DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim rejection have been fully considered but they are not
persuasive for following reason.
Applicant argued in substance that Amaro et al. fail to disclose that the desired state can be derived from the current state.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Amaro et al. disclose in para 109 that a state-based process control sub-system has the functionality to derive the portion of the process control system 245 automatically from one state to another. The automatically derived state can be preserved and be changed from one state to another. The application layer services 235 can derive the changes without interfering the boundary values or profitability. As an example, in para 109, the state of process unit A can be changed to known state B and then can be changed to known state B’. Therefore, there is a transition between the process state (current) to a known state (desired). Amaro also explains in para 93 the SDCS system can collectively form sub-infrastructure logical control system 245 which also can interchangeably form virtual control system. This system can control one or more physical subsystem or can physical sub- infrastructure HCL adaptor. Therefore, Amaro et al. teach the desired state can be derived from the current state.
Therefore, applicant argument is not persuasive.
Claim objection
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, it states “one or more changes are” followed by the amended portion “change is”. It appears the phrase “one or more changes are” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an
application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the
patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by Amaro et al. (US 20220404810 A1).
As per claim 1, Amaro et al. teach
A method for managing an industrial system infrastructure via a management system (para 16), the method comprising:
determining a desired state (para 108, recorded known state teaches the desired state because it is a known {para 108} provable state achieved through proper maintenance tasks {para 110}; Additionally, para 110 describes the known states are stable as oppose to unknown state. i.e. “which recognize unknown states within the process plant and resolve the unknown states. Generally speaking, an unknown state of a process plant may occur when process plant I/O and process tags are in a state that deviates beyond a pre-defined amount from a known state. Additionally or alternatively, unknown process plant states may occur when the process I/O or process devices have an unreadable or indeterminate status” ) of the industrial system infrastructures including at least two sub-infrastructures of a virtual sub-infrastructure, a physical sub-infrastructure, and a network sub-infrastructure, wherein the desired state models desired conditions of the industrial system infrastructure (para 108 describes that process control system 245 can be tracked or monitored by the SD subsystem 238 via control services 235; para 93 describes collectively, the set of components form a logical process control system 245 (also referred to as “virtual process control system” 245). This means that the virtual sub-infrastructure’s state can be derived. It further describes that the components, I/O server service 242, for example, may be implemented in a HCI adaptor or in a network switch. This means a physical sub-infrastructure and a network sub-infrastructure’s state can also be derived. See also para. 95);
receiving a current state of the industrial system infrastructure, wherein the current state models actual conditions of the industrial system infrastructure (para 108, “analyze differences between the current process state and recorded normalizations for a known process state, and drive the process to achieve a process state.”, “current process state” teaches current state/actual conditions);
comparing the desired state to the current state for the industrial system infrastructure to determine a difference between the desired state and the current state (para 108, “analyze differences between the current process state and recorded normalizations for a known process state, and drive the process to achieve a process state.”, “current process state” teaches current state, and “recorded normalization of a known process state” teaches the desired state), wherein the comparison includes comparing the desired state to current state for each of at least two sub-infrastructures of the industrial system infrastructure (para 109 describes a process to drive a change of a portion of process control system 245 from one state to another. The process includes an automatically derived transition with preserving the boundary condition or profitability. As an example, the application layer services 235 may drive a state of process unit A to known state B to know state B’. Para 110 further describes that the application layer services may record the last known process state of various portions and/or components of the process control system 245. Para 93 describes that these components can be, collectively, part of a virtual process control system, implemented in an HCI adaptor and a network switch. Therefore, the states and their changes can include one or more sub -infrastructures, where each can be tracked, monitored or compared. See para 108); and
causing, as a function of the determined difference, and a desired state, a change to the current state of at least two sub-infrastructures of the industrial system infrastructure the infrastructure (para 108, each state has may have the ability to derive a current state of a process unit and, determine the current state and analyze differences between the current process state and recorded normalization for a known process state and the drive the process to achieve a process state, para 108. Also see para 111, the application layer services 235 automatically aid a user in creating and saving state definition by using the current values of the running process and processing those values into the ranges of named state. Para 135, The SDCS 200 implements digital twins of various SD application services and may execute in concern with the active target components and receive run-time data from the field environment, also see para 93 for virtual and physical infrastructure).
As per claim 2, Amaro et al. teach
The method of claim 1, wherein the change is one or more changes are determined as a function of dynamic optimization of resources of the at least two sub-infrastructures of the industrial system infrastructure (Para 19, the I/O server service and other services in the system, such as orchestrator service, may continuously evaluate performance (the continuous evaluation performance is the dynamic optimization of the resources) and resources utilization in the control system, and may dynamically activate and deactivate controller services as appropriate to optimize the performance. Para 45, Fig.16 is a block diagram of a computer cluster, including physical resources such as computers, servers, networking equipment, on which any one or more of the various containers, microcontainers, services, and/or routines described herein may be implemented, dynamically assigned, and load balanced to optimize computer resource usage and performance).
As per claim 3, Amaro et al. teach
The method of claim 1, wherein the causing the change comprises:
selecting a workload (para 16, an industrial process control plant uses SDCS application layer services to facilitate process control using software defined- controller, input/output sources, storage and or software defined networking. The SDCS application layer includes one or more containers executing one or more services. An orchestrator operates as part of a hyper overaged infrastructure to control the installation of one or more containers. Here the workload is referring to facilitate the process control and selecting the jobs from the one or more services);
selecting or instantiating a virtual controller of the virtual infrastructure (para 93, a virtual process control system 245 that to execute one or more industrial process plant: also see SDCS performed industrial process control industrial process plant, network switch, HCI adaptor; virtual-machine in para 95); and
deploying the workload on the selected or instantiated virtual controller for causing the virtual controller to operate within the industrial system infrastructure (Para 128, the application layer 212 of the SDCS 200 can be logically implemented in the process control system 245 and other respective services. Such logical and virtual instances of process control may be configured by the logical devices 212. A specific logical gate way may be configured with several logical control module and a logical process or signal may be identified by the control system 245).
As per claim 4, Amaro et al. teach
The method of claim 1, wherein the industrial system infrastructure includes at least one virtual controller (para 128, Virtual process control device) and causing the change includes at least one of deploying a workload on the virtual controller and modifying the workload deployed on the virtual controller (para 128, the application layer 212 of the SDCS 200 can be logically implemented in the process control system 245 and other respective services. Such logical and virtual instances of process control may be configured the logical devices 212. A specific logical gate way may be configured with several logical control module and a logical process or signal may be identified by the control system 245).
As per claim 5, Amaro et al. teach
The method of claim 4, wherein the workload is stateful (para 108, Amaro et al. describes a SD subsystem 238 that may include a state-based control subsystem. The subsystem 238 may include a set of state-based control services 235 which are responsible for tracking assigning, and deriving the state of process control system 245. Each state may have the ability to derive a current state of process unit, to determine the current state, and to analyze differences between the current process state and recorded normalized known process system).
As per claim 6, Amaro et al. teach
The method of claim 1, wherein the causing the change further comprises selecting a rule as a function of the determined difference, applying the rule, outputting a workflow as a function of applying the rule, wherein the workflow causes the change effecting the controller (para 108, 109, and para 111, Each state operation can analyze the differences between the current state and the recorded normalization of recorded known process state. Also, the state process control subsystem may automatically derive intermediate I/O or control changes to derive at least a portion of the process control system 245 from one state to another. Also, the state process may automatically derive a transition between respective boundary condition, The process system is analyzing the differences between current and normalized state and determining and applying intermediate input and output).
As per claim 7, Amaro et al. teach
The method of claim 1 , wherein the receiving the current state, the comparing the desired state to current state to determine the difference (para 108, Each state operation can analyze the differences between the current state and the recorded normalization of recorded known process state),and the causing the change are performed automatically or semiautomatically with configurable user intervention (para 111,The application layer services 235 of the state based process control subsystem may automatically create a state definition by taking the current values of the running process system and processing those values into state ranges or particular named state. As part of the state definition, deviation occurs and the process state may be derived automatically from a running process or based on a particular segment of the given time indicated by a comprehensive process historian. Here the Process control service 235 is performing this as a user aid and the state definition is automatically derived from the running process).
As per claim 8, Amaro et al. teach
The method of claim 1, wherein the difference is determined as a function of a physical device being physically added to the physical sub-infrastructure as an unconfigured or misconfigured device, and the causing the change includes provisioning the physical device to perform a mission associated with the physical device (para 108,An SD networking layer of the SDCS utilizes the process control specific support services such as computing platform resources and creation, deletion, modifications, etc. Also, during runtime of the process plant the SDCS networking layer support services dynamically change hardware condition including performance, faults, addition/deletion of hardware, Abstract. Also, the subsystem 238 may include a set of state-based control services 235 which are responsible for tracking assigning, and deriving the state of process control system 245. Each state may have the ability to derive a current state of process unit, to determine the current state, and to analyze differences between the current process state and recorded normalized known process system, also see para 313 and 384 for physical asset such as control valve).
As per claim 9, Amaro et al. teach
The method of claim 1, wherein the difference is determined as a function of a failure of a first node (para 159, First compute node 344) included in one of the sub-infrastructures, wherein the first node is originally designated as requiring high availability and a second node (para 159, second compute node 346) operates as a redundant pair of the first node, wherein causing the change includes:
upon failure of the first node, causing the second node to automatically assume a role of the first node instead of its original role (para 159, an implementation of fault tolerance is depicted in Fig. 5A where the first and second compute nodes 344 and 346 each have instantiated thereon each on container 352 A and 352B with a distributed alarm subsystem containers and with a third server. If the container 350A becomes idle, the orchestrator 222 recognizes that and make the 350 B active, para 159.-160, Same process applies an implementation of fault tolerance is depicted in Fig.5B, where the first and second compute nodes 358 and 360 each have instantiated thereon each on container 366A and 366B with a distributed alarm subsystem containers and with a third server. If the first compute node 358 becomes unavailable or all the containers become idle, the orchestrator 222 recognizes that and make the 364B, 366B,368B, and 370B become active); and
automatically assigning to a third node the original role of the second node such that the redundant pairing is automatically re-established between the second and third nodes (para 160, Fig. 5A-5Ba similar process also implemented for the case if the entire power failed. The first and second compute nodes 358 and 360 each have instantiated thereon each of a container 366A A and 366B, and a distributed alarm subsystem container 368A,368B, and an input/ output server container. The third server 362 stands idle and if the first compute node 358 becomes unavailable, the corresponding containers become idle. The orchestrator 222 recognizes the unavailability of the first compute node and proceed to instate the containers on the third compute node 362).
As per claim 10, Amaro et al. teach
The method of claim 1, wherein the causing the change includes optimizing operation of and/or resource usage in at least one of the sub-infrastructures (para 109, the input/output services and other services such as orchestrator system may continuously evaluate performance. Para 45, Fig. 16, A block diagram of a computer cluster including physical resources such as computers, servers, networking equipment, etc. on which various containers, microcontainers services, and other routine described maybe implemented, and may dynamically assigned to optimize the load balance and to enhance computer resource use performance).
As per claim 11, Amaro et al. teach
A management system (para 16, a method and system, para 88, industrial process control plant) for managing an industrial system infrastructure, the management system comprising:
one or more memories (para 87, one or more memories) configured to store a plurality of programmable instructions (para 109, a set of process instructions); and
one or more processing device (para 108, SDCS 200 contains physical processors, processor core in communication with the one or more memories, Fig. 2, para 88), wherein the one or more processing devices, upon execution of the plurality of programmable instructions is configured to:
Please refer to the analysis of claim 1 above for further clarifications.
As per claim 12, please refer to the analysis of claim 2 above, as they recite the same limitations.
As per claim 13, please refer to the analysis of claim 3 above, as they recite the same limitations.
As per claim 14, please refer to the analysis of claim 4 above, as they recite the same limitations.
As per claim 15, please refer to the analysis of claim 5 above, as they recite the same limitations.
As per claim 16, please refer to the analysis of claim 6 above, as they recite the same limitations.
As per claim 17, please refer to the analysis of claim 7 above, as they recite the same limitations.
As per claim 18, please refer to the analysis of claim 8 above, as they recite the same limitations.
As per claim 19, please refer to the analysis of claim 9 above, as they recite the same limitations.
As per claim 20, please refer to the analysis of claim 10 above, as they recite the same limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the form 892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rokeya Alam whose telephone number is (571) 272-0083. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am - 4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Scott Baderman can be reached at telephone number (571-272-3644). 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ROKEYA SHAWALI ALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights