Detailed Action
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 responsive to the 7/09/2024 communication(s). As per the claims filed 4/15/2024:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 16 is/are independent claim(s).
Note Regarding Prior Art
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Note Regarding AIA Status
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 10, 11, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Somayeh Malakuti et al.(US PG Pub No.2021/0405629; Published: 12/30/2021)(hereinafter: Malakuti).
Claim 1:
As per independent claim 1, Malakuti discloses a system, comprising:
processing circuitry; and a memory, accessible by the processing circuitry, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, [[0086] Computing device 900 includes a processor 902, memory 904, a storage device 906, a high-speed interface 908 connecting to memory 904 and high-speed expansion ports 910…. The processor 902 can process instructions for execution within the computing device 900,]cause the processing circuitry to perform operations comprising:
receiving data from a device twin representative of an industrial automation device of an industrial automation system configured to perform an industrial automation process [[0022] The device has at least one co-existing digital representation (digital twin) being a virtual entity replicating data of the physical device and data associated with the device life cycle. The computer system provides one or more digital representation services.] wherein the industrial automation device is communicatively coupled to an operational technology (OT) network, wherein the device twin comprises an interface by which one or more applications may interact with the industrial automation device [[0024] Each digital representation service has an interface to receive a request for device life cycle information from an information consumer connected to the network.];
determining that the industrial automation device is accessible via a plurality of edge devices [[0061] The digital twin manager DTM may be configured by a digital twin manager configuration component DTMC. Various configurations may be applied. For example, administrators may configure the digital twin to pull information from specific sources, or to only keep references to the original data instead of copying them inside the digital twin. Another example of a particular configuration is about the deployment of digital twins, which can be fully or partially on the cloud, edge or device,]
applying one or more policies to select a particular edge device of the plurality of edge devices [[0040] the configuration module is further adapted to: select a deployment mode for the digital representation, wherein the deployment mode can be selected for each data model enclosed in the digital representation from any one of the following: deployment to a cloud network, edge or to the device itself.]and
transmitting the data to the particular edge device for transmission to the industrial automation device [[0040] the configuration module is further adapted to: select a deployment mode for the digital representation, wherein the deployment mode can be selected for each data model enclosed in the digital representation from any one of the following: deployment to a cloud network, edge or to the device itself. [0061] The deployment mode can be selected for each data model in the collected data models for deployment to a cloud network, edge or device itself. The term edge is used herein in the meaning of edge computing which pushes applications, data and computing power (services) away from centralized points to locations closer to the user. For example, if a digital twin contains a data model keeping the operational parameters of a device, a data model for engineering information and a data model for maintenance information, the first data model can be stored within the device itself, and only a reference to that is maintained inside the digital twin; the other data models and the digital twin can be stored, for example, in the cloud.].
Claim 5:
As per claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Makajuti discloses wherein the data comprises commands for the industrial automation device, configuration changes for the industrial automation device, or both. [[0062] Another configuration is about synchronization of multiple models, for example, upon availability of both engineering and operational models of a device, the engineering parameters may be downloaded into the operational parameters to facilitate a plug and produce use case where device related data from different life cycles of the device can be instantaneously exchanged between engineering and operational models once they are plugged into the DTS.]
Claim 10:
As per independent claim 10, it recites the method being executed by the system of claim 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claim 11:
As per claim 11, which depends on claim 10, Malakuti disclose wherein the one or more policies specify a preference between a mobile data connection and a wired connection. [[0093] The control interface 958 may receive commands from a user and convert them for submission to the processor 952. In addition, an external interface 962 may be provide in communication with processor 952, so as to enable near area communication of device 950 with other devices. External interface 962 may provide, for example, for wired communication in some implementations, or for wireless communication in other implementations, and multiple interfaces may also be used.]
Claim 16:
As per independent claim 16, it recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform operations of claim 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claim 17:
As per claim 17, which depends on claim 16 ,Malakuti discloses wherein the action comprises data collection, data analysis, applying a machine learning model, root cause analysis, diagnosing a condition, updating firmware, updating software, maintenance analysis, service analysis, or any combination thereof. [[0056] The model providers MP1 to MP4 can retrieve information from the information systems and feed it into the DTS. For example, data models of the associated information sources can be retrieved by the corresponding model collectors MC1 to MC4. Such data models are then provided to the Digital Twin of DTS where they are stored as collected models CM1.]
Claim 18:
As per claim 18, which depends on claim 16, Malakuti discloses wherein the action comprises transmitting the data to the industrial automation device or the device twin.[[0021] a computer system is proposed for interoperable data exchange between a plurality of information systems via a digital representation service associated with a digital representation of the physical device. [0023] The physical device may then be discovered (like other information systems) and the digital twin (i.e., its digital representation) can be generated by the management module reflecting the data model(s) exposed by the physical device. This digital twin can then be enhanced by data models from other information sources which are related to the data models of the physical device.]
Claim 19:
As per claim 19, which depends on claim 16, Malakuti discloses wherein the device twin runs in a cloud computing environment. [[0055] FIG. 3 illustrates an example system landscape 300 with multiple information systems C1, C2, DB, A1 exchanging data via a digital representation (twin) service DTS. The digital twin service DTS maintains a digital twin of a device. It is to be noted that there can be multiple digital twins in multiple DTS services for a particular device, each one comprising specific kinds of data models and having its own lifecycle semantics. In the example, external cloud computers C1 and internal cloud computers C2 are connected to the network via corresponding application programming interfaces API].
Claim 20:
As per claim 20, which depends on claim 16, Malakuti discloses wherein the device twin runs on a server or computing device disposed on-premises with the industrial automation system. [[0055] FIG. 3 illustrates an example system landscape 300 with multiple information systems C1, C2, DB, A1 exchanging data via a digital representation (twin) service DTS. The digital twin service DTS maintains a digital twin of a device. It is to be noted that there can be multiple digital twins in multiple DTS services for a particular device, each one comprising specific kinds of data models and having its own lifecycle semantics. In the example, external cloud computers C1 and internal cloud computers C2 are connected to the network via corresponding application programming interfaces API
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malakuti in view of Igor Dubrovsky et al. (US PG Pub No. US 2025/0103315; Filed: 9/21/2023)(hereinafter: Dubrovsky).
Claim 2:
As per claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Malakuti failed to specifically disclose wherein the operations comprise: receiving inputs defining a new policy; and creating the new policy based on the inputs.
Dubrovsky, in the same field of managing operations of edge devices discloses this limitation in that [[0014] When a new services is to be deployed, the source code for the service may be analyzed to identify its network dependencies. The network dependencies may be used to establish a network policy that when implemented by edge infrastructure allows the service to operate by, for example, opening ports, enabling communication protocols, etc.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the configuration module of Malakuti to receive inputs defining a new policy; and create the new policy based on the inputs as disclosed by Dubrovsky. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce network impact and facilitate deployment of new services (0015-0017).
Claim(s) 4, 8, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malakuti in view of Sangar Dowlatkhah et al (US PG Pub No. 2021/0168662; Published: 06/03/2021)(hereinafter: Dowlatkhah).
Claim 4:
As per claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Malakuti failed to specifically disclose wherein the operations comprise selecting an additional edge device, wherein transmitting the data to the particular edge device is for transmission to the industrial automation device via the additional edge device.
Dowlatkhah, in the same field of connected edge devices discloses this limitation in that [[0016] One or more aspects of the subject disclosure include selecting a first edge device of a communication network to provide a first part of a service to a user equipment that is subscribed to the service, establishing a communication session between the first edge device and the user equipment in accordance with a first access technology to facilitate a transfer of first data associated with the first part of the service to the user equipment, determining that at least one parameter associated with the communication session falls below a threshold, and responsive to the determining that the at least one parameter associated with the communication session falls below the threshold, handing-over the communication session to a second edge device to facilitate a transfer of second data associated with a second part of the service to the user equipment.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the configuration module of Malakuti to transmit information via a second edge device as disclosed by Dowlatkhah. The motivation for doing so would ensure performance is maintained by selecting a second device, thus resulting is sustained or increased performance.
Claim 8:
As per claim 8, which depends on claim 1, Malakuti failed to specifically disclose wherein the operations comprise reapplying the one or more policies in response to a measured performance being more than a threshold amount below an expected performance to select a different edge device of the plurality of edge devices.
Dowlatkhah, in the same field of connected edge devices discloses this limitation in that [[0016] One or more aspects of the subject disclosure include selecting a first edge device of a communication network to provide a first part of a service to a user equipment that is subscribed to the service, establishing a communication session between the first edge device and the user equipment in accordance with a first access technology to facilitate a transfer of first data associated with the first part of the service to the user equipment, determining that at least one parameter associated with the communication session falls below a threshold, and responsive to the determining that the at least one parameter associated with the communication session falls below the threshold, handing-over the communication session to a second edge device to facilitate a transfer of second data associated with a second part of the service to the user equipment.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the configuration module of Malakuti to reapply the one or more policies in response to a measured performance being more than a threshold amount below an expected performance to select a different edge device of the plurality of edge devices as disclosed by Dowlatkhah. The motivation for doing so would ensure performance is maintained by selecting a second device, thus resulting is sustained or increased performance.
Claim 15:
As per claim 15, which depends on claim 10, Malakuti failed to specifically disclose wherein the particular edge device is selected as primary edge device, and wherein an additional edge device is selected as backup edge device.
Dowlatkhah, in the same field of connected edge devices discloses this limitation in that [[0016] One or more aspects of the subject disclosure include selecting a first edge device of a communication network to provide a first part of a service to a user equipment that is subscribed to the service, establishing a communication session between the first edge device and the user equipment in accordance with a first access technology to facilitate a transfer of first data associated with the first part of the service to the user equipment, determining that at least one parameter associated with the communication session falls below a threshold, and responsive to the determining that the at least one parameter associated with the communication session falls below the threshold, handing-over the communication session to a second edge device to facilitate a transfer of second data associated with a second part of the service to the user equipment.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the configuration module of Malakuti to select a particular edge device as a primary device and a second edge device as backup device as disclosed by Dowlatkhah. The motivation for doing so would ensure performance is maintained by selecting a second device, thus resulting is sustained or increased performance.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malakuti in view of Joachim Thomsen et al. (US PG Pub No. US 2022/0277212; Published: 9/1/2022)(hereinafter: Thomsen).
Claim 6:
As per claim 6, which depends on claim 1, wherein the operations comprise reapplying the one or more policies after a period of time has elapsed to confirm selection of the particular edge device or select a different edge device of the plurality of edge devices.
Thomsen, in the same field of intelligent model validation for an industrial digital twin discloses this limitation in that [[0146] the cloud API assigns an expiration time to the communication channel when the channel is created. The expiration time may be defined by the service providers via cloud device registry 1904 or by the end user via user interface component 414 on the customer end. Typically, the expiration time will be set to exceed an expected duration of time required to send the BIDT data and metadata. If the gateway device 402 has completed transfer of the BIDT data to the cloud platform before the expiration time for the channel has elapsed, the channel can automatically close upon completion of the data transfer or when the expiration time has elapsed. If the gateway device 402 has not completed transfer of the BIDT data and metadata to the cloud platform by the time the expiration time has elapsed, the gateway device 402 may perform additional handshaking with the gateway device registry 1904 requesting re-enablement of the channel to allow completion of the data transfer.].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the configuration module of Malakuti to reapply the one or more policies after a period of time has elapsed to confirm selection of the particular edge device as disclosed by Thomsen. The motivation for doing so would have been to request re-enablement if the channel to allow completion of data transfer, thus resulting in increased data integrity.
Claim(s) 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malakuti in view of Bhushan Kanekar (US PG Pub 2025/0211620; Filed: 12/20/2023)(hereinafter: Kanekar).
Claim 7:
As per claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Malakuti failed to specifically disclose wherein the operations comprise reapplying the one or more policies in response to a condition being detected to confirm selection of the particular edge device or select a different edge device of the plurality of edge devices.
Kanekar, in the same field of operational technology networks discloses this limitation in that [[0107] An example includes a computer-implemented method using a multi-access edge compute (MEC) platform for managing security for a plurality of computing device endpoints operable in a networked computing environment, comprising: communicating with the endpoints from a computing server in the MEC platform, in which the endpoints are dynamically operable to join, leave, and rejoin the networked computing environment through an access network supporting multiple different access protocols; upon each instance of joining or rejoining the networked computing environment, in which the security policies are applied to the endpoints independent of the assigned IP addresses; and independently of the assigned IP addresses, automatically reapplying the security policies to endpoints upon rejoining the networked computing environment subsequent to leaving the networked computing environment.]. security policies are reapplied in response to a condition detected (joining or rejoining).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the configuration module of Malakuti to reapply the one or more policies in response to a condition being detected to confirm selection of the particular edge device or select a different edge device of the plurality of edge devices as disclosed by Kanekar. The motivation for doing so would have been to request re-enablement if the channel to allow completion of data transfer, thus resulting in increased data security.
Claim 9:
As per claim 9, which depends on claim 1, Malakuti failed to specifically disclose wherein the operations comprise reapplying the one or more policies in response to a change being detected in the OT network to confirm selection of the particular edge device or select a different edge device of the plurality of edge devices.
Kanekar, in the same field of operational technology networks discloses this limitation in that [[0107] An example includes a computer-implemented method using a multi-access edge compute (MEC) platform for managing security for a plurality of computing device endpoints operable in a networked computing environment, comprising: communicating with the endpoints from a computing server in the MEC platform, in which the endpoints are dynamically operable to join, leave, and rejoin the networked computing environment through an access network supporting multiple different access protocols; upon each instance of joining or rejoining the networked computing environment, in which the security policies are applied to the endpoints independent of the assigned IP addresses; and independently of the assigned IP addresses, automatically reapplying the security policies to endpoints upon rejoining the networked computing environment subsequent to leaving the networked computing environment.]. security policies are reapplied in response to a condition detected (joining or rejoining).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the configuration module of Malakuti to reapply the one or more policies in response to a change being detected in the OT network to confirm selection of the particular edge device or select a different edge device of the plurality of edge devices as disclosed by Kanekar. The motivation for doing so would have been to request re-enablement if the channel to allow completion of data transfer, thus resulting in increased data security.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malakuti in view of Andres Freyria et al (US PG Pub 2015/0100667; Published: 04/09/2015)(hereinafter: Freyria).
Claim 12:
As per claim 12, which depends on claim 10, Malakuti failed to specifically disclose wherein the particular edge device is selected based on latency.
Freyria, in the same field of content delivery networks discloses [[0076] At decision block 410, it is determined whether to respond to the server hint based on the at least one cost value. In one embodiment, it is determined whether to transmit the first media file to a selected edge server computer of the content delivery network based on the at least one cost value. The selected edge server computer may be selected based on one or more network metrics associated with the selected client computing device. For example, the selected edge server computer may be selected based on latency, IP address, geographical location, time until file availability, and/or any other factor related to delivery performance between an edge server computer and the client computing device. In one embodiment, the content delivery network may determine to transmit the first media file to multiple selected edge server computers].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the configuration module of Malakuti to select the edge device based on latency as disclosed by Gal. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain the optimal settings to further optimize the performance.
Claim 13:
As per claim 13, which depends on claim 10, Malakuti failed to specifically disclose wherein the particular edge device is selected based on available computing resources.
Freyria, in the same field of content delivery networks discloses [[0076] At decision block 410, it is determined whether to respond to the server hint based on the at least one cost value. In one embodiment, it is determined whether to transmit the first media file to a selected edge server computer of the content delivery network based on the at least one cost value. The selected edge server computer may be selected based on one or more network metrics associated with the selected client computing device. For example, the selected edge server computer may be selected based on latency, IP address, geographical location, time until file availability, and/or any other factor related to delivery performance between an edge server computer and the client computing device. In one embodiment, the content delivery network may determine to transmit the first media file to multiple selected edge server computers].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the configuration module of Malakuti to select the edge device based on available computing resources as disclosed by Gal. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain the optimal settings to further optimize the performance.
Claim 14:
As per claim 14, which depends on claim 10, Malakuti failed to specifically disclose wherein the particular edge device is selected based on respective costs associated with one or more data connections.
Freyria, in the same field of content delivery networks discloses [[0060] Cost values include actual and/or estimated costs of making the media file available on a specific edge server computer in advance of an actual request from a client computing device. The costs may be associated with transmitting, storing and/or transcoding media file data, such as licensing fees, computing resources, transfer time within the content delivery network computers, transfer time between an edge server computer and the selected client computing device, network resources, storage resources, or any other cost associated with propagating the media file in the content delivery network. The cost may also be associated with delivery performance of the media file from the content delivery network to the client computing device.].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the configuration module of Malakuti to select the edge device based on respective costs associated with one or more data connections as disclosed by Gal. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain the optimal settings to further optimize the performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOWARD CORTES whose telephone number is (571)270-1383. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott T Baderman can be reached on (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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOWARD CORTES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights