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 .
This Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed August 27, 2026. Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-22 are currently pending. Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 17-20 are currently amended. Claims 6 and 16 are canceled. Claims 21 and 22 are newly added.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1 and 11 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. The Applicant’s arguments are directed towards newly added claim language which changed the scope of the claims and necessitated new grounds of rejection as set forth below. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are now moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7,8,10-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Collins (US 20210111949 A1.).
As per claim 1, Collins teaches
A method for managing an industrial system infrastructure via a management system (para 9, method of cloud computing and configuration of current and desired state), the method comprising:
determining a desired state of the industrial system infrastructure including at least two sub-infrastructures of a virtual sub-infrastructure (paras 2-3 describe a cloud infrastructure that has computer system resources, where the computing resources can be updated. paras 4-5 describe managing the network infrastructure, where the computing resource can be configured from a present state to a desired state. para 34, the state processor 110A, a software module that runs on computing device 110 which is configured to generate differences between present state and desired state of a cloud computing resource. “For example, the desired state configuration can be one that is specified within a configuration file for a process for replacing a virtual machine between two physical servers with minimal or no downtime”. Also see para 39, The state processor 110A obtains desired state configuration data 104B. The 104B data identifies a configuration associated with the configuration procedure to be performed. “As examples, the desired state configuration data 104B can indicate the creation of a new instance of the “virtual PC A” (e.g., transition from an existing instance to be terminated and a new instance to be created), a modification to an existing instance, (e.g., a new gateway), or deletion of the existing instance (e.g., to utilize to a new hardware platform). Also see para 61, Fig.6), wherein the at least two sub-infrastructures include at least a physical sub-infrastructure, and a network sub-infrastructure (para 27 teaches improving configuration of cloud-based network resources by codifying or employing configuration language. The configuration tool can generate workflow representation for managing an infrastructure management process associated with the network infrastructure. Also see, para 28, “cloud computing resource” that is accessible through a cloud computing architecture. The computing resource can include applications, servers (e.g., physical servers, virtual servers) as well as network capabilities. Therefore, the cloud computing resource is associated with network infrastructures with network capabilities teach of a network sub-infrastructure (see also para 6). The cloud computing resource associated with a physical server teaches of a physical sub-infrastructure.),wherein the desired state models a modified condition of at least one of a plurality of desired conditions of the industrial system infrastructure (para 40, “if the desired state configuration data 104B identifies an adjustment to an existing configuration of a cloud computing resource specified in the present state configuration data 104A, then the differentiation data 106 can identify only those aspects of the existing configuration that reflect the adjustment (e.g., changes in a network parameter, Internet gateway, instance name, security group, etc.)”) ;
receiving a current state of the industrial system infrastructure, wherein the current state models actual conditions of the industrial system infrastructure (para 15, obtaining data from the computing device to initiate an adjustment of the cloud computing resource from the present state configuration to the desired state configuration. The present state teaches the actual conditions. Generating a configuration instruction based on the workflow representation teaches a model for the current state and convert to it a desired state. Also see, para 38, Fig. 1B, the state processor 110A initially obtains present state configuration data 104A from configuration server 130. A first transition involves generating a dynamic configuration for a cloud computing resource based on its current configuration 202. “The present state configuration data 104A identifies an existing configuration of a cloud computing resource “virtual PC A.” For example, the present state configuration data 104A can identify metadata representing a configuration for an instance of the “virtual PC A” operating over the cloud computing server 107.”);
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 57, Figs, 4A-4B comparison of desired state configuration); and
causing, as a function of and in response to the determined difference, at least one of a first change in a current state of a first sub-infrastructure of the at least two sub-infrastructures and a second change in a current state of a second sub-infrastructure of the at least two sub- infrastructures (para 15, obtaining data from the computing device to initiate an adjustment of the cloud computing resource from the present state configuration to the desired state configuration. The adjustment indicates there is a change between the current state and the desired state. Once a user confirms an adjustment, the system will generate a configuration instruction based on the workflow representation. This teaches the causing of a function in response to the determined difference. Also see paras 7-8, user defining configuration based on an end result specified by the configuration file. Prior to configuration, it generates a configuration report based on the simulation).
As per claim 2, Collins teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one of the first change and the second change is determined as a function of dynamic optimization of resources of the at least two sub-infrastructures of the industrial system infrastructure (para 46, Fig. 2, dynamic configuration of a cloud computing resources based on its current configuration 202. The dynamic configuration introduce new instances of associated cloud computing resources and elastic load balances including application load balancers, network load balancers, etc. Also, in Fig. 2 each transition is verified with the user and changed based on the condition. Therefore, there is an optimization process from current configuration 202 to the final configuration 210. The ELB includes both application load balance and network load balances.).
As per claim 3, Collins teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the causing of the at least one of the first change and the second change comprises:
selecting a workload (abstract, “a workflow representation is generated for configuring the cloud computing resource from the current state configuration to the desired state configuration. The workflow representation identifies a hierarchical arrangement of tasks to be performed.” Also see para 61, Fig. 6, # 630 representing a workflow representation for configuring the cloud computing resources. The tasks listed in hierarchy teaches the workload.);
selecting or instantiating a virtual controller of the virtual sub-infrastructure (para 54, Fig. 3B, user can access an interface 300A and use configuration language to define and manage cloud resources. The user can access configuration language through command line tool to initiate a virtual machine “vpc” on a cloud service “aws”. Through other processes, the virtual machine is configured. The “vps” will allow the user to control the configuration of a cloud computing resource.); and
deploying the workload on the selected or instantiated virtual controller for causing the -virtual controller to operate within the industrial system infrastructure (para 56, the virtual machine “vpc” configured through the interface 300A. The virtual machine is also configured with the egress rule to control outward communication.).
As per claim 4, Collins teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the industrial system infrastructure includes at least one virtual controller and the causing of the at least one of the first change and the second change includes at least one of:
deploying a workload on the at least one virtual controller (paras 38-39, Fig. 1B,
state processor 110A obtains present state configuration data and identifies an existing configuration of a cloud computing resource “Virtual PC A”. The virtual PC A can operate over the cloud computing server 107. Then the state processor 110A obtains desired state configuration data 104B and identifies the new instance of the virtual PC A such as transitioning from an existing instance to a new instance. The state processor 110A deploying the configuration data to change the state of virtual PC A. Therefore, the workload has been deployed.); and
(b) modifying the workload deployed on the at least one virtual controller (para 38-39, Fig. 1B, state processor 110A changes the configuration data 104A/ present state data to 104B/desired state data to change the state of the virtual PC A.); and
(c) selecting a rule as a function of the determined difference, applying the rule, and outputting a workflow as a function of applying the rule, wherein the workflow causes the at least one of the first change and the second change affecting the at least one virtual controller (Fig. 6, paras 61-63, describe steps for generating workflow representation. The flow includes obtaining data for present configuration state and desired configuration state. The configuration server 130 can determine that configuring the cloud computing resource from the present state to the desired state involving user confirmation. The configuration can represent migration of a virtual machine. The step 620 involves user confirmation. The user confirmation involves three steps. Among them, step 1: stopping a current instance of the virtual machine or current hardware, step 2: initializing new hardware, and step 3: starting a new instance. These three steps are considered as operations classified as involving user confirmation. Once these steps are confirmed by the user, a workflow representation is generated at step 640. The user confirmation with steps teaches the rule. Also see para 57, Figs., 4A-4B, a programming code is applied to identify state change and to display the difference based on the comparison between the two states. Para 58, an attribute level changes are determined based on the programming code. The codes applied as the rule to determine the differences.).
As per claim 5, Collins teaches
The method of claim 4, wherein the workload is stateful (abstract, workflow representation includes current state configuration to the desired state configuration. Also see Fig. 6, step 610, 620 and 630, the workflow representation includes obtaining data for present state configuration and the desired state configuration.).
As per claim 7, Collins teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the receiving the current state, the comparing the desired state to the current state to determine the difference (para 15, obtaining data from the computing device to initiate an adjustment of the cloud computing resource from the present state configuration to the desired state configuration. The present state teaches the actual conditions. Also see, para 57-58, Fig. 4A-4B, determining changes between the present state and the desired state), and
the causing of the at least one of the first change and the second change are performed at least one of semi- automatically and automatically, and wherein there is a configurable amount of user intervention associated with at least one of receiving the current state, comparing the desired state to the current state, and causing the at least one of the first change and the second change (para 15, obtaining data from the computing device to initiate an adjustment of the cloud computing resource from the present state configuration to the desired state configuration. The adjustment indicates there is a change between the current state and the desired state. Once a user confirms an adjustment, the system will generate a configuration instruction based on the workflow representation. This teaches the causing of a function in response to the determined difference. Also see paras 7-8, user defining configuration based on an end result specified by the configuration file. Prior to configuration it generates a configuration report based on the simulation.).
As per claim 8, Collins teaches
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 of the at least one of the first change and the second change includes provisioning the physical device to perform a mission associated with the physical device (para 62, the configuration file can indicates hardware on which the virtual machine runs needs to be adjusted or necessitates a migration of virtual machine to new hardware. Also see, para 39, The desired state configuration data 104B can indicate the creation of new instance of the virtual PC or modification/deletion to an existing instance or utilize a new hardware platform.).
As per claim 10, Collins teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the causing of the at least one of the first change and the second change includes optimizing operation of and/or resource usage in at least one of the at least two sub-infrastructures (para 46, Fig. 2, dynamic configuration of a cloud computing resources based on its current configuration 202. The dynamic configuration introduce new instances of associated cloud computing resources and elastic balance, including application load balancers, network load balancers, etc. Also, in Fig. 2 each transition is verifying with the user and changing based on the condition. Therefore, there is an optimization process from current configuration 202 to the final configuration 210. The ELB includes both application load balance and network load balances. Thus, it includes both physical and network sub-infrastructures.).
As per claim 11, Collins teaches
A management system for managing an industrial system infrastructure, the management system comprising (para 8, a cloud computing system):
one or more memories configured to store a plurality of programmable instructions (para 71, memory 720); and
one or more processing devices in communication with the one or more memories, wherein the one or more processing devices, upon execution of the plurality of programmable instructions are configured to (para 71, processors 710):
determine a desired state of the industrial system infrastructure including at least two sub- infrastructures of a virtual sub-infrastructure, wherein the at least two sub-infrastructures include at least a physical sub-infrastructure ,and a network sub-infrastructure, wherein the desired state models a modified condition of at least one of a plurality of desired conditions of the industrial system infrastructure ( please refer to the analysis of claim 1 above);
receive a current state of the industrial system infrastructure, wherein the current state models actual conditions of the industrial system infrastructure (please refer to the analysis of claim 1 above);
compare the desired state to the current state for the industrial system infrastructure to determine a difference between the desired state and the current state, wherein the comparison includes comparing the desired state to the current state for each of at least two sub-infrastructures of the industrial system infrastructure (please refer to the analysis of claim 1 above); and
cause, as a function of and in response to the determined difference and the desired state, at least one of a first change in a first sub-infrastructure of the at least two sub-infrastructures and a second change in a second sub-infrastructure of the at least two sub-infrastructures (please refer to the analysis of claim 1 above).
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 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.
As per claim 21, Collins teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein, responsive to determining a difference between the desired state and the current state of the first sub-infrastructure of the at least two sub- infrastructures, the management system causes the second change to occur in the second sub- infrastructure, wherein the second sub-infrastructure is different than the first sub-infrastructure (paras 38-39, Fig. 1B,
state processor 110A obtains present state configuration data and identifies an existing configuration of a cloud computing resource “Virtual PC A”. The virtual PC A can operate over the cloud computing server 107. Then the state processor 110A obtains desired state configuration data 104B and identifies the new instance of the virtual PC A such as transitioning from an existing instance to a new instance. The new instance could be modifying a new hardware platform. The cloud computing resource configuration though virtual PC is done through network infrastructure. The changes in hardware platform represents physical sub-infrastructures.).
As per claim 22, Collins teaches
The management system of claim 11, wherein, responsive to determining a difference between the desired state and the current state of the first sub-infrastructure of the at least two sub- infrastructures, the management system causes the second change to occur in the second sub- infrastructure, wherein the second sub-infrastructure is different than the first sub-infrastructure ( paras 38-39, Fig. 1B, state processor 110A obtains present state configuration data and identifies an existing configuration of a cloud computing resource “Virtual PC A”. The virtual PC A can operate over the cloud computing server 107. Then the state processor 110A obtains desired state configuration data 104B and identifies the new instance of the virtual PC A such as transitioning from an existing instance to a new instance. The new instance could be modifying a new hardware platform. The cloud computing resource configuration though virtual PC is done through network infrastructure. The changes in hardware platform represents physical sub-infrastructures.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or no obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (US 20210111949 A1.), and in view of Amaro et al. (US 20220404810 A1.).
As per claim 9 , Collins does not teach
The method of claim 1, wherein the difference is determined as a function of a failure of a first node included in one of the at least two sub-infrastructures, wherein the first node is originally designated as requiring high availability and a second node operates as a redundant pair of the first node, wherein the causing of the at least one of the first change and the second 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; 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 .
In the same field of endeavor, Amaro et al. teach
The method of claim 1, wherein the difference is determined as a function of a failure of a first node (Amaro et al., para 159, First compute node 344) included in one of the at least two sub-infrastructures ( See Fig. 5A and 5B, included I/O server #1 356A, 370A as virtual sub infrastructure and Distributed alarm subsystem #1 354B and 368 B as physical 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 the causing of the at least one of the first change and the second 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 (Amaro et al. , 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. Here the first node becoming unavailable and idle and based on that the second note becoming the role of first node instead of its original role indicating a change in the first node. It also represents a change in the second node based on the first node’s change); 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 (Amaro et al., 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).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify cloud computing resource configuration techniques taught by Collins and to include compute nodes in sub-infrastructures taught by Amaro et al.. This would have been obvious because both Collins and Amaro et al. teach an industrial process system. By adding the compute nodes to the physical sub infrastructure, the controller can maintain redundancy by initiating the compute nodes. If the first compute node is unavailable, then the second compute node becomes active and continues the process. Such feature will aid the system to function in case of power failure (Amaro et al., para 158-159, Figs. 5A-5B.).
Conclusion
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