraph [0008] of Lawson has nothing to do with the claimed ‘to authorize Installation of the at least one computer program on the one or more Industrial devices only within the scope of the allowed installation context’. Paragraph [0008] of Lawson merely describes a search or filtering of applications in the cloud-based library based on contextual data obtained from the client, in order to select a subset of industrial applications determined to be of potential relevance to the customer's automation system. Determining ‘potential relevance’ is simply not an authorization to install at least one computer program on the one or more Industrial devices only within the scope of the allowed installation context”. Examiner respectfully disagrees; Lawson teaches more than just such “potential relevance”. Lawson teaches the application of filter/rules to determine installable application on industrial devices at/on: (p. 12, [0101]), see “the industrial application provisioning system can filter the stored applications to identify a subset of industrial applications matching the received search criteria. At 1406, a selection of one of the filtered industrial applications is received from the client device, where the selection indicates that the identified industrial application is to be made available for use by a user of the client device or an industrial enterprise with which the user is affiliated" (emphasis added). Applicant should indicate why such filtered applications made available to industrial client devices, aren’t very much the same as such context rules for allowable computer program that are allowed to be installed on the industrial devices.
Applicant contends with respect to claims 24 and 37 (p. 19, 3rd para.) that “Applicant respectfully notes that paragraph [0008] of Lawson has nothing to do with the claimed ‘to authorize Installation of the at least one computer program on the one or more Industrial devices only within the scope of the allowed installation context’”. Examiner respectfully disagrees; as noted above Lawson teaches such use at/on: (p. 12, [0101]), see “the industrial application provisioning system can filter the stored applications to identify a subset of industrial applications matching the received search criteria. At 1406, a selection of one of the filtered industrial applications is received from the client device, where the selection indicates that the identified industrial application is to be made available for use by a user of the client device or an industrial enterprise with which the user is affiliated" (emphasis added). Applicant should indicate why such filtered applications made available to industrial client devices, aren’t very much the same as such authorization context rules for allowable computer program that are allowed to be installed on the industrial devices.
Applicant contends with respect to claims 24 and 37 (p. 19, last para. – p. 20, 2nd para.) that “first of all, the Examiner's conclusion is incorrectly directed to ‘rules’ and does not even come close to addressing the claimed ‘to authorize Installation of the at least one computer program on the one or more Industrial devices only within the scope of the allowed installation context’. Therefore, Lawson fails to provide a proper basis of anticipation for this portion of the claims… Lawson fails to describe each and every element as set forth in the claims, Lawson fails to properly anticipate this portion of the claims”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Applicant has not indicated why Lason fails to describe each and every element of the claims. Applicant should indicate why such filtered applications made available to industrial client devices, aren’t very much the same as such authorization context rules for allowable computer program that are allowed to be installed on the industrial devices.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 24, 25 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawson in view of Narayanan et al., U.S. Patent No. 9,602,514 (hereinafter Narayanan).
In regards to claim 24, Lawson teaches:
A system, comprising: an industrial facility comprising a first memory that stores first machine-executable components, and a first processor that is operatively coupled to the first memory, and Is designed to execute the first machine-executable components, wherein the first machine-executable components comprise a cloud connectivity component (Fig. 1, see Industrial Facility, Client Device 116, Cloud interface 11, Generic Internet, Cloud Platform 102, Industrial Application Provisioning System 104), (Fig. 2, Interface component 210, Cloud Interface 224, Cloud Interface 226), [0036], see “client device can access the industrial application provisioning system 104 and associated cloud-based services via a cloud interface 114, which can be internal to the client device 116 or a separate cloud gateway communicatively connected to the client device 116”), [0039], see “an interface component 210, in some embodiments, components 204, 206, 208, 210, 212, and 214 can comprise software instructions stored on memory 218 and executed by processor(s) 216”) and (p. 12, [0105], see “embodiments, systems, and components described herein, as well as industrial control systems and industrial automation environments in which various aspects set forth in the subject specification can be carried out, can include computer... Computers and servers include one or more processors—electronic integrated circuits that perform logic operations employing electric signals—configured to execute instructions stored in media such as random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), a hard drives, as well as removable memory devices, which can include memory sticks, memory cards, flash drives, external hard drives, and so on”) (emphasis added). Such separate cloud interface is very much the same as such first machine-executable component.
a cloud platform comprising a second memory that stores second machine-executable components, and a second processor that is operatively coupled to the second memory, and is designed to execute the second machine-executable components (Fig. 1, see Industrial Facility, Client Device 116, Cloud interface 11, Generic Internet, Cloud Platform 102, Industrial Application Provisioning System 104), (Fig. 2, Industrial Application Provisioning System 202, Interface component 210, Cloud Interface 224, Cloud Interface 226), and (Abstract, see “a cloud-based industrial application provisioning system is provided…. A search engine allows a user to access the cloud platform and search for a desired industrial application. The library's hierarchical catalog allows the user to search for applications according to industry type, equipment in use, automation system type, or other suitable criteria”). Such Industrial Application Provisioning System is very much the same as such second machine-executable components comprise a management component.
the second machine-executable components comprise a management component that is part of an entity that produces one or more industrial devices that reside at the industrial facility (Fig. 2, Industrial Application Provisioning System 202, Interface component 210, Cloud Interface 224, Cloud Interface 226), (Fig. 1, see Industrial Facility, Client Device 116, Cloud interface 11, Generic Internet, Cloud Platform 102, Industrial Application Provisioning System 104), and (Abstract, see “a cloud-based industrial application provisioning system is provided…. A search engine allows a user to access the cloud platform and search for a desired industrial application. The library's hierarchical catalog allows the user to search for applications according to industry type, equipment in use, automation system type, or other suitable criteria”). Such Industrial Application Provisioning System is very much the same as such second machine-executable components comprise a management component.
the cloud connectivity component is designed to receive and store at least one computer program to be installed on the one or more industrial devices (Abstract, see “a cloud-based industrial application provisioning system is provided… Application developers can publish industrial applications to an application library on the cloud platform, where the application is cataloged within an industry-specific search hierarchy. A search engine allows a user to access the cloud platform and search for a desired industrial application”) and (p. 1, [0009], see “in one or more embodiments, the cloud-based provisioning system can download selected applications to an end user's local cloud-capable device”). Such “can publish industrial applications to an application library on the cloud platform” is very much the same as such cloud connectivity component is designed to receive and store at least one computer program.
the cloud connectivity component and the management component are designed to interact with one another (Fig. 1, see bi-directional process arrow flow from Industrial Application Provisioning System 104, Cloud Interface 114, Client device 116, Industrial Facility).
such that during an interaction the management component defines an allowed Installation context having rules to control which computer programs are allowed to be installed on the one or more industrial devices (p. 1, [0008], see “in another aspect, the industrial application provisioning system can search for or filter applications in the cloud-based library based on contextual data obtained from the client”), (p. 4, [0041], see “retrieval component 208 can retrieve the subset of industrial applications identified by the search component 206 and deliver the identified applications to the originator of the search request. This can include sending the industrial applications to the requesting client device 222 over the cloud platform or sending only a set of indicators identifying the subset of industrial applications”) and (Abstract, see “a cloud-based industrial application provisioning system is provided. The industrial application provisioning system can reside on a cloud platform and be made available to developers and end users with access privileges to the cloud platform... the application is cataloged within an industry-specific search hierarchy... library's hierarchical catalog allows the user to search for applications according to industry type, equipment in use, automation system type, or other suitable criteria”) (emphasis added). It is noted that the only applications allowed are filtered applications, hence such filters are very much the same as such rules.
the rules comprising as conditions at least: a unique identifier of the at least one computer program and a unique identifier of an origin of the at least one computer program and a requested installation target Information for the at least one computer program (p. 4, [0041], see “this can include sending the industrial applications to the requesting client device 222 over the cloud platform, or sending only a set of indicators identifying the subset of industrial applications”), (p. 10, [0092], see “records in subscribers database 1106 can include, for example, a user identifier, an industrial application identifier, a preferred notification method (e.g., email, text message, voice message, etc.”), and any other suitable subscription information”) and (p. 9, [0083], see “the industrial application provisioning system can infer at least a portion of the application search criteria based in part on extrinsic data read from the user's existing control system. For example, certain control data structures, code segments, or HMI graphical elements may suggest that the user's existing system relates to a particular industry or type of industrial system or may help to identify particular devices or equipment in use at the industrial facility”) (emphasis added). Such indicators identifying the subset of industrial applications is very much the same as such computer program identifier, such industrial application identifier is very much the same as such origin, and such identify particular devices or equipment is very much the same as such target information.
to authorize Installation of the at least one computer program on the one or more Industrial devices only within a scope of the allowed installation context (p. 1, [0008], see “in another aspect, the industrial application provisioning system can search for or filter applications in the cloud-based library based on contextual data obtained from the client”), (p. 4, [0041], see “retrieval component 208 can retrieve the subset of industrial applications identified by the search component 206 and deliver the identified applications to the originator of the search request. This can include sending the industrial applications to the requesting client device 222 over the cloud platform, or sending only a set of indicators identifying the subset of industrial applications”) and (Abstract, see “a cloud-based industrial application provisioning system is provided. The industrial application provisioning system can reside on a cloud platform and be made available to developers and end users with access privileges to the cloud platform... the application is cataloged within an industry-specific search hierarchy... library's hierarchical catalog allows the user to search for applications according to industry type, equipment in use, automation system type, or other suitable criteria”) (emphasis added). It is noted that the only applications allowed are filtered applications, hence such filters are very much the same as such rules.
Lawson doesn’t explicitly teach:
the interaction excludes sending the at least one computer program from the cloud connectivity component to the management component.
However, Narayanan teaches such use: (Fig. 4), see “MDM Provider Platform & Servers(s) 430, Device (or Client) 415, Network 450, Public App Store(s) 440, Managed Application 446) and (column 16, lines 23-32), see “at 1030, the MDM server installs the application on the mobile device. As discussed herein, the MDM can push the application and verification payload to a device and/or direct the push of the applications and/or verification payload from the public store. The verification payload includes the {ManagementID} and {PublicID} values. In some embodiments, e.g., iOS operating systems, MDM API can be used to install the application. In other embodiments, e.g., Android operating systems, the user can be directed to the Playstore to install the application for MDM” (emphasis added).
Lawson and Narayanan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software installation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of Lawson and Narayanan before him or her, to modify the system of Lawson to include the teachings of Narayanan, as a system for enterprise mobility management, and accordingly it would enhance the system of Lawson, which is focused on a system for an industrial app store, because that would provide Lawson with the ability to help to create and maintain various versions of applications, as suggested by Narayanan (column 16, lines 23-32, column 23, lines 20-31).
In regards to claim 25, Lawson teaches:
the management component is designed to define the allowed installation context in response to data associated with an intended installation context provided by the cloud connectivity component to the management component (Fig. 1, see “Cloud Platgform 102, Industrial Application Provisioning System 104”) and (p. 1, [0008], see “in another aspect, the industrial application provisioning system can search for or filter applications in the cloud-based library based on contextual data obtained from the client”) (emphasis added).
In regards to claim 37, Lawson teaches:
A method, comprising: receiving and storing, by a cloud connectivity component that resides at an industrial facility, at least one computer program to be installed on one or more industrial devices that reside at the industrial facility (Abstract, see “a cloud-based industrial application provisioning system is provided… Application developers can publish industrial applications to an application library on the cloud platform, where the application is cataloged within an industry-specific search hierarchy. A search engine allows a user to access the cloud platform and search for a desired industrial application”) and (p. 1, [0009], see “in one or more embodiments, the cloud-based provisioning system can download selected applications to an end user's local cloud-capable device”). Such “can publish industrial applications to an application library on the cloud platform” is very much the same as such cloud connectivity component is designed to receive and store at least one computer program.
the cloud connectivity component interacting with a management component, which is part of an entity that produced the one or more industrial devices, such that during an interaction of the cloud connectivity component, the management component defines an allowed installation context comprising rules that control which computer programs are allowed to be installed on the one or more industrial devices (p. 1, [0008], see “in another aspect, the industrial application provisioning system can search for or filter applications in the cloud-based library based on contextual data obtained from the client”), (p. 4, [0041], see “retrieval component 208 can retrieve the subset of industrial applications identified by the search component 206 and deliver the identified applications to the originator of the search request. This can include sending the industrial applications to the requesting client device 222 over the cloud platform, or sending only a set of indicators identifying the subset of industrial applications”) and (Abstract, see “a cloud-based industrial application provisioning system is provided. The industrial application provisioning system can reside on a cloud platform and be made available to developers and end users with access privileges to the cloud platform... the application is cataloged within an industry-specific search hierarchy... library's hierarchical catalog allows the user to search for applications according to industry type, equipment in use, automation system type, or other suitable criteria”) (emphasis added). It is noted that the only applications allowed are filtered applications, hence such filters are very much the same as such rules.
the rules comprising as conditions at least: a unique identifier of the at least one computer program and a unique identifier of an origin of the at least one computer program and a requested installation target information for the at least one computer program (p. 4, [0041], see “this can include sending the industrial applications to the requesting client device 222 over the cloud platform, or sending only a set of indicators identifying the subset of industrial applications”), (p. 10, [0092], see “records in subscribers database 1106 can include, for example, a user identifier, an industrial application identifier, a preferred notification method (e.g., email, text message, voice message, etc.”), and any other suitable subscription information”) and (p. 9, [0083], see “the industrial application provisioning system can infer at least a portion of the application search criteria based in part on extrinsic data read from the user's existing control system. For example, certain control data structures, code segments, or HMI graphical elements may suggest that the user's existing system relates to a particular industry or type of industrial system, or may help to identify particular devices or equipment in use at the industrial facility”) (emphasis added). Such indicators identifying the subset of industrial applications is very much the same as such computer program identifier, such industrial application identifier is very much the same as such origin, and such identify particular devices or equipment is very much the same as such target information.
authorizes installation of the at least one computer program on the one or more industrial devices only within a scope of the allowed installation context (p. 1, [0008], see “in another aspect, the industrial application provisioning system can search for or filter applications in the cloud-based library based on contextual data obtained from the client”), (p. 4, [0041], see “retrieval component 208 can retrieve the subset of industrial applications identified by the search component 206 and deliver the identified applications to the originator of the search request. This can include sending the industrial applications to the requesting client device 222 over the cloud platform, or sending only a set of indicators identifying the subset of industrial applications”) and (Abstract, see “a cloud-based industrial application provisioning system is provided. The industrial application provisioning system can reside on a cloud platform and be made available to developers and end users with access privileges to the cloud platform... the application is cataloged within an industry-specific search hierarchy... library's hierarchical catalog allows the user to search for applications according to industry type, equipment in use, automation system type, or other suitable criteria”) (emphasis added). It is noted that the only applications allowed are filtered applications, hence such filters are very much the same as such rules.
Lawson doesn’t explicitly teach:
the interaction excludes sending the at least one computer program from the cloud connectivity component to the management component.
However, Narayanan teaches such use: (Fig. 4), see “MDM Provider Platform & Servers(s) 430, Device (or Client) 415, Network 450, Public App Store(s) 440, Managed Application 446) and (column 16, lines 23-32), see “at 1030, the MDM server installs the application on the mobile device. As discussed herein, the MDM can push the application and verification payload to a device and/or direct the push of the applications and/or verification payload from the public store. The verification payload includes the {ManagementID} and {PublicID} values. In some embodiments, e.g., iOS operating systems, MDM API can be used to install the application. In other embodiments, e.g., Android operating systems, the user can be directed to the Playstore to install the application for MDM” (emphasis added).
Lawson and Narayanan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software installation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of Lawson and Narayanan before him or her, to modify the system of Lawson to include the teachings of Narayanan, as a system for enterprise mobility management, and accordingly it would enhance the system of Lawson, which is focused on a system for an industrial app store, because that would provide Lawson with the ability to help to create and maintain various versions of applications, as suggested by Narayanan (column 16, lines 23-32, column 23, lines 20-31).
9. Claims 26, 27, 29-33, 35, 36, 38, 39 and 41-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawson in view of Narayanan in view of Kravitz et al., US 20170279620 (hereinafter Kravitz) in view of Carbajal et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,560,706 (hereinafter Carbajal).
In regards to claims 24, the rejections above are incorporated respectively.
In regards to claim 26, Lawson teaches:
the cloud connectivity component is designed to control connectivity between the one or more industrial devices and the cloud-platform (p. 3, [0036], see “client device can access the industrial application provisioning system 104 and associated cloud-based services via a cloud interface 114, which can be internal to the client device 116 or a separate cloud gateway communicatively connected to the client device 116”).
generate metadata associated with the at least one computer program and with an intended installation of the at least one computer program on the one or more industrial devices (p. 1, [0006], see “a client interface for the provisioning system can allow the developer to associate metadata with the application that can be used by the provisioning system to categorize the application in the library for simplified searching and browsing. In some embodiments, this metadata can specify a particular industry, control system type, device, equipment type, or vendor to which the submitted application relates”) and (p. 1, [0009], see “in one or more embodiments, the cloud-based provisioning system can download selected applications to an end user's local cloud-capable device”).
the management component is designed to receive, at the cloud platform, the installation request from the cloud connectivity component (p. 4, [0043], see “one or more embodiments of the industrial application provisioning system 202 can allow users to subscribe to receive notifications or application updates relating to selected industrial applications or application categories. Accordingly, subscription component 212 can be configured to receive and manage subscription requests from remote clients, and notification component 214 can be configured to deliver notifications to the remote clients when new or updated industrial applications corresponding to the subscription requests become available”).
Lawson and Narayanan, in particular Lawson doesn’t explicitly teach:
sign the metadata with a first private key.
However, Kravitz teaches such use: (p. 8, [0067], see “a first digital certificate is issued to the devices, for example, by a trusted third party, such as an attribute authority (AA”), in block 904”).
receive, from the management component, authorized metadata that are signed with a second private key and are associated with the allowed Installation context of the at least one computer program.
However, Kravitz teaches such use: (p. 5, [0049], see “the security ecosystem verifies that the IoT device client of the… control unit provided an acceptable digital token confirming it uniquely has received the unique ID and /r public key certificate of devices to be trusted. The security ecosystem then creates a message confirming the correct key validation digitally signs it using the private key associated with the public to be trusted, and returns it to the IoT device client of the Brake Control Unit. The veracity of the signed confirmation is verified using the public key to be trusted and the confirmation is complete”).
verify the signed authorized metadata using a second public key, sign the at least one computer program with the second private key.
However, Kravitz teaches such use: (p. 5, [0049], see “the security ecosystem verifies that the IoT device client of the… control unit provided an acceptable digital token confirming it uniquely has received the unique ID and /r public key certificate of devices to be trusted. The security ecosystem then creates a message confirming the correct key validation digitally signs it using the private key associated with the public to be trusted, and returns it to the IoT device client of the Brake Control Unit. The veracity of the signed confirmation is verified using the public key to be trusted and the confirmation is complete”).
verify the signed metadata using a first public key, in response to the Installation request.
However, Kravitz teaches such use: (p. 5, [0049], see “the security ecosystem verifies that the IoT device client of the brake control unit provided an acceptable digital token confirming it uniquely has received the unique ID and /r public key certificate of devices to be trusted. The security ecosystem then creates a message confirming the correct key validation digitally signs it using the private key associated with the public to be trusted, and returns it to the IoT device client of the Brake Control Unit. The veracity of the signed confirmation is verified using the public key to be trusted and the confirmation is complete”).
based on the signed metadata, generate the authorized metadata, sign the authorized metadata using the second private key, and transmit the signed authorized metadata to the cloud connectivity component.
However, Lawson teaches such use: (p. 5, [0049], see “the security ecosystem verifies that the IoT device client of the brake control unit provided an acceptable digital token confirming it uniquely has received the unique ID and /r public key certificate of devices to be trusted. The security ecosystem then creates a message confirming the correct key validation digitally signs it using the private key associated with the public to be trusted, and returns it to the IoT device client of the Brake Control Unit. The veracity of the signed confirmation is verified using the public key to be trusted and the confirmation is complete”).
Lawson, Narayanan, and Kravitz are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software installation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of Lawson, Narayanan and Kravitz before him or her, to modify the system of Lawson and Narayanan, in particular Lawson to include the teachings of Kravitz, as a system for security management, and accordingly it would enhance the system of Lawson, which is focused on a system for an industrial app store, because that would provide Lawson with the ability to protecting, controlling and managing the IoT devices which are typically manufactured by third-parties, as suggested by Kravitz (p. 2, [0022], p. 8, [0069]).
Lawson, Narayanan, and Kravitz, in particular Lawson doesn’t explicitly teach:
send an installation request containing the signed metadata to the management component.
However, Carbajal teaches such use: (Abstract see “the… image is obtained via a network connection and is checked for integrity and authority to run on a particular platform”) and (column 6, lines 31-39, see “if the digital signature of the received updated request credential verifies using the Boot Object Authorization Certificate for the managed client platform, the update request is accepted. Otherwise, the update request is not accepted. The unique update token and the signed request credential combine to guard against attacks based on capturing and replaying an identical or altered update request to the same or different managed client platforms”).
Lawson, Narayanan, Kravitz and Carbajal are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software installation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of Lawson, Narayanan, Kravitz and Carbajal before him or her, to modify the system of Lawson, Narayanan and Kravitz, in particular Lawson to include the teachings of Carbajal, as an Interface for ensuring system boot image integrity, and accordingly it would enhance the system of Lawson, which is focused on a system for an industrial app store, to ensure integrity of a boot image by checking that the software is free from viruses or has not been tampered with before or during download as well as authenticity as suggested by Carbajal (column 6, lines 31-39, column 10, lines 53-59).
In regards to claim 27, Lawson teaches:
the cloud connectivity component is designed to transmit the signed at least one computer program and the signed authorized metadata to the one or more industrial devices, on which the at least one computer program is to be Installed (p. 4, [0046], see “the application libraries 310 can also store certified code (e.g., for safety-related industrial applications) and secure application code that has been digitally signed to ensure authenticity”) and (p. 1, [0009], see “in one or more embodiments, the cloud-based provisioning system can download selected applications to an end user's local cloud-capable device”).
Install the at least one computer program on the one or more industrial devices according to the allowed installation context (p. 1, [0008], see “in another aspect, the industrial application provisioning system can search for or filter applications in the cloud-based library based on contextual data obtained from the client”), (p. 4, [0041], see “retrieval component 208 can retrieve the subset of industrial applications identified by the search component 206 and deliver the identified applications to the originator of the search request. This can include sending the industrial applications to the requesting client device 222 over the cloud platform, or sending only a set of indicators identifying the subset of industrial applications”) and (Abstract, see “a cloud-based industrial application provisioning system is provided. The industrial application provisioning system can reside on a cloud platform and be made available to developers and end users with access privileges to the cloud platform... the application is cataloged within an industry-specific search hierarchy... library's hierarchical catalog allows the user to search for applications according to industry type, equipment in use, automation system type, or other suitable criteria”) (emphasis added). It is noted that the only applications allowed are filtered applications, hence such filters are very much the same as such rules.
In regards to claim 29, Lawson teaches:
the cloud connectivity component and the management component are designed to interact with one another such that during the interaction, the management component also defines an allowed runtime context of the at least one computer program (p. 1, [0008], see “in another aspect, the industrial application provisioning system can search for or filter applications in the cloud-based library based on contextual data obtained from the client”), (p. 4, [0041], see “retrieval component 208 can retrieve the subset of industrial applications identified by the search component 206 and deliver the identified applications to the originator of the search request. This can include sending the industrial applications to the requesting client device 222 over the cloud platform, or sending only a set of indicators identifying the subset of industrial applications”) and (Abstract, see “a cloud-based industrial application provisioning system is provided. The industrial application provisioning system can reside on a cloud platform and be made available to developers and end users with access privileges to the cloud platform... the application is cataloged within an industry-specific search hierarchy... library's hierarchical catalog allows the user to search for applications according to industry type, equipment in use, automation system type, or other suitable criteria”) (emphasis added). It is noted that the only applications allowed are filtered applications, hence such filters are very much the same as such rules.
authorizes execution of the at least one computer program on the one or more industrial devices only within the scope of the allowed runtime context (p. 1, [0008], see “in another aspect, the industrial application provisioning system can search for or filter applications in the cloud-based library based on contextual data obtained from the client”), (p. 4, [0041], see “retrieval component 208 can retrieve the subset of industrial applications identified by the search component 206 and deliver the identified applications to the originator of the search request. This can include sending the industrial applications to the requesting client device 222 over the cloud platform, or sending only a set of indicators identifying the subset of industrial applications”) and (Abstract, see “a cloud-based industrial application provisioning system is provided. The industrial application provisioning system can reside on a cloud platform and be made available to developers and end users with access privileges to the cloud platform... the application is cataloged within an industry-specific search hierarchy... library's hierarchical catalog allows the user to search for applications according to industry type, equipment in use, automation system type, or other suitable criteria”) (emphasis added). It is noted that the only applications allowed are filtered applications, hence such filters are very much the same as such rules.
In regards to claim 30, Lawson teaches:
the first machine-executable components comprise a runtime enforcement component designed to while the at least one computer program is executed on the one or more industrial devices, enforce the at least one computer program to adhere to the allowed runtime context (p. 1, [0008], see “in another aspect, the industrial application provisioning system can search for or filter applications in the cloud-based library based on contextual data obtained from the client”), (p. 4, [0041], see “retrieval component 208 can retrieve the subset of industrial applications identified by the search component 206 and deliver the identified applications to the originator of the search request. This can include sending the industrial applications to the requesting client device 222 over the cloud platform, or sending only a set of indicators identifying the subset of industrial applications”) and (Abstract, see “a cloud-based industrial application provisioning system is provided. The industrial application provisioning system can reside on a cloud platform and be made available to developers and end users with access privileges to the cloud platform... the application is cataloged within an industry-specific search hierarchy... library's hierarchical catalog allows the user to search for applications according to industry type, equipment in use, automation system type, or other suitable criteria”) (emphasis added). It is noted that the only applications allowed are filtered applications, hence such filters are very much the same as such rules.
In regards to claim 31, Lawson and Narayanan, in particular Lawson doesn’t explicitly teach:
the at least one computer program is signed by a third party's private key, said cloud connectivity component being designed to verify a signature of the at least one computer program using a third party's public key.
However, Kravitz teaches such use: (p. 2, [0022], see “the security ecosystem of the disclosed invention provides many of the above mentioned capabilities through the use of a central server configured with one or more of an attribute authority (AA”) acting as a trusted third party mediating service provider by using one or more of a public key infrastructure (PKI”), including one or more of a certification authority, registration authority, hardware security module (HSM”), validation authority (VA, possibly by online certificate status protocol, OCSP, or certificate revocation list, CRL”), a privilege management infrastructure (PMI”), virtual network protocol (VPN”) technology, device-side client applications, cloud hosting, authentication and light active directory access protocol (LADP)” and (p. 5, [0049], see “the security ecosystem verifies that the IoT device client of the brake control unit provided an acceptable digital token confirming it uniquely has received the unique ID and /r public key certificate of devices to be trusted. The security ecosystem then creates a message confirming the correct key validation digitally signs it using the private key associated with the public to be trusted, and returns it to the IoT device client of the Brake Control Unit. The veracity of the signed confirmation is verified using the public key to be trusted and the confirmation is complete”).
Lawson, Narayanan,and Kravitz are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software installation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of Lawson, Narayanan and Kravitz before him or her, to modify the system of Lawson and Narayanan, in particular Lawson to include the teachings of Kravitz, as a system for security management, and accordingly it would enhance the system of Lawson, which is focused on a system for an industrial app store, because that would provide Lawson with the ability to protecting, controlling and managing the IoT devices which are typically manufactured by third-parties, as suggested by Kravitz (p. 2, [0022], p. 8, [0069]).
In regards to claim 32, Lawson teaches:
the cloud connectivity component is designed to store the at least one computer program in the first memory (Abstract, see “a cloud-based industrial application provisioning system is provided…. Application developers can publish industrial applications to an application library on the cloud platform, where the application is cataloged within an industry-specific search hierarchy. A search engine allows a user to access the cloud platform and search for a desired industrial application”) and (p. 1, [0009], see “in one or more embodiments, the cloud-based provisioning system can download selected applications to an end user's local cloud-capable device”). Such “can publish industrial applications to an application library on the cloud platform” is very much the same as such cloud connectivity component is designed to receive and store at least one computer program.
In regards to claim 33, Lawson teaches:
a cloud agent device, said cloud connectivity component being designed as a software component that resides at the cloud agent device (Abstract, see “a cloud-based industrial application provisioning system is provided…. Application developers can publish industrial applications to an application library on the cloud platform, where the application is cataloged within an industry-specific search hierarchy. A search engine allows a user to access the cloud platform and search for a desired industrial application”) and (p. 1, [0009], see “in one or more embodiments, the cloud-based provisioning system can download selected applications to an end user's local cloud-capable device”). Such “can publish industrial applications to an application library on the cloud platform” is very much the same as such cloud connectivity component is designed to receive and store at least one computer program.
In regards to claim 35, Lawson teaches:
the management component is designed to store the allowed installation context (p. 1, [0008], see “in another aspect, the industrial application provisioning system can search for or filter applications in the cloud-based library based on contextual data obtained from the client”), (p. 4, [0041], see “retrieval component 208 can retrieve the subset of industrial applications identified by the search component 206 and deliver the identified applications to the originator of the search request. This can include sending the industrial applications to the requesting client device 222 over the cloud platform, or sending only a set of indicators identifying the subset of industrial applications”) and (Abstract, see “a cloud-based industrial application provisioning system is provided. The industrial application provisioning system can reside on a cloud platform and be made available to developers and end users with access privileges to the cloud platform... the application is cataloged within an industry-specific search hierarchy... library's hierarchical catalog allows the user to search for applications according to industry type, equipment in use, automation system type, or other suitable criteria”) (emphasis added). It is noted that the only applications allowed are filtered applications, hence such filters are very much the same as such rules.
In regards to claim 36, Lawson and Narayanan, in particular Lawson doesn’t explicitly teach:
the at least one computer program is signed by a third party's private key and the cloud connectivity component is designed to verify the signature of the at least one computer program using a third party's public key.
However, Kravitz teaches such use: (p. 2, [0022], see “the security ecosystem of the disclosed invention provides many of the above mentioned capabilities through the use of a central server configured with one or more of an attribute authority (AA”) acting as a trusted third party mediating service provider by using one or more of a public key infrastructure (PKI”), including one or more of a certification authority, registration authority, hardware security module (HSM”), validation authority (VA, possibly by online certificate status protocol, OCSP, or certificate revocation list, CRL”), a privilege management infrastructure (PMI”), virtual network protocol (VPN”) technology, device-side client applications, cloud hosting, authentication and light active directory access protocol (LADP)” and (p. 5, [0049], see “the security ecosystem verifies that the IoT device client of the brake control unit provided an acceptable digital token confirming it uniquely has received the unique ID and /r public key certificate of devices to be trusted. The security ecosystem then creates a message confirming the correct key validation digitally signs it using the private key associated with the public to be trusted, and returns it to the IoT device client of the Brake Control Unit. The veracity of the signed confirmation is verified using the public key to be trusted and the confirmation is complete”).
Lawson, Narayanan,and Kravitz are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software installation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of Lawson, Narayanan and Kravitz before him or her, to modify the system of Lawson and Narayanan, in particular Lawson to include the teachings of Kravitz, as a system for security management, and accordingly it would enhance the system of Lawson, which is focused on a system for an industrial app store, because that would provide Lawson with the ability to protecting, controlling and managing the IoT devices which are typically manufactured by third-parties, as suggested by Kravitz (p. 2, [0022], p. 8, [0069]).
In regards to claim 38, Lawson teaches:
the interacting comprises (p. 3, [0036], see “client device can access the industrial application provisioning system 104 and associated cloud-based services via a cloud interface 114, which can be internal to the client device 116 or a separate cloud gateway communicatively connected to the client device 116”).
generating, by the cloud connectivity component, metadata associated with the at least one computer program and the installation on the one or more industrial devices (p. 1, [0006], see “a client interface for the provisioning system can allow the developer to associate metadata with the application that can be used by the provisioning system to categorize the application in the library for simplified searching and browsing. In some embodiments, this metadata can specify a particular industry, control system type, device, equipment type, or vendor to which the submitted application relates”) and (p. 1, [0009], see “in one or more embodiments, the cloud-based provisioning system can download selected applications to an end user's local cloud-capable device”).
receiving from the management component, by the cloud connectivity component, the signed authorized metadata (p. 4, [0046], see “the application libraries 310 can also store certified code (e.g., for safety-related industrial applications) and secure application code that has been digitally signed to ensure authenticity”) and (p. 1, [0009], see “in one or more embodiments, the cloud-based provisioning system can download selected applications to an end user's local cloud-capable device”).
Lawson and Narayanan, in particular Lawson doesn’t explicitly teach:
signing, by the cloud connectivity component, the metadata with a first private key.
However, Kravitz teaches such use: (p. 8, [0067], see “a first digital certificate is issued to the devices, for example, by a trusted third party, such as an attribute authority (AA”), in block 904”).
verifying, by the management component, the signed metadata using a first public key.
However, Kravitz teaches such use: (p. 5, [0049], see “the security ecosystem verifies that the IoT device client of the brake control unit provided an acceptable digital token confirming it uniquely has received the unique ID and /r public key certificate of devices to be trusted. The security ecosystem then creates a message confirming the correct key validation digitally signs it using the private key associated with the public to be trusted, and returns it to the IoT device client of the Brake Control Unit. The veracity of the signed confirmation is verified using the public key to be trusted and the confirmation is complete”).
in response to the installation request and based on the signed metadata, generating, by the management component, authorized metadata associated with the allowed installation context of the at least one computer program.
However, Kravitz teaches such use: (p. 5, [0049], see “the security ecosystem verifies that the IoT device client of the brake control unit provided an acceptable digital token confirming it uniquely has received the unique ID and /r public key certificate of devices to be trusted. The security ecosystem then creates a message confirming the correct key validation digitally signs it using the private key associated with the public to be trusted, and returns it to the IoT device client of the Brake Control Unit. The veracity of the signed confirmation is verified using the public key to be trusted and the confirmation is complete”).
signing, by the management component, the authorized metadata with a second private key.
However, Kravitz teaches such use: (p. 5, [0049], see “the security ecosystem verifies that the IoT device client of the… control unit provided an acceptable digital token confirming it uniquely has received the unique ID and /r public key certificate of devices to be trusted. The security ecosystem then creates a message confirming the correct key validation digitally signs it using the private key associated with the public to be trusted, and returns it to the IoT device client of the Brake Control Unit. The veracity of the signed confirmation is verified using the public key to be trusted and the confirmation is complete”).
transmitting, by the management component, the signed authorized metadata to the cloud connectivity component.
However, Kravitz teaches such use: (p. 5, [0049], see “the security ecosystem verifies that the IoT device client of the brake control unit provided an acceptable digital token confirming it uniquely has received the unique ID and /r public key certificate of devices to be trusted. The security ecosystem then creates a message confirming the correct key validation digitally signs it using the private key associated with the public to be trusted, and returns it to the IoT device client of the Brake Control Unit. The veracity of the signed confirmation is verified using the public key to be trusted and the confirmation is complete”).
verifying, by the cloud connectivity component, the signed authorized metadata using a second public key, and signing, by the cloud connectivity component, the at least one computer program with the second private key.
However, Kravitz teaches such use: (p. 5, [0049], see “the security ecosystem verifies that the IoT device client of the… control unit provided an acceptable digital token confirming it uniquely has received the unique ID and /r public key certificate of devices to be trusted. The security ecosystem then creates a message confirming the correct key validation digitally signs it using the private key associated with the public to be trusted, and returns it to the IoT device client of the Brake Control Unit. The veracity of the signed confirmation is verified using the public key to be trusted and the confirmation is complete”).
Lawson, Narayanan,and Kravitz are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software installation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of Lawson, Narayanan and Kravitz before him or her, to modify the system of Lawson and Narayanan, in particular Lawson to include the teachings of Kravitz, as a system for security management, and accordingly it would enhance the system of Lawson, which is focused on a system for an industrial app store, because that would provide Lawson with the ability to protecting, controlling and managing the IoT devices which are typically manufactured by third-parties, as suggested by Kravitz (p. 2, [0022], p. 8, [0069]).
Lawson, Narayanan and Kravitz, in particular Lawson doesn’t explicitly teach:
sending, by the cloud connectivity component, to the management component an installation request which contains the signed metadata, receiving, by the management component, the installation request from the cloud connectivity component.
However, Carbajal teaches such use: (Abstract see “the… image is obtained via a network connection and is checked for integrity and authority to run on a particular platform”) and (column 6, lines 31-39, see “if the digital signature of the received updated request credential verifies using the Boot Object Authorization Certificate for the managed client platform, the update request is accepted. Otherwise, the update request is not accepted. The unique update token and the signed request credential combine to guard against attacks based on capturing and replaying an identical or altered update request to the same or different managed client platforms”).
Lawson, Narayanan, Kravitz and Carbajal are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software installation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of Lawson, Narayanan, Kravitz and Carbajal before him or her, to modify the system of Lawson, Narayanan and Kravitz, in particular Lawson to include the teachings of Carbajal, as an Interface for ensuring system boot image integrity, and accordingly it would enhance the system of Lawson, which is focused on a system for an industrial app store, to ensure integrity of a boot image by checking that the software is free from viruses or has not been tampered with before or during download as well as authenticity as suggested by Carbajal (column 6, lines 31-39, column 10, lines 53-59).
In regards to claim 39, Lawson teaches:
transmitting, by the cloud connectivity component, the signed at least one computer program and the signed authorized metadata to the one or more industrial devices, on which the at least one computer program is to be installed (p. 4, [0046], see “the application libraries 310 can also store certified code (e.g., for safety-related industrial applications) and secure application code that has been digitally signed to ensure authenticity”) and (p. 1, [0009], see “in one or more embodiments, the cloud-based provisioning system can download selected applications to an end user's local cloud-capable device”).
In regards to claim 41, Lawson teaches:
interacting, by the cloud connectivity component, with a management component such that during the interaction, the management component also defines an allowed runtime context of the at least one computer program (p. 1, [0008], see “in another aspect, the industrial application provisioning system can search for or filter applications in the cloud-based library based on contextual data obtained from the client”), (p. 4, [0041], see “retrieval component 208 can retrieve the subset of industrial applications identified by the search component 206 and deliver the identified applications to the originator of the search request. This can include sending the industrial applications to the requesting client device 222 over the cloud platform, or sending only a set of indicators identifying the subset of industrial applications”) and (Abstract, see “a cloud-based industrial application provisioning system is provided. The industrial application provisioning system can reside on a cloud platform and be made available to developers and end users with access privileges to the cloud platform... the application is cataloged within an industry-specific search hierarchy... library's hierarchical catalog allows the user to search for applications according to industry type, equipment in use, automation system type, or other suitable criteria”) (emphasis added). It is noted that the only applications allowed are filtered applications, hence such filters are very much the same as such rules.
authorizes execution of the at least one computer program on the one or more industrial devices only within the scope of the allowed runtime context (p. 1, [0008], see “in another aspect, the industrial application provisioning system can search for or filter applications in the cloud-based library based on contextual data obtained from the client”), (p. 4, [0041], see “retrieval component 208 can retrieve the subset of industrial applications identified by the search component 206 and deliver the identified applications to the originator of the search request. This can include sending the industrial applications to the requesting client device 222 over the cloud platform, or sending only a set of indicators identifying the subset of industrial applications”) and (Abstract, see “a cloud-based industrial application provisioning system is provided. The industrial application provisioning system can reside on a cloud platform and be made available to developers and end users with access privileges to the cloud platform... the application is cataloged within an industry-specific search hierarchy... library's hierarchical catalog allows the user to search for applications according to industry type, equipment in use, automation system type, or other suitable criteria”) (emphasis added). It is noted that the only applications allowed are filtered applications, hence such filters are very much the same as such rules.
In regards to claim 42, Lawson teaches:
while the at least one computer program is executed on the one or more industrial devices, forcing, by a runtime enforcement component that resides at the industrial facility, the at least one computer program to adhere to the allowed runtime context (p. 1, [0008], see “in another aspect, the industrial application provisioning system can search for or filter applications in the cloud-based library based on contextual data obtained from the client”), (p. 4, [0041], see “retrieval component 208 can retrieve the subset of industrial applications identified by the search component 206 and deliver the identified applications to the originator of the search request. This can include sending the industrial applications to the requesting client device 222 over the cloud platform, or sending only a set of indicators identifying the subset of industrial applications”) and (Abstract, see “a cloud-based industrial application provisioning system is provided. The industrial application provisioning system can reside on a cloud platform and be made available to developers and end users with access privileges to the cloud platform... the application is cataloged within an industry-specific search hierarchy... library's hierarchical catalog allows the user to search for applications according to industry type, equipment in use, automation system type, or other suitable criteria”) (emphasis added). It is noted that the only applications allowed are filtered applications, hence such filters are very much the same as such rules.
In regards to claim 43, Lawson teaches:
storing, by the management component, the allowed installation context at the cloud platform (Fig. 1, see “Cloud Platgform 102, Industrial Application Provisioning System 104”) and (p. 1, [0008], see “in another aspect, the industrial application provisioning system can search for or filter applications in the cloud-based library based on contextual data obtained from the client”) (emphasis added).
In regards to claim 44, Lawson teaches:
storing, by the management component, the allowed runtime context or the allowed installation context, or both, at the cloud platform (p. 1, [0008], see “in another aspect, the industrial application provisioning system can search for or filter applications in the cloud-based library based on contextual data obtained from the client”), (p. 4, [0041], see “retrieval component 208 can retrieve the subset of industrial applications identified by the search component 206 and deliver the identified applications to the originator of the search request. This can include sending the industrial applications to the requesting client device 222 over the cloud platform, or sending only a set of indicators identifying the subset of industrial applications”) and (Abstract, see “a cloud-based industrial application provisioning system is provided. The industrial application provisioning system can reside on a cloud platform and be made available to developers and end users with access privileges to the cloud platform... the application is cataloged within an industry-specific search hierarchy... library's hierarchical catalog allows the user to search for applications according to industry type, equipment in use, automation system type, or other suitable criteria”) (emphasis added). It is noted that the only applications allowed are filtered applications, hence such filters are very much the same as such rules.
In regards to claim 45, Lawson and Narayanan, in particular Lawson doesn’t explicitly teach:
signing, by a third party's component that resides neither at the industrial facility nor at the cloud platform, the at least one computer program with a third party's private key, verifying, by the cloud connectivity component, the signature of the at least one computer program using a third party's public key.
However, Kravitz teaches such use: (p. 2, [0022], see “the security ecosystem of the disclosed invention provides many of the above mentioned capabilities through the use of a central server configured with one or more of an attribute authority (AA”) acting as a trusted third party mediating service provider by using one or more of a public key infrastructure (PKI”), including one or more of a certification authority, registration authority, hardware security module (HSM”), validation authority (VA, possibly by online certificate status protocol, OCSP, or certificate revocation list, CRL”), a privilege management infrastructure (PMI”), virtual network protocol (VPN”) technology, device-side client applications, cloud hosting, authentication and light active directory access protocol (LADP)” and (p. 5, [0049], see “the security ecosystem verifies that the IoT device client of the brake control unit provided an acceptable digital token confirming it uniquely has received the unique ID and /r public key certificate of devices to be trusted. The security ecosystem then creates a message confirming the correct key validation digitally signs it using the private key associated with the public to be trusted, and returns it to the IoT device client of the Brake Control Unit. The veracity of the signed confirmation is verified using the public key to be trusted and the confirmation is complete”).
Lawson, Narayanan,and Kravitz are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software installation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of Lawson, Narayanan and Kravitz before him or her, to modify the system of Lawson and Narayanan, in particular Lawson to include the teachings of Kravitz, as a system for security management, and accordingly it would enhance the system of Lawson, which is focused on a system for an industrial app store, because that would provide Lawson with the ability to protecting, controlling and managing the IoT devices which are typically manufactured by third-parties, as suggested by Kravitz (p. 2, [0022], p. 8, [0069]).
10. Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawson in view of Narayanan in view of Lawson et al., US 20130211546 (hereinafter Lawson2).
In regards to claim 24, the rejections above are incorporated respectively.
In regards to claim 34, Lawson and Narayanan, in particular Lawson doesn’t explicitly teach:
the cloud agent device comprises a non-volatile memory designed to store the at least one computer program.
However, Lawson2 teaches such use: (Fig. 2, see Cloud-aware smart device 202, Cloud Interface component 212, Memory 218), (Abstract, see “a cloud-aware smart device that facilitates automated configuration and integration of the device within an automation system is provided. Upon installation within the automation system, the smart device determines its geographical location, identifies other devices on the system, and determines its role within the system. The smart device then establishes communication with a cloud platform running one or more cloud-based applications or services and sends a device profile containing the gathered information to the cloud platform. The device profile can be used to automatically configure the device for operation within the system or to add the smart device to an existing cloud-based application”) and (p. 13, [0106], see the system memory 1516 includes volatile memory 1520 and nonvolatile memory 1522... By way of illustration, and not limitation, nonvolatile “memory 1522 can include read only memory (ROM), programmable ROM (PROM), electrically programmable ROM (EPROM), electrically erasable PROM (EEPROM), or flash memory”).
Lawson, Narayanan and Lawson2 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software installation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of Lawson and Lawson2 before him or her, to modify the system of Lawson to include the teachings of Lawson2, as a smart device for industrial automation, and accordingly it would enhance the system of Lawson, which is focused on a system for an industrial app store, because that would provide Lawson with the ability to send identification and configuration information to the cloud platform to facilitate simplified and automated integration with the larger system as suggested by Lawson2 (p. 13, [0106], p. 14, [0115]).
11. Claims 28 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawson in view of Narayanan in view of Kravitz et al., US 20170279620 (hereinafter Kravitz) in view of Carbajal in view of Oh et al., U.S. Patent No. 10,872,155 (hereinafter Oh).
In regards to claims 24, 26, 37 and 38, the rejections above are incorporated accordingly.
In regards to claim 28, Lawson, Narayanan, Kravitz and Carbajal, in particular Lawson doesn’t explicitly teach:
the first machine-executable components comprise a deployment component designed to verify the signed at least one computer program and the signed authorized metadata using the second public key.
However, Oh teaches such use: (column 20, lines 43-54, see “if the second signature SIG2 is successfully verified, operation S850 is performed. In operation S850, the update manager 31_1 may verify the third signature SIG3 of the third certificate element CER3 of the signed firmware image S_FIMG, by using the second public keys PUBK2 included in the second certificate element CER2 of the signed firmware image S_FIMG”).
Lawson, Narayanan, Kravitz, Carbajal and Oh are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software installation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of Lawson, Narayanan, Kravitz, Carbajal and Oh before him or her, to modify the system of Lawson, Narayanan, Kravitz and Carbajal, in particular Lawson to include the teachings of Oh, as a system for managing firmware, and accordingly it would enhance the system of Lawson, which is focused on a system for an industrial app store, because that would provide Lawson with the ability to increase security when a firmware image is encrypted by using a hardware security module, as suggested by Oh (column 20, lines 43-54, column 21, lines 25-29).
In regards to claim 40, Lawson teaches:
installing and executing, by the deployment component, the at least one computer program on the one or more industrial devices according to the allowed installation context (p. 1, [0008], see “in another aspect, the industrial application provisioning system can search for or filter applications in the cloud-based library based on contextual data obtained from the client”), (p. 4, [0041], see “retrieval component 208 can retrieve the subset of industrial applications identified by the search component 206 and deliver the identified applications to the originator of the search request. This can include sending the industrial applications to the requesting client device 222 over the cloud platform, or sending only a set of indicators identifying the subset of industrial applications”) and (Abstract, see “a cloud-based industrial application provisioning system is provided. The industrial application provisioning system can reside on a cloud platform and be made available to developers and end users with access privileges to the cloud platform... the application is cataloged within an industry-specific search hierarchy... library's hierarchical catalog allows the user to search for applications according to industry type, equipment in use, automation system type, or other suitable criteria”) (emphasis added). It is noted that the only applications allowed are filtered applications, hence such filters are very much the same as such rules.
Lawson, Narayanan, Kravitz and Carbajal, in particular Lawson doesn’t explicitly teach:
verifying, by a deployment component that resides at the industrial facility, the signed at least one computer program and the signed authorized metadata using the second public key.
However, Oh teaches such use: (column 20, lines 43-54, see “if the second signature SIG2 is successfully verified, operation S850 is performed. In operation S850, the update manager 31_1 may verify the third signature SIG3 of the third certificate element CER3 of the signed firmware image S_FIMG, by using the second public keys PUBK2 included in the second certificate element CER2 of the signed firmware image S_FIMG”).
Lawson, Narayanan, Kravitz, Carbajal and Oh are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software installation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of Lawson, Narayanan, Kravitz, Carbajal and Oh before him or her, to modify the system of Lawson, Narayanan, Kravitz and Carbajal, in particular Lawson to include the teachings of Oh, as a system for managing firmware, and accordingly it would enhance the system of Lawson, which is focused on a system for an industrial app store, because that would provide Lawson with the ability to increase security when a firmware image is encrypted by using a hardware security module, as suggested by Oh (column 20, lines 43-54, column 21, lines 25-29).
Conclusion
Simhon 20140101127 teaches a system for downloading at least one application via a communication network are provided. The method comprises receiving an input search query from a user device; determining the search intent respective of the input search query, wherein the search intent indicates a topic of interest of a user of the user device; selecting, based on the search intent, at least one application from at least one applications central repository; creating a display segment over a display of the user device; displaying an icon corresponding to the at least one selected application in the display segment; establishing a direct communication link between the user device and a location hosting the at least one selected application in response to an input received from the user device; and downloading the application to the user device.
Falcy 20190073202 teaches a computer program product are disclosed for enabling software components on a device, and for providing selective access to the components. A computer system receives a download request for a software component and an identifier associated with the requesting device and determines whether the software component is pre-installed, but not enabled, on the device. In the event that the system determines, through a registration check, that the software component is pre-installed but not enabled on the device, the system enables the component on the device.
12. Examiner, in light of the above submission maintains the previous rejections, and any new ground(s) of rejection is necessitated by Applicant’s amendment. 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).
13. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Correspondence Information
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Evral Bodden whose telephone number is 571-272-3455. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 9am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat Do, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automatedinterview-request-air-form.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EVRAL E BODDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights