Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
1. This action is responsive to communication filed on: 1 October 2025 with acknowledgement of an original application filed on 28 June 2023 and that this application is a continuation of a foreign application filed 28 June 2022.
2. Claims 1-22 are currently pending. Claim 1 is independent claim. Claim 1 had been amended. Claims 21-22 are new.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 1 October 2025 have been fully considered however they are not persuasive. where noted below or are moot due to new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims.
I) In response to Applicant’s argument beginning on page 9, “Applicant further notes that, with respect to the rejection of dependent claim 10, an “environment variable”, as recited in dependent claim 10, is not equivalent to a “production environment” as used in the Subramanian reference”.
The Examiner disagrees with argument. According to the Applicant’s disclosure paragraph 36, “the environmental variables can, for example, be the destination addresses for communication with an external server”. Therefore, using a reasonable interpretation the Subramanian/’307 reference that states “The Manifest Manager provides a delivery path for manifests…to data center production environment(s)…for enabling a software version change requested for a production environment” is interpreted equivalent to indicating the ‘destination address’. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument with respect to this claim is not persuasive.
II) In response to applicant’s argument beginning on page 12, “Applicant respectfully submits…Applicant further notes that, in connection with the rejection of dependent claim 11, the paragraphs referenced in the Office Action do not show, teach or suggest what is recited in dependent claim 11, that a subset of programs assigned to a digital representation of technical equipment and description files assigned to a subset of the programs and to …Nothing in Sharma, alone or in combination with the other references, teaches anything about any programs being synchronized as recited in dependent claim 11”.
The Examiner disagrees with argument. The Sharma/’729 reference suggests in paragraphs 108, and 111, that a new top-level button is the same as that for the top-level button except for the addition of an extra string parameter. The Examiner interprets this representation of the top-level button along with the modifications equivalent to the argued claim element of “the digital representation are synchronized using the software memory management. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument with respect to this claim is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
5. Claims 1-3, 5, 10, 12-18, 20, and 22, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0216307 (hereinafter ‘307) in view of Weissman U.S. Patent 7,730,478 (hereinafter ‘478) in further view of Case et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0252895 (hereinafter ‘895).
As to independent claim 1, “A method for providing programs for control devices of technical equipment, comprising: providing the programs in a software memory managed by software memory management software, wherein the software memory management software includes access rights management” is taught in ‘307 Abstract, paragraphs 15, and 45, note “The system stores the one or more software artifacts (i.e. programs) in a memory location of a controlled-access production repository” / “Various developer team members may also have different write access authorization levels for modifying content loaded onto the team's specific directory(s)/folder(s). A team authorization policy for approving a software artifact(s) may be based on the permission levels and write access authorization levels of a subset of team members, such that some of the developer team members may have permission to submit an authorization for content while other developer team members may not. It is understood that the controlled-access production repository may have multiple directory(s)/folder(s) supporting other software development teams and each software development team may have its own various different level of permissions, write access authorizations levels and different overall authorization policies”;
“and wherein the access rights of users to access the programs in the managed software memory are managed using access rights management and wherein access rights granted to users enable the users to store programs created in the managed software memory” is shown in ‘307 Abstract, paragraphs 15, 36-37, note “The system stores the one or more software artifacts in a memory location of controlled-access production repository. The system receives a first authorization determination of the one or more software artifacts from an author-user account, the author-user account associated with a developer identity that created the one or more software artifacts” / “For example, the Manifest Manager's data flow may begin based on when a developer authors source code that has a related software artifact(s). In some embodiments, the developer-author wrote the source code in response to a 3rd party data center location(s) request for a software change to be applied to a production environment of the requesting data center location. [0037] At step 304, the Manifest Manager stores the one or more software artifacts in a memory location of a controlled-access production repository. For example, a pull request from the developer-author triggers the Manifest Manager to load the software artifact(s) into a controlled-access production repository, such as a specific directory(s) or folder(s) in the production repository”;Although ‘307 teaches/suggests granting approvals for user accounts to send packages manifest as a .zip file to be sent to the data center location since the exact phrase “granting access rights to other ones of the user” in paragraphs 39 and 42-43 is not utilized it could be argued the following is not explicitly taught in ‘307
“and one of the users granting access rights to other ones of the users enabling the other ones of the users to use specific programs provided in the software memory” however ‘478 teaches allowing access to developed applications via multi-tenant controlled environment in the Abstract, and col. 2, lines 6-24.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of content delivery of software artifacts for software version change taught in ‘307 to include a means to grant access rights to other users. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification because as indicated in ‘307 paragraph 77 “In some multi-tenant database systems, tenants may be allowed to create and store custom objects, or they may be allowed (i.e. granted access rights) to customize standard entities or objects, for example by creating custom fields for standard objects, including custom index fields. U.S. Pat. No. 7,779,039, filed Apr. 2, 2004, entitled “Custom Entities and Fields in a Multi-Tenant Database System”, which is incorporated herein by reference teaches systems and method for creating custom objects as well as customizing standard objects in a multi-tenant database system”. Note ‘307 references ‘478, in its disclosure as noted above, in addition the two have the same assignee, salesforce.com.
the following is not explicitly taught in ‘307 and ‘478:
“at least one of the other ones of the users transferring at least one of the specific programs to one of the control devices of the technical equipment to cause the at least one of the specific programs to operate the technical equipment” however ‘895 teaches “The control system content could be received by computing system 101 in a variety of ways. In some examples, control system content could be received by computing system 101 from a user operating control program editor 110 to generate the control system content. Additionally, the control system content could be received by computing system 101 from a user or another system entering, copying, installing, inputting, or otherwise providing the control system content to computing system 101. The control system content could also be received by computing system 101 over a network from a remote system in some examples. In this example, the control system content comprises controller program code that directs industrial controller 120 to drive machine system 130… The owner of the controller logic source code has placed limitations on the usage of the code by applying execution license in the form of controller limits. In particular, the logic content owner has only licensed the code for use on a single industrial controller 320. The code is provided to industrial controller 320 in a protected format that does not allow the user of the code to view or edit the contents, as indicated by the lock icon, but industrial controller 320 can access the code to run it in order to drive machine system 330 to produce an output. However, when the user of the logic source code attempts to run the code on a second industrial controller 321 which is unlicensed, the code will not work to operate industrial controller 321, as shown by the large “X” appearing in FIG. 3. In this manner, control system content licensing provides for copy protection for controller code, thereby preventing unauthorized use on more controllers than are licensed to run the code. [0032] In another example, the owner of the controller logic source code has also licensed the code for a limited production level by applying an execution license in the form of production limits. Thus, when the user runs the code on the licensed and authorized industrial controller 320, machine system 330 is limited by the license to only output a specified number of products. If the user desires to produce more of the product, the user would have to purchase an additional execution license from the controller logic source code owner. Execution licenses can limit the number of widgets a machine is permitted to produce, performance levels of a machine, and provide control over enhanced machine features, among other options. For example, machine system 330 may be capable of operating at different speeds using the control logic provided by the owner, and the end-user would need to purchase a particular license to run machine system 330 at the faster speeds” in paragraphs 23, and 31-32.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of content delivery of software artifacts for software version change taught in ‘307 and ‘478 to include details that the specific program sent to the control devices are to operate the technical equipment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification because industrial automation applications (i.e. programs) need protection of control systems content see ‘895 paragraphs 2-5.
As to dependent claim 2, “The method of claim 1, wherein the programs in each case include a binary file” is taught in ‘307 paragraph 16.
As to dependent claim 3, “The method of claim 1, wherein at least some of the programs are definable as completed only by at least one of the users that is authorized to define at least some of the programs as completed” is shown in ‘307 paragraphs 38-39, and 41, note the author-user account provides “authorization determinations” of the software artifacts this is interpreted equivalent to ‘defining the program as completed’.
As to dependent claim 5, “The method of claim 3, wherein only copies of programs defined as completed are transferrable from the managed software memory onto control devices of technical equipment” is disclosed in ‘307 paragraphs 38-39, 41-43;
“and wherein copies of programs not defined as completed are transferrable from the managed software memory only under separately defined conditions” is taught in ‘307 paragraph 45, note each team member may have different permissions levels … as well… controlled-access production repository may have multiple directory(s)/folder(s) supporting the other software development teams.
As to dependent claim 10, “The method of claim 1, wherein information relating to the programs includes values of environmental variables, port numbers and/or port mapping, wherein the values of the environmental variables, the port numbers and/or the port mapping are transferred to at least one of the programs during the execution of the at least one of the programs by a control device” is shown in ‘307 Abstract and paragraphs 14-15, note “production environment associated with at least one data center” is interpreted equivalent to ‘environmental variables’.
As to dependent claim 12, “The method of claim 1, wherein at least some of the programs are definable by at least one of the users as public only if the at least some of the programs are defined as completed and wherein programs defined as public are useable by any of the users” is disclosed in ‘307 paragraphs 38-39 and 45-46.
As to dependent claim 13, “The method of claim 1, wherein at least some of the programs are definable as group-public for a specific user group only if the at least some of the programs are defined as completed wherein programs defined as group-public are useable by users belonging to a corresponding user group” is taught in ‘307 paragraphs 38-39 and 45-46.
As to dependent claim 14, “The method of claim 1, wherein at least some of the programs are definable as public and/or group-public only if the software memory management software establishes that specific software components contained in the at least some of the programs and/or assigned to the at least some of the programs are present and wherein, following definition of one of the programs as public and/or group-public, information contained in the software components is made available to users authorized to use the one of the programs” is shown in ‘307 paragraphs 38-39 and 45-46.
As to dependent claim 15, “The method of claim 1, wherein value indications assigned to the programs are used to enable a commercial exploitation of the programs” is disclosed in ‘307 paragraph 76, i.e. “sale price”.
As to dependent claim 16, “The method of claim 1, wherein one of the users granting access rights to other ones of the users enables the other ones of the users to transfer a copy of at least one of the programs provided in the managed software memory onto a control device of technical equipment” is taught in ‘307 paragraphs 38-39, i.e. “data center”.
As to dependent claim 17, “The method of claim 1, wherein at least some of the programs are created using a development environment” is shown in ‘307 Abstract and paragraphs 14-15.
As to dependent claim 18, “The method of claim 1, wherein the separately defined conditions include experimental purposes” is disclosed in ‘478 col. 4, line 64 through col. 5, line 39.
As to dependent claim 20, “The method of claim 9, wherein the one of a plurality of description files contains information relating to the one of the programs” is taught in ‘307 paragraph 16, i.e. metadata.
As to dependent claim 22, “The method of claim 1, wherein the technical equipment is machinery and/or a plant” is shown in ‘895 Abstract, note “controller program code that directs an industrial controller to drive a machine system”.
6. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0216307 (hereinafter ‘307) in view of Weissman U.S. Patent 7,730,478 (hereinafter ‘478) in further view of Case et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0252895 (hereinafter ‘895) in further view of Brandys et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0168778 (hereinafter ‘778).
As to dependent claim 4, Although ‘307 teaches a Manifest Manger that packages approved and completed software artifacts in paragraphs 38-39, and although a manifest is known in the art as something that is not changed and validates the integrity of its contents, since the phrase “is not changed” is not utilized, it could be argued the following is not explicitly taught in ‘307, ‘478, and ‘895: “The method of claim 3, wherein the programs defined as completed cannot be modified” however ‘778 when the software engine completes the build is completed and the template is published for the software container “it cannot be further modified” in paragraph 16.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of content delivery of software artifacts for software version change taught in ‘307, ‘478, and ‘895 to include a means to prevent modification after a program is defined as complete. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification because the security of software container-based hinges on the fact that software containers, as their name applies are sealed, see ‘778 paragraphs 2-5.
7. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0216307 (hereinafter ‘307) in view of Weissman U.S. Patent 7,730,478 (hereinafter ‘478) in further view of Case et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0252895 (hereinafter ‘895) in further view of Hillyard U.S. Patent No. 10,146,520 (hereinafter ‘520).
As to dependent claim 6, the following is not explicitly taught in ‘307, ‘895 and ‘478: “The method of claim 1, wherein at least some of the programs are definable as discontinued only by at least one of the users that is authorized to define at least some of the programs as discontinued” however ‘520 teaches a user defining a program as discontinued in col. 19, line 57 through col. 20, line 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of content delivery of software artifacts for software version change taught in ‘307, ‘895, and ‘478 to include a means to designate a program as discontinued. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification because computers are used in all aspects of business, industry, academic endeavors, and most homes maintaining an supporting computer systems methods that improve updating an application may be beneficial see ‘520 col. 1, lines 11-42.
As to dependent claim 7, “The method of claim 6, wherein copies of discontinued programs are transferrable from the managed software memory onto control devices of technical equipment only until a point in time set for the discontinued programs and wherein a notification of discontinuation is issued to at least some of the users” is taught in ‘520 col. 19, line 57 through col. 20, line 4.
8. Claims 8-9, 11, and 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0216307 (hereinafter ‘307) in view of Weissman U.S. Patent 7,730,478 (hereinafter ‘478) in further view of Case et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0252895 (hereinafter ‘895) in further view of Sharma et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0382729 (hereinafter ‘729).
As to dependent claim 8, the following is not explicitly taught in ‘307, ‘895 and ‘478: “The method of claim 1, wherein at least some of the users are granted access to the managed software memory enabling the at least some of the users to create digital representations of individual technical equipment in the managed software memory” however ‘729 teaches user can select to install a new icon in paragraph 108, note an icon is interpreted equivalent to “digital representations of individual technical equipment’.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of content delivery of software artifacts for software version change taught in ‘307, ‘895 and ‘478 to include a means to enabling users to create digital representations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification because image forming apparatus (IFA) is typically supplied with applications however change/improvements are needed, see ‘729 paragraphs 1 and 22-23.
As to dependent claim 9, “The method of claim 8, wherein the programs are stored in the managed software memory only by a subset of the users authorized to store programs in the managed software memory, wherein one of a plurality of description files is assigned to a digital representation of technical equipment and to one of the programs assigned to the one of the plurality of digital representations” is taught in ‘729 paragraph 108.
As to dependent claim 11, “The method of claim 10, wherein, in response to a request, a subset of the programs assigned to a digital representation of technical equipment and description files assigned to the subset of the programs and to the digital representation are synchronized using the software memory management software with the copies of the subset of the programs stored in a control device of the technical equipment with the copies of the description files stored in the control device of the technical equipment” is shown in ‘729 paragraphs 17, 108 and 111.
As to dependent claim 19, “The method of claim 8, wherein the digital representations are created using planning software for planning of the technical equipment” is disclosed in ‘729 paragraph 17.
9. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0216307 (hereinafter ‘307) in view of Weissman U.S. Patent 7,730,478 (hereinafter ‘478) in further view of Case et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0252895 (hereinafter ‘895) in further view of Sharma et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0382729 (hereinafter ‘729) in further view of Lawrence U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0027804 (hereinafter ‘804).
As to dependent claim 21, the following is not explicitly taught in ‘307, ‘478, ‘895, and ‘729: “The method of claim 8, wherein the digital representation is a digital twin” however ‘804 teaches the digital representation can include a digital twin of the asset in paragraph 42.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of content delivery of software artifacts for software version change taught in ‘307, ‘895, ‘729 and ‘478 to include a means to enabling users to create digital representations that represent digital twins. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification because current asset model software require significant amount of time and resources to implement, improvements are needed, see ‘804 paragraphs 1-2.
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Rantanen et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0304696 is directed to method for updating software of a control system of a working machine
Wischinski U.S. Patent No. 7,130,701 is directed to a system for providing technical support for remote automation or remote control devices, including offering to upgrade equipment with software or programmable firmware in an Industrial Control Systems (ICS)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ellen Tran whose telephone number is (571) 272-3842. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Pwu can be reached at (571) 272-6798. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELLEN TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433 3 December 2025