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 .
The Amendment filed on 03/25/26 has been received and entered. Application No. 18/322,268 of which claims 4, 5, 14, 15, 21, and 24 are canceled. Claims 1-3, 6-13, 16-20, 22, 23, 25 and 26 are pending in the application, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection.
This action is made final in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments and remarks necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 103 rejections of claims 1-3, 6-13, 16-20, 22, 23, 25 and 26 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-13, 16-20, 22, 23, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donelan et al. (U.S. PGPub 2023/0126456; hereinafter “Donelan”) in view of Balaji et al. (U.S. PGPub 2014/0289391; hereinafter “Balaji”) and further in view of Astete et al. (U.S. PGPub 2009/0288084; hereinafter “Astete”) and further in view of Cella et al. (U.S. PGPub 2022/0245574; hereinafter “Cella”).
As per claims 1, 11 and 19, Donelan discloses a system, comprising:
a memory that stores executable components; (See Fig. 3, paras. 76, wherein memory are disclosed; as taught by Donelan.)
and a processor, operatively coupled to the memory, that executes the executable components, the executable components comprising: (See Fig. 3, paras. 35, 76, wherein processor are disclosed; as taught by Donelan.)
a service communicator component configured to manage communication of data between an edge gateway device and internal services of a manufacturing cloud system, wherein the manufacturing cloud system is a multi-tenant Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) system that executes an industrial manufacturing execution system (MES) on a cloud platform, (See Fig. 1, paras. 31-33, 93, 96-97, wherein multi-tenant computer network, Software-as-a-Service (SaaS), MES open application are disclosed, also See paras. 21, 34, wherein communication protocols are disclosed; as taught by Donelan.)
wherein the service communicator component is configured to receive, from a customer entity via the edge gateway device, request data comprising a request for data stored by the manufacturing cloud system, and the request data is tagged by the edge gateway device with a tenant identifier that identifies the customer entity; (See paras. 92-94, 96, wherein tenants, customers, tenant IDs are disclosed; as taught by Donelan.)
However, Donelan fails to disclose a data packaging component configured to route the request data to the second data center based on the tenant identifier.
On the other hand, Balaji teaches a data packaging component configured to route the request data to the second data center based on the tenant identifier. (See Figs. 1, 2, paras. 15, 48, 54, wherein data center, SaaS based multi-tenant web application, package management service functions are disclosed, also See para. 39, wherein configuration details associated with tenants related to user, metadata storing configuration details are disclosed, also See paras. 34-35, 52, wherein multi-tenant architecture, customers, tenants, customer relationship management (CRM) application are disclosed; as taught by Balaji.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Balaji teachings in the Donelan system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate a method for facilitating implementation of multi-tenant SaaS architecture taught by Balaji in the Donelan system for effective communication of open application interface for industrial equipment. In addition, both of the references (Donelan and Balaji) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, customer relationship services. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
However, the combination of Donelan and Balaji fails to disclose wherein the cloud platform comprises at least: a first data center that stores first data for, and is accessible by, a first customer entity, and a second data center that stores second data for, and is accessible by, a second customer entity; wherein the service communicator component is further configured to determine a scope of the second data permitted to be shared with the first customer entity, and the data packaging component is further configured to route a subset of the second data requested by the request data from the second data center to the first data center in accordance with the scope of the second data permitted to be shared with the first customer entity.
On the other hand, Astete teaches wherein the cloud platform comprises at least: a first data center that stores first data for, and is accessible by, a first customer entity, (See Fig. 1, paras. 38-40, wherein user’s access to resources of virtual data center in which “Different users among tenants 130 and 140 may access MTVMI 100 over corresponding secure Internet connections (analogous to individual users of a signal tenant). Typically, a user accesses MTVMI 100 by logging on to the infrastructure through a console or Internet browser…the user interface may allow users with administrative privileges to start and stop virtual machines while prevent other users from doing so” [0038] and “Each tenant of MTVMI 100 operates within its own unique, private virtual environment. The environment for each tenant may include, for example, one or more private virtual data centers each comprising a set of virtual machines, virtual storage, and virtual network accessible to the tenant's users (analogous to data centers storing accessible data). The environment for each tenant may provide the tenant's users with access to ready-to-instantiate templates of virtual data centers and specific software applications in Software Library 110. Additionally, the environment may provide Labs corresponding to instantiated virtual data centers that can be executed. Furthermore, through the MTVMI, a tenant may create custom virtual data centers by specifying certain attributes of the virtual data centers and/or their virtual machines” [0040] are disclosed; as taught by Astete.)
and a second data center that stores second data for, and is accessible by, a second customer entity; (See Fig. 1, paras. 38-40, wherein user’s access to resources of virtual data center in which “Different users among tenants 130 and 140 may access MTVMI 100 over corresponding secure Internet connections (analogous to individual users of a signal tenant). Typically, a user accesses MTVMI 100 by logging on to the infrastructure through a console or Internet browser…the user interface may allow users with administrative privileges to start and stop virtual machines while prevent other users from doing so” [0038] and “Each tenant of MTVMI 100 operates within its own unique, private virtual environment. The environment for each tenant may include, for example, one or more private virtual data centers each comprising a set of virtual machines, virtual storage, and virtual network accessible to the tenant's users (analogous to data centers storing accessible data). The environment for each tenant may provide the tenant's users with access to ready-to-instantiate templates of virtual data centers and specific software applications in Software Library 110. Additionally, the environment may provide Labs corresponding to instantiated virtual data centers that can be executed. Furthermore, through the MTVMI, a tenant may create custom virtual data centers by specifying certain attributes of the virtual data centers and/or their virtual machines” [0040] are disclosed; as taught by Astete.)
wherein the service communicator component is further configured to determine a scope of the second data permitted to be shared with the first customer entity, (See paras. 33-36, wherein multiple tenants sharing a multi-tenant virtual machine infrastructure (MTVMI) in which “MTVMI could be shared by multiple large corporations each having its own set of virtual data centers, application software assets, set of users and so on” [0035] are disclosed, also See Figs. 9-22, paras. 102-103, 120-124, wherein users sharing data process in which “By adding the assets to a project, the assets become available to other users assigned to the project. This allows the engineer to share the assets with other users. Additionally, web browsers and other tools executing on any machine (running within the MTVMI or elsewhere) may be used to "Download" software assets from the MTVMI asset library to the machine over the Internet” [0123] are disclosed; as taught by Astete.)
and the data packaging component is further configured to route a subset of the second data requested by the request data from the second data center to the first data center in accordance with the scope of the second data permitted to be shared with the first customer entity. (See paras. 45-46, 80-81, wherein subset of feasible nodes, retrieving content process in which “tenants of the service can be assigned an affinity to a specific subset of nodes (and vice versa where a node is assigned affinity to a subset of tenants), such that requests on behalf of that tenant will target this subset of affinity nodes” [0081] are disclosed, also See Figs. 2, 4, paras. 52, 64, wherein tenant establishing a relationship in which “a tenant establishes a relationship with a MTVMI host by submitting a subscription request to the host. In the subscription request, the tenant may specify, among other things, a desired amount of resource usage within the MTVMI, any desired features such as access to particular software applications, and other terms for governing tenant's use of the MTVMI” [0052] and “account data may include, e.g., information for regulating MTVMI access and usage by the tenant, such as a data storage quota, authorized users associated with the tenant, a CPU quota, network bandwidth quota, and user authentication information” [0064] are disclosed; as taught by Astete.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Astete teachings in the combination of Donelan and Balaji system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate a method for multitenant hosted virtual machine infrastructure taught by Astete in the combination of Donelan and Balaji system for effective communication of open application interface for industrial equipment. In addition, both of the references (Donelan, Balaji, and Astete) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, customer relationship services. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
However, the combination of Donelan, Balaji, and Astete fails to disclose the service communicator component is further configured to determine a scope of the second data permitted to be shared with the first customer entity based on identification of a production-level event that occurred at an industrial facility from which the second data originated within a defined time period before receipt of the request data and a determination of whether a security model indicates that the production-level event satisfies a criterion.
On the other hand, Cella teaches the service communicator component is further configured to determine a scope of the second data permitted to be shared with the first customer entity based on identification of a production-level event that occurred at an industrial facility from which the second data originated within a defined time period before receipt of the request data and a determination of whether a security model indicates that the production-level event satisfies a criterion. (See Fig. 6, paras. 68 and 294, 297, wherein sharing of resources in which “the method may help in managing the production workflows within and across one or more manufacturing nodes, thereby facilitating collaboration across the manufacturing nodes through the sharing of resources, capabilities and intelligence. In embodiments, the manufacturing nodes may collaborate for forecasting and prediction of material supply and product demand” [0068] and “By virtue of a unified platform 604 for monitoring and managing supply factors and demand factors as well as status information (e.g., quality and status, plan, order and confirm, and/or track and trace) can be shared about and between various entities (e.g., including customers/consumers, suppliers, distribution such as distributors, suppliers, and production such as producers or production facilities) as demand factors are understood and accounted for, as orders are generated and fulfilled, and as products are created and moved through a supply chain” [0294] are disclosed, also See paras. 3178, wherein PMCP protocol on transmitting and receiving relevant information on production levels to be shared with consumers and various entities in which “PMCP allows real contextual information about production levels to be shared with consumers, regulators, and other entities external to the value chain network without the direct sharing of sensitive data values. For example, when a customer chooses to purchase a new car, one or more value chain entities may be integrated into the selection process and may determine (e.g., based on predictive models) that there is an upcoming shortage of red paint. In this case, the value chain entities could communicate PMCP data that would be processed and used to show the customer device the impact of different choices on delivery time, without providing sensitive data to the customer device or other external entity (analogous to determination of whether a security model indicates that the production-level event satisfies a criterion)” [3178] are disclosed, also See paras. 377, 2677, 1364, wherein variance threshold, accessing criteria for determining whether workflow meets criteria are disclosed; as taught by Cella.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Cella teachings in the combination of Donelan, Balaji, and Astete system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate system for digital product network and biology-based value chain networks taught by Cella in the combination of Donelan, Balaji, and Astete system for effective communication of open application interface for industrial equipment. In addition, both of the references (Donelan, Balaji, Astete, and Cella) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, customer relationship services. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As per claims 2 and 12, the combination of Donelan, Astete, and Cella fails to disclose wherein the manufacturing cloud system further executes, on the cloud platform, at least one of an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, a quality management system, a supply chain management system, or a customer relationship management (CRM) system.
On the other hand, Balaji teaches wherein the manufacturing cloud system further executes, on the cloud platform, at least one of an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, a quality management system, a supply chain management system, or a customer relationship management (CRM) system. (See para. 52, wherein Customer relationship management (CRM) application are disclosed; as taught by Balaji.(
See claims 1 and 11 for motivation above.
As per claims 3, 13 and 20, the combination of Donelan, Astete, and Cella fails to disclose wherein the manufacturing cloud system is configured to convert a database table stored at the second data center into a set of services and to cache the set of services in different storage areas.
On the other hand, Balaji teaches wherein the manufacturing cloud system is configured to convert a database table stored at the second data center into a set of services and to cache the set of services in different storage areas. (See Figs. 1, 2, paras. 15, 48, 53-54, wherein data center, SaaS based multi-tenant web application, package management service functions are disclosed, also See para. 39, wherein configuration details associated with tenants related to user, metadata storing configuration details are disclosed, also See paras. 91, 96, wherein different metadata services are disclosed; as taught by Balaji.)
See claims 1, 11 and 19 for motivation above.
As per claims 6, 16, 25, the combination of Donelan, Astete, and Cella fails to disclose wherein the data packaging component is configured to package the subset of the second data as a deployment artifact comprising metadata, and to route the deployment artifact to the first data center.
On the other hand, Balaji teaches wherein the data packaging component is configured to package the subset of the second data as a deployment artifact comprising metadata, and to route the deployment artifact to the first data center. (See Fig. 3, paras. 36, 42, 57, wherein different deployment options, deployment of SaaS based multi-tenant application are disclosed, also See paras. 82-83, wherein deployment time are disclosed; as taught by Balaji.)
See claims 1 and 16 for motivation above.
As per claims 7, 17, and 26, the combination of Donelan, Balaji, Astete, and Cella discloses wherein the manufacturing cloud system comprises a tagging component configured to tag items of the second data with metadata identifying data types of the items and indications of whether the items are sharable, (See paras. 53, 94-97, wherein entities, tagged tenant IDs are disclosed, also See Fig. 2A, paras. 30-32, 34, 38-39, wherein data sharing subsystem are disclosed; as taught by Donelan.)
and the service communicator component is configured to determine the scope of the second data permitted to be shared with the first customer entity further based on based on the metadata. (See paras. 53, 94-97, wherein entities, tagged tenant IDs are disclosed, also See Fig. 2A, paras. 30-32, 34, 38-39, wherein data sharing subsystem are disclosed; as taught by Donelan.)
As per claims 8 and 18, Donelan discloses wherein the request data is received from the edge gateway device bundled with contextual data relating to the request, the contextual data comprising at least one of a role of a user who originated the request, or a current location of the user. (See paras. 33, 63-64, 95, wherein user interface features, time, date, time periods are disclosed; as taught by Donelan.)
However, the combination of Donelan, Astete, and Cella fails to disclose the security model defines security levels and rules that control access to sets of data maintained by the manufacturing cloud system; the service communicator component is configured to determine the scope of the second data permitted to be shared with the first customer entity further based on a comparison of the contextual data with the security model.
On the other hand, Balaji teaches the security model defines security levels and rules that control access to sets of data maintained by the manufacturing cloud system; (See paras. 13, 35, 46, 55, wherein roles featuring authorization and security policies in which “administration module 112 further facilitates the tenant administrator to define custom rules for the Saas based multitenant web application to which the tenant is subscribed. In an embodiment of the present invention, the administration module 112 further facilitates a role 'Anonymous' or 'unregistered'. The unregistered role is one which provides access rights to browse through the SaaS based multi-tenant web application to view its details, view associated subscription plans, compare subscription plans and act as a tenant administrator upon receiving login credentials from the SaaS provider” [0046] are disclosed; as taught by Balaji.)
the service communicator component is configured to determine the scope of the second data permitted to be shared with the first customer entity further based on a comparison of the contextual data with a security model. (See paras. 13, 35, 46, 55, wherein roles featuring authorization and security policies in which “administration module 112 further facilitates the tenant administrator to define custom rules for the Saas based multitenant web application to which the tenant is subscribed. In an embodiment of the present invention, the administration module 112 further facilitates a role 'Anonymous' or 'unregistered'. The unregistered role is one which provides access rights to browse through the SaaS based multi-tenant web application to view its details, view associated subscription plans, compare subscription plans and act as a tenant administrator upon receiving login credentials from the SaaS provider” [0046] are disclosed; as taught by Balaji.)
See claims 1 and 11 for motivation above.
As per claim 9, the combination of Donelan, Astete, and Cella fails to disclose wherein the security model defines varying levels of data access permission as a function of user roles within a management hierarchy of an industrial enterprise.
On the other hand, Balaji teaches wherein the security model defines varying levels of data access permission as a function of user roles within a management hierarchy of an industrial enterprise. (See paras. 13, 35, 55, wherein roles featuring authorization access are disclosed; as taught by Balaji.)
See claim 1 for motivation above.
As per claim 10, the combination of Donelan, Balaji, Astete, and Cella discloses wherein the second data comprises at least one of recipe data defining control process parameters for manufacturing a type of product or material, employee information, production statistics, or device configuration data. (See paras. 95-96, wherein enterprise business unit, employee, other entities are disclosed; as taught by Donelan.)
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donelan et al. (U.S. PGPub 2023/0126456; hereinafter “Donelan”) in view of Balaji et al. (U.S. PGPub 2014/0289391; hereinafter “Balaji”) and further in view of Astete et al. (U.S. PGPub 2009/0288084; hereinafter “Astete”) and further in view of Cella et al. (U.S. PGPub 2022/0245574; hereinafter “Cella”) and further in view of Singh (U.S. PGPub 2022/0353339).
As per claim 22, the combination of Donelan, Balaji, Astete, and Cella fails to disclose the second data center resides in a different country than the first data center, and the service communicator component is configured to determine the scope of the second data permitted to be shared with the first customer entity further based on an egress rule that defines types or sets of data that are not to be passed to data centers outside the country in which the second data center resides.
On the other hand, Singh teaches the second data center resides in a different country than the first data center, (See paras. 205-206, wherein different production environments, different geographic locations are disclosed; as taught by Singh.)
and the service communicator component is configured to determine the scope of the second data permitted to be shared with the first customer entity further based on an egress rule that defines types or sets of data that are not to be passed to data centers outside the country in which the second data center resides. (See paras. 117-119, 146-147, wherein egress rules are disclosed, also See Fig. 15, paras. 241-242, wherein data access by customers are disclosed; as taught by Singh.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Singh teachings in the combination of Donelan, Balaji, Astete, and Cella system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate a method for efficient flow management utilizing control packets taught by Singh in the combination of Donelan, Balaji, Astete, and Cella system for effective communication of open application interface for industrial equipment. In addition, both of the references (Donelan, Balaji, Astete, Cella and Singh) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, customer relationship services. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As per claim 23, the combination of Donelan, Balaji, Astete, and Cella fails to disclose wherein the data packaging component is configured to redact a portion of the second data in accordance with the egress rule to yield the subset of the second data.
On the other hand, Singh teaches wherein the data packaging component is configured to redact a portion of the second data in accordance with the egress rule to yield the subset of the second data. (See paras. 117-119, 146-147, wherein egress rules are disclosed, also See Fig. 15, paras. 26-27, 241-242, wherein processing data packets, data access by customers are disclosed; as taught by Singh.)
See claim 22 for motivation above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIN LIN M HTAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7293. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 7am-3pm, PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571)272-8352. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/L. L. H./
Examiner, Art Unit 2153
/KAVITA STANLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights