DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/1/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see pages 4-5 of Applicant’s remarks, filed 7/1/2026, with respect to claims 11-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 11-16 under 35 U.S.C 103 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 and 17-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 11-16 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, line 6, “the electric power delivery system” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 18, line 2, after “one or more”, --of—should be inserted.
Dependent claims 12-16 do not overcome the deficiency of the base claims and, therefore, are objected for the same reasons as the base claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
7. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
8. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “computing device configured to” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
10. Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 11 has been amended to recite” receiving first measurements corresponding to first internal logic results relating to a power delivery system protection scheme from an intelligent electronic device (IED)…” and “receiving second measurements corresponding to second internal logic results relating to a power delivery system protection scheme from an intelligent electronic device (IED)…”. However, these new limitations raise new matter issues.
The originally filed specification supports that “an IED (e.g., the IEDs104,106,108,115) may refer to any processing-based device that monitors, controls, automates, and/or protects monitored equipment within the electric power distribution system 100” (see e.g. paragraph [0016] of the specification). However, the examiner does not find that there is sufficient support for “first measurements corresponding to first internal logic results relating to a power delivery system protection scheme from an intelligent electronic device (IED)…” and “second measurements corresponding to second internal logic results relating to a power delivery system protection scheme from an intelligent electronic device (IED)…”.
Dependent claims 12-16 do not overcome the deficiency of the base
claims and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons as the base claims.
11. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
12. Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11, line 10, “the intelligent electronic device (IED)” is unclear whether it refers to “an intelligent electronic device (IED)” in line 5 or 7 of the claim.
Claim 12, line 2, “the IED normal operation” is unclear whether it refers to “normal intelligent electronic device (IED) operation” in lines 7-8 or 10-11 of the claim 11.
Claim 17 “the computing device” in lines 7 and 9 are unclear whether they refer to “a computing device” in line 3 or 5 of the claim.
Dependent claims 13-16 and 18-20 do not overcome the deficiency of the base
claims and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons as the base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. Claims 1-4 ,6-10, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Patent 11,775,379 B1) in view of Surdu (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0322792 A1) and Crespi et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0174139 A1).
As to claim 1, Yang teaches a system (see Fig.1 and associated text), comprising:
a computing device (e.g. compute device 100) communicatively coupled to an intelligent electronic device (IED) (e.g. IOT compute device 140, see e.g. col.3 lines 50-52: FIG. 1 includes an anomaly detection compute device 100 communicably coupled to an internet-of-things (IOT) compute device 140 via a network 120), wherein the computing device is configured to:
receive a first signal indicative of first measurements from the intelligent electronic device (IED) while the intelligent electronic device is operating normally (see Fig.5 and associated text, e.g. col.10 lines 60-64: At 501, a first set of values (e.g., first set of values 105) reported by an electronic device (e.g., IOT compute device 140) over a first period of time that is prior to a firmware release (e.g., firmware release 109) to the electronic device is received and col.11 lines 1-7: values being reported by an electronic device refers to values of operational parameters (e.g., values measured by sensors, intrinsic parameters, extrinsic parameters, etc.) of the electronic device that are measured and/or captured by the electronic device and then provided, for example, to a compute device (e.g., anomaly detection compute device 100),
transmit a second signal indicative of instructions to apply a settings change or firmware update (see e.g. col.4 line 67-col.5 line 2: a firmware release results in the IOT compute device 140 storing and/or using the newly-delivered firmware, and replacing the prior firmware with the newly-delivered firmware and col.6 lines 49-51: The IOT compute device 140 can update accordingly in response to receiving a representation of the firmware release 109),
receive a third signal indicative of second measurements from the intelligent electronic device (IED) (see Fig.5 and associated text, e.g. col.11 lines 13-17: At 503, a second set of values (e.g., second set of values 111) reported by the electronic device over a second period of time that is after the firmware release is received), and
determine validation (e.g. detecting an anomaly) of the settings change or firmware update based on the first measurements and the second measurements (see Fig.5 and associated text, e.g. col.11 lines 24-34: At 505, for each metric from the plurality of metrics, to detect an anomaly associated with at least one of the firmware release or the electronic device; the set of statistical properties associated with the subset of values included in the first set of values associated with that metric and (2) the set of statistical properties associated with the subset of values included in the second set of values associated with that metric are compared) and lines 36-42: At 506, in response to detecting the anomaly, a signal to cause a remedial action (e.g., causing a mode of operation of the electronic device to change, causing a mode of operation of firmware of the firmware release to change) is sent automatically (e.g., without requiring human intervention) in response to detecting the anomaly).
Yang teaches apply a settings change or firmware update (see e.g. col.4 line 67-col.5 line 2), receive a third signal indicative of second measurements from the intelligent electronic device (IED) (see e.g. col.11 lines 13-17), and determine validation of the settings or firmware update based on the first measurements and the second measurements (see e.g. col.11 lines 24-34), does not specifically teach pause normal operation and apply the settings change or firmware update, or while the normal operation is paused.
In an analogous art, however of updating firmware, however, Surdu teaches pause normal device (e.g. IOT device) operation and apply the settings change or firmware update (e.g. Firmware Update Package, see e.g. Fig.3 and associated text, e.g. [0043]- The system is optimized for devices with limited hardware resources and applies the FUP after stoppage of the MEE (main execution environment) and rebooting of the device. As is apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art, in certain scenarios it may be desirable to apply the FUP to the SEE (staging (new) execution environment) and perform-post update validation before rebooting the device, in order to minimize downtime), receiving measurements (e.g. configuration parameters being monitored to detect errors) while the normal device operation is paused (see e.g. [0051]- the system starts SEE (307) and initiate SEE validation (308) and [0052]- If the validation is successful, the CMS activates, BEE is removed, the MEE becomes the BEE, and the SEE becomes the new MEE and starts operating normally) and determine validation of the settings or firmware update while the normal device operation is paused [0055]- to assure stability, a new FUP receives initial “New Package” (401) status after delivery to the device and following the verification procedure, the FUP will switch into either “Verified Package” (402) if the validation is successful, or “Invalid Package” (403) otherwise. If the FUP is determined to be an “Invalid Package”, the firmware update process stops, and [0056]- Next, the FUS applies the FUP to the SEE, the firmware receives “Stage Firmware” (404) status, and validation starts. After successful validation, the firmware receives “Validated Firmware” (405) status. At this point, the firmware update process is considered completed and the device starts operating normally).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method/system of Yang to incorporate/implement the limitations as taught by Surdu in order to provide a more efficient method/system of updating firmware while minimizing downtime.
Yang in view of Surdu teaches the intelligent electronic device (IED) (see Yang: e.g. col.3 lines 50-52) and while the intelligent electronic device (IED) is operating normally (see Yang: e.g. col.10 lines 60-64), but does not specifically teach that the intelligent electronic device (IED) is of an electric power delivery system or to protect the electric power delivery system.
In an analogous art, however, of upgrading software however, Crespi teaches an intelligent electronic device (IED) of an electric power delivery system and to protect the electric power delivery system (see Fig. 1, IED1 and associated text, e.g. [0001]- The present invention relates to a low or medium voltage power distribution network. Modern power distribution networks comprise protection and control (P&C) devices, also called Intelligent Electronic Device (IED) and [0041]- a low or medium voltage electric power distribution network comprises, in its more general definition, at least a P&C device (IED1, IEDN). As already said, P&C devices are basically aimed at performing a number of functions such as: controlling the operations of the switch devices of the power distribution network, collecting and providing information related to electrical quantities (voltage, current, and the like) in certain points of the power distribution network, and implementing high level management functionalities of the power distribution networks) and apply a settings change or firmware update (e.g. software upgrade, see e.g. [0053]- Once the IED receives the upgraded software file the storing procedure can start) and [0056]- The IED will be "dead" only while storing the upgraded software (about 1 min.) in which period it doesn't work in normal condition).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method/system of Yang in view of Surdu to incorporate/implement the limitations as taught by Crespi in order to provide a more efficient method/system of configuring IEDs in a timely manner for the purpose of minimizing downtime.
As to claim 2, Yang also teaches wherein the first measurements comprise first internal logic results and the second measurements comprise second internal logic results (See e.g. col.11 lines 1-5: values being reported by an electronic device refers to values of operational parameters (e.g., values measured by sensors, intrinsic parameters, extrinsic parameters, etc.) of the electronic device that are measured and/or captured by the electronic device), and wherein the computing device is configured to determine validation of the settings change or firmware update based on a comparison of the first measurements and second measurements (See e.g. col.11 lines 29-34: the set of statistical properties associated with the subset of values included in the first set of values associated with that metric and (2) the set of statistical properties associated with the subset of values included in the second set of values associated with that metric are compared).
As to claim 3, Yang also teaches wherein the computing device is configured to determine that the settings change or firmware update is validated (e.g. no anomaly present) when the second measurements fall within a threshold of the first measurements (See col.8 lines 35-41: the first set of statistical properties 107 and the second set of statistical properties 113 can be compared to determine a confidence score that indicates a confidence that an anomaly is (or is not) present. The confidence score can be determined based on the first set of statistical properties 107 and the second set of statistical properties 113 and col.12 lines 62- col.13 lines 1-16: computing, for each metric from the second plurality of metrics, an anomaly confidence score (1) associated with at least one of the firmware release or the second electronic device, and (2) determined based on (i) the set of statistical properties associated with the subset of values included in the third set of values associated with that metric, (ii) the set of statistical properties associated with the subset of values included in the fourth set of values associated with that metric, and (iii) an anomaly ratio associated with that metric for a set of electronic devices being of the electronic device type (e.g., where the anomaly ratio can be the ratio of the number electronic devices from the set of electronic devices being of the electronic device type determined to have an anomaly to the number of electronic devices from the set of electronic devices being of the electronic device type determined to not have an anomaly). Some implementations of method 500 further include sending, automatically in response to the anomaly confidence score for each metric from the second plurality of metrics being outside a predetermined range, a second signal to cause a second remedial action.
As to claim 4, Crespi further teaches wherein the computing device (see Fig.1, 11 and associated text) is configured to send the settings change or firmware update to the intelligent electronic device (IED) before transmitting the signal indicative of instructions to pause normal intelligent electronic device (IED) operation and apply the settings change or firmware update (see e.g. [0052]- After the selection of the software file to be downloaded the Configuration Tool performs some compatibility checks. If everything works properly the download phase can start. The download phase preferably adopts the session model concept (open a session--download software--close session) to prevent multiple contemporaneous software download from different PCs. This mechanism guarantees that the IED can continue to be "alive" while downloading the software and continue to perform normal operations of protection and control and [0053]- Once the IED receives the upgraded software file the storing procedure can start, and [0056]- The IED will be "dead" only while storing the upgraded software (about 1 min.) in which period it doesn't work in normal condition).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method/system of Yang in view of Surdu to incorporate/implement the limitations as taught by Crespi in order to provide a more efficient method/system of configuring IEDs in a timely manner for the purpose of minimizing downtime.
As to claim 6, Yang also teaches wherein the first measurements and second measurements are generated by the intelligent electronic device IED (See e.g. col.11 lines 1-5: values being reported by an electronic device refers to values of operational parameters (e.g., values measured by sensors, intrinsic parameters, extrinsic parameters, etc.) of the electronic device that are measured and/or captured by the electronic device), the second measurements being generated after the first measurements are generated (see e.g. col.11 lines 13-17: At 503, a second set of values (e.g., second set of values 111) reported by the electronic device over a second period of time that is after the firmware release is received).
As to claim 7, Yang also teaches wherein the intelligent electronic device (IED) applies the settings change or firmware update after generating the first measurements (see e.g. col.4 line 67-col.5 line 2: a firmware release results in the IOT compute device 140 storing and/or using the newly-delivered firmware, and replacing the prior firmware with the newly-delivered firmware, col.6 lines 49-51: The IOT compute device 140 can update accordingly in response to receiving a representation of the firmware release 109 and col.10 lines 60-64: At 501, a first set of values (e.g., first set of values 105) reported by an electronic device (e.g., IOT compute device 140) over a first period of time that is prior to a firmware release (e.g., firmware release 109) to the electronic device is received), and before generating the second measurements (see e.g. col.11 lines 13-17: At 503, a second set of values (e.g., second set of values 111) reported by the electronic device over a second period of time that is after the firmware release is received).
As to claim 8, Yang also teaches wherein the intelligent electronic device (IED) is configured to download the settings change or firmware update from a source other than the computing device (see e.g. col.6 lines 52-55: In some instances, the firmware release 109 is not sent to IOT compute device 140 from anomaly detection compute device 100, but rather to IOT compute device 140 from a compute device not shown in FIG. 1).
As to claim 9, Crespi further teaches wherein the intelligent electronic device (IED) is configured to pause the normal intelligent electronic device (IED) operation in response to the instructions to pause the normal intelligent electronic device (IED) operation (See e.g. [0053]- Once the IED receives the upgraded software file the storing procedure can start. At the start-up, in case the software is stored the IED waits for a confirmation message) wherein the intelligent electronic device (IED) is configured to control one or more components of the electric power delivery system during normal intelligent electronic device (IED) operation (see e.g. [0052]- The download phase preferably adopts the session model concept (open a session--download software--close session) to prevent multiple contemporaneous software download from different PCs. This mechanism guarantees that the IED can continue to be "alive" while downloading the software and continue to perform normal operations of protection and control) and not to control the one or more components of the electric power delivery system when normal intelligent electronic device (IED) operation is paused (see e.g. [0053]- The IED will be "dead" only while storing the upgraded software (about 1 min.) in which period it doesn't work in normal condition).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method/system of Yang in view of Surdu to incorporate/implement the limitations as taught by Crespi in order to provide a more efficient method/system of configuring IEDs in a timely manner for the purpose of minimizing downtime.
As to claim 10, Yang also teaches wherein: the computing device comprises a remote computing device (See e.g. col.3 lines 50-52: an anomaly detection compute device 100 communicably coupled to an internet-of-things (IOT) compute device 140 via a network 120), the system comprises a local computing device in communication with the intelligent electronic device (IED) (see e.g. col. 4 lines 53-55: In some instances, the memory 143 can be remotely operatively coupled with a compute device (not shown in FIG. 1), and the remote computing device is configured to communicatively couple, via a wide area network, to the local computing device in communication with the intelligent electronic device (IED) to enable the remote computing device to communicatively couple to the intelligent electronic device (IED) (See e.g. col.3 lines 53-63: The network 120 can be any suitable communications network for transferring data, for example operating over public and/or private communications networks. For example, the network 120 can include a private network, a Virtual Private Network (VPN), a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) circuit, the Internet, an intranet, a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), a metropolitan area network (MAN), a worldwide interoperability for microwave access network (WiMAX®), an optical fiber (or fiber optic)-based network, a Bluetooth® network, a virtual network, and/or any combination thereof and (see e.g. col.6 lines 52-55: In some instances, the firmware release 109 is not sent to IOT compute device 140 from anomaly detection compute device 100, but rather to IOT compute device 140 from a compute device not shown in FIG. 1).
As to claim 17, Yang teaches a method, comprising:
while an intelligent electronic device (IED) (e.g. IOT compute device 140) is operating normally, receiving, via a computing device (e.g. compute device 100), first measurements from the intelligent electronic device (IED), see Fig.5 and associated text, e.g. col.10 lines 60-64: At 501, a first set of values (e.g., first set of values 105) reported by an electronic device (e.g., IOT compute device 140) over a first period of time that is prior to a firmware release (e.g., firmware release 109) to the electronic device is received and col.11 lines 1-7: values being reported by an electronic device refers to values of operational parameters (e.g., values measured by sensors, intrinsic parameters, extrinsic parameters, etc.) of the electronic device that are measured and/or captured by the electronic device and then provided, for example, to a compute device (e.g., anomaly detection compute device 100),
instructing, via a computing device, the intelligent electronic device (IED) to apply a settings change or firmware update (see e.g. col.4 line 67-col.5 line 2: a firmware release results in the IOT compute device 140 storing and/or using the newly-delivered firmware, and replacing the prior firmware with the newly-delivered firmware and col.6 lines 49-51: The IOT compute device 140 can update accordingly in response to receiving a representation of the firmware release 109),
receiving, via the computing device, second measurements from the intelligent electronic device (IED) (see Fig.5 and associated text, e.g. col.11 lines 13-17: At 503, a second set of values (e.g., second set of values 111) reported by the electronic device over a second period of time that is after the firmware release is received), and
determining, via the computing device, whether the settings change or firmware update are validated (e.g. detecting an anomaly) based on the first measurements and second measurements (see Fig.5 and associated text, e.g. col.11 lines 24-34: At 505, for each metric from the plurality of metrics, to detect an anomaly associated with at least one of the firmware release or the electronic device; the set of statistical properties associated with the subset of values included in the first set of values associated with that metric and (2) the set of statistical properties associated with the subset of values included in the second set of values associated with that metric are compared) and based on determining that the settings change or firmware update is not validated (e.g. anomaly detected), instructing the IED to undertake a remedial measure (See Fig.5 and associated text, e.g. col.11 lines 36-42: At 506, in response to detecting the anomaly, a signal to cause a remedial action (e.g., causing a mode of operation of the electronic device to change, causing a mode of operation of firmware of the firmware release to change) is sent automatically (e.g., without requiring human intervention) in response to detecting the anomaly).
Yang teaches the IED (see col.3 lines 50-52) and instructing the IED to undertake a remedial measure (See Fig.5 and associated text, e.g. col.11 lines 36-42), but does not specifically teach the remedial measure comprising restarting the settings change or firmware update or reverting to prior settings or firmware.
In an analogous art, however of updating firmware, however, Surdu teaches based on determining that a settings change or firmware update is not validated, instructing the device to undertake a remedial measure comprising restarting the settings change or firmware update or reverting to prior settings or firmware (see e.g. [0055]- If the FUP is determined to be an “Invalid Package”, the firmware update process stops and [0057]- If the validation is unsuccessful, the firmware receives “Invalid Firmware” (406) status and the rollback procedure starts, deleting the SEE and starting the MEE).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method/system of Yang to incorporate/implement the limitations as taught by Surdu in order to provide a more efficient method/system of updating firmware while minimizing downtime.
Yang in view of Surdu teaches while the intelligent electronic device (IED) is operating normally (see Yang: e.g. col.10 lines 60-64), but does not specifically teach that the intelligent electronic device (IED) is of an electric power delivery system or to protect the electric power delivery system.
In an analogous art, however, of upgrading software however, Crespi teaches an intelligent electronic device (IED) of an electric power delivery system and to protect the electric power delivery system (see Fig. 1, IED1 and associated text, e.g. [0001]- The present invention relates to a low or medium voltage power distribution network. Modern power distribution networks comprise protection and control (P&C) devices, also called Intelligent Electronic Device (IED) and [0041]- a low or medium voltage electric power distribution network comprises, in its more general definition, at least a P&C device (IED1, IEDN). As already said, P&C devices are basically aimed at performing a number of functions such as: controlling the operations of the switch devices of the power distribution network, collecting and providing information related to electrical quantities (voltage, current, and the like) in certain points of the power distribution network, and implementing high level management functionalities of the power distribution networks), apply a settings change or firmware update (e.g. software upgrade, see e.g. [0053]- Once the IED receives the upgraded software file the storing procedure can start) and [0056]- The IED will be "dead" only while storing the upgraded software (about 1 min.) in which period it doesn't work in normal condition), and based on determining that a settings change or firmware update (e.g. software upgrade) is not validated (e.g. not correctly stored or not working), instructing the device to undertake a remedial measure comprising restarting the settings change or firmware update or reverting to prior settings or firmware (See e.g. [0054]- If the confirmation message is not received within a pre-defined timeout, the old software is recovered by the boot loader. The old software is saved in a back-up FLASH block. This allows recovering the old software in case of sudden power-fail while storing new software or in case the new software is not working).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method/system of Yang in view of Surdu to incorporate/implement the limitations as taught by Crespi in order to provide a more efficient method/system of configuring IEDs in a timely manner for the purpose of minimizing downtime.
As to claim 19, Yang also teaches wherein the method is performed by a computing device within a local area network of the intelligent electronic device (IED) (See e.g. col.3 lines 50-52: an anomaly detection compute device 100 communicably coupled to an internet-of-things (IOT) compute device 140 via a network 120 and (See e.g. col.3 lines 53-63: The network 120 can be any suitable communications network for transferring data, for example operating over public and/or private communications networks. For example, the network 120 can include a private network, a Virtual Private Network (VPN), a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) circuit, the Internet, an intranet, a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), a metropolitan area network (MAN), a worldwide interoperability for microwave access network (WiMAX®), an optical fiber (or fiber optic)-based network, a Bluetooth® network, a virtual network, and/or any combination thereof).
As to claim 20, Yang also teaches wherein the method is performed by a computing device separated from the intelligent electronic device (IED) by a wide area network (See e.g. col.3 lines 50-52: an anomaly detection compute device 100 communicably coupled to an internet-of-things (IOT) compute device 140 via a network 120 and (See e.g. col.3 lines 53-63: The network 120 can be any suitable communications network for transferring data, for example operating over public and/or private communications networks. For example, the network 120 can include a private network, a Virtual Private Network (VPN), a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) circuit, the Internet, an intranet, a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), a metropolitan area network (MAN), a worldwide interoperability for microwave access network (WiMAX®), an optical fiber (or fiber optic)-based network, a Bluetooth® network, a virtual network, and/or any combination thereof and (see e.g. col.6 lines 52-55: In some instances, the firmware release 109 is not sent to IOT compute device 140 from anomaly detection compute device 100, but rather to IOT compute device 140 from a compute device not shown in FIG. 1).
15. Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Patent 11,775,379 B1) in view of Surdu (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0322792 A1) and Crespi et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0174139 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Thanos et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0229516 A1).
As to claim 5, Yang in view of Surdu and Crespi teaches wherein the intelligent electronic device generates the first measurements and second measurements (see Yang: e.g. col.11 lines 1-5), but does not specifically teach based on electric power delivery system values.
In an analogous art, however of updating configuration settings, however, Thanos teaches wherein the intelligent electronic device generates measurements based on electric power delivery system values (see e.g. [0021]- the IED may be coupled to power equipment (e.g., breakers, transformers, switches, motors, or generators) and may be configured to receive measurements (e.g., frequency measurements, voltage measurements, and current measurements) from the power equipment).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method/system of Yang in view of Surdu and Crespi to incorporate/implement the limitations as taught by Thanos in order to provide a more efficient method/system of configuring IEDs at a distance in a secure manner.
As to claim 18, Yang in view of Surdu and Crespi teaches the settings change or firmware update (see Yang: e.g. col.4 line 67-col.5 line 2 and col.6 lines 49-51), but does not specifically teach wherein the settings change or firmware update comprises one or more security configuration changes, control changes, measurement changes, changes to internal logic results corresponding to a protection scheme of the power delivery system, or any combination thereof.
In an analogous art of updating configuration settings, however, Thanos teaches wherein the settings change or firmware update comprises one or more security configuration changes, [control changes, measurement changes, changes to internal logic results corresponding to a protection scheme of the power delivery system, or any combination thereof] (See e.g. [0047]- In particular, to improve security in the protection and control system 36 illustrated in FIG. 2, the IED configuring device 62 or 100 may prompt the operator, via the display, to provide a new SSID, network security passphrase or key, IP address, IP subnet mask, or other suitable wireless network configuration settings for IED 42).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method/system of Yang in view of Surdu and Crespi to incorporate/implement the limitations as taught by Thanos in order to provide a more efficient method/system of configuring IEDs at a distance in a secure manner.
Conclusion
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENECA SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1651. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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.
/CHENECA SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. Sough/SPE, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights