DETAILED ACTION
This Action is a response to the filing received 17 April 2024. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17 April 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-2, 5, 8-10, 13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kostadinov et al., U.S. 2011/0093098 A1 (“Kostadinov”).
Regarding claim 1, Kostadinov teaches: An apparatus comprising: at least one of memory or storage to store a first model descriptive of a first industrial device and a second model descriptive of a second industrial device (Kostadinov, e.g., ¶56, “control system model can be stored in central databases and/or distributed among workstation 11, controllers 10A, 10B and other control devices …” See also, e.g., ¶57, “In addition to modeling database(s), the illustrated control system can include and/or be coupled to one or more enterprise, control system or other databases … other databases and/or other stores of information about the control system, the devices and/or the people with potential access to the control system …” See also, e.g., ¶50, “system utilizes a Control Algorithm Configurator, to model and configure control processes …” See also, e.g., ¶51, “Configurator employs objects … to represent the devices that make up the control system, the entities that define the control algorithms executed by those devices, the processes or systems being monitored and/or controlled by those devices and algorithms …” and ¶53, “the objects are stored in the database(s) and are referred to as the ‘model,’ the ‘configuration model,’ the ‘control system model,’ …” See also, e.g., ¶62, “database can be deployed in a client/server configuration … resides on the workstation 11, e.g., or on a digital data processor coupled therewith.” Examiner’s note: the objects are consistent with the model as set forth in the Specification at, e.g., ¶¶13, 34-37);
instructions; at least one processor to execute the instructions to cause a machine (Kostadinov, e.g., ¶60, “Configurator and Framework are packaged as a single application … installed on workstation 11 or other digital data processor”) to:
construct a configuration object for the first industrial device based on the first model (Kostadinov, e.g., ¶63, “user can employ Configurator editors to create and maintain control scheme definition objects distributed with the implementation and to create their own plant control schemes … to define one object as a descendant of another object at the time of configuration. An object so defined derives parameters from its ancestor … Editors also facilitate definition, during configuration, of the association between parameters and their respective objects …”);
update a data structure that contains data associated with the second model with data associated with the first model based on the configuration object (Kostadinov, e.g., ¶63, “Editors can also be used … to establish relationships between objects—for example, a user can employ an editor to select objects that represent field devices and indicate … that she wishes to establish a relationship with an object that represents a control processor”); and
operate the apparatus as the first industrial device based on the data structure (Kostadinov, e.g., ¶69, “Configurator includes a download system or download service … that transfers configuration information from objects in the model to respective devices in the control system … By way of example, after completing a session with the Field Bus module editor to set values for port assignments, bus timing parameter, etc., the user can invoke the Download Service to configure the corresponding control system elements”).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Kostadinov further teaches: wherein the processor is to execute the instructions to cause the machine to retrieve the first model from an industrial configuration device (Kostadinov, e.g., ¶56, “control system model can be stored in central databases and/or distributed among workstation 11, controllers 10A, 10B and other control devices …” See also, e.g., ¶60, “Configurator and Framework are packaged as a single application … installed on workstation 11 or other digital data processor” and ¶62, “database can be deployed in a client/server configuration … resides on the workstation 11, e.g., or on a digital data processor coupled therewith.”).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Kostadinov further teaches: wherein the processor is to execute the instructions to cause the machine to populate a plurality of fields to construct the configuration object (Kostadinov, e.g., e.g., ¶50, “system utilizes a Control Algorithm Configurator, to model and configure control processes …” See also, e.g., ¶51, “Configurator employs objects … to represent the devices that make up the control system, the entities that define the control algorithms executed by those devices, the processes or systems being monitored and/or controlled by those devices and algorithms …” and ¶53, “the objects are stored in the database(s) and are referred to as the ‘model,’ the ‘configuration model,’ the ‘control system model,’ …” See also, e.g., ¶63, “user can employ Configurator editors to create and maintain control scheme definition objects distributed with the implementation and to create their own plant control schemes … to define one object as a descendant of another object at the time of configuration. An object so defined derives parameters from its ancestor … Editors also facilitate definition, during configuration, of the association between parameters and their respective objects …”).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Kostadinov further teaches: wherein the processor is to execute the instructions to cause the machine to execute device application subsystems for the first industrial device (Kostadinov, e.g., ¶51, “Configurator employs objects … to represent the devices that make up the control system, the entities that define the control algorithms executed by those devices, the processes or systems being monitored and/or controlled by those devices and algorithms …” See also, e.g., ¶69, “Configurator includes a download system or download service … that transfers configuration information from objects in the model to respective devices in the control system … By way of example, after completing a session with the Field Bus module editor to set values for port assignments, bus timing parameter, etc., the user can invoke the Download Service to configure the corresponding control system elements”).
Regarding claim 9, Kostadinov teaches: A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause a machine (Kostadinov, e.g., ¶60, “Configurator and Framework are packaged as a single application … installed on workstation 11 or other digital data processor”) to at least:
cause a first model descriptive of a first industrial device to be stored at the machine; cause a second model descriptive of a second industrial device to be stored at the machine (Kostadinov, e.g., ¶56, “control system model can be stored in central databases and/or distributed among workstation 11, controllers 10A, 10B and other control devices …” See also, e.g., ¶57, “In addition to modeling database(s), the illustrated control system can include and/or be coupled to one or more enterprise, control system or other databases … other databases and/or other stores of information about the control system, the devices and/or the people with potential access to the control system …” See also, e.g., ¶50, “system utilizes a Control Algorithm Configurator, to model and configure control processes …” See also, e.g., ¶51, “Configurator employs objects … to represent the devices that make up the control system, the entities that define the control algorithms executed by those devices, the processes or systems being monitored and/or controlled by those devices and algorithms …” and ¶53, “the objects are stored in the database(s) and are referred to as the ‘model,’ the ‘configuration model,’ the ‘control system model,’ …” See also, e.g., ¶62, “database can be deployed in a client/server configuration … resides on the workstation 11, e.g., or on a digital data processor coupled therewith.”);
construct a configuration object for the first industrial device based on the first model (Kostadinov, e.g., ¶63, “user can employ Configurator editors to create and maintain control scheme definition objects distributed with the implementation and to create their own plant control schemes … to define one object as a descendant of another object at the time of configuration. An object so defined derives parameters from its ancestor … Editors also facilitate definition, during configuration, of the association between parameters and their respective objects …”);
update a data structure that contains data associated with the second model with data associated with the first model based on the configuration object (Kostadinov, e.g., ¶63, “Editors can also be used … to establish relationships between objects—for example, a user can employ an editor to select objects that represent field devices and indicate … that she wishes to establish a relationship with an object that represents a control processor”); and
operate the apparatus as the first industrial device based on the data structure (Kostadinov, e.g., ¶69, “Configurator includes a download system or download service … that transfers configuration information from objects in the model to respective devices in the control system … By way of example, after completing a session with the Field Bus module editor to set values for port assignments, bus timing parameter, etc., the user can invoke the Download Service to configure the corresponding control system elements”).
Claim 10 is rejected for the additional reasons given in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim 13 is rejected for the additional reasons given in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Claim 16 is rejected for the additional reasons given in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Claim 17 is rejected for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 9 above. Examiner notes that with respect to claim 17, Kostadinov further teaches: A method (Kostadinov, e.g., ¶39, “apparatus and methods according to the invention may be practiced …”) comprising: [[[the operations of the computer-readable medium of claim 9]]].
Claims 18 is rejected for the additional reasons given in the rejection of claim 2 above.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kostadinov in view of Smith et al., U.S. 2022/0191648 A1 (“Smith/Alam”).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Kostadinov does not more particularly teach that the machine validates the first model to detect an error. However, Smith/Alam does teach: wherein the processor is to execute the instructions to cause the machine to validate the first model to detect an error (Smith/Alam, e.g., ¶188, “generate a digital twin model for physical nodes in the edge network … identify an error of the physical node or the digital twin of the physical node …” See also, e.g., ¶97, “wired communication may provide an Ethernet connection or may be based on other types of networks, such as … PROFIBUS, or PROFINET …”) for the purpose of generating digital twins for devices in an edge network for the testing and attestation of devices and their configurations in order to detect and remediate configuration and other errors (Smith/Alam, e.g., ¶¶181-193).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method for configuring industrial control devices as taught by Kostadinov to provide that the machine validates the first model to detect an error because the disclosure of Smith/Alam shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for using digital twins to configure and validate networks of devices to provide that the machine validates the first model to detect an error for the purpose of generating digital twins for devices in an edge network for the testing and attestation of devices and their configurations in order to detect and remediate configuration and other errors (Smith/Alam, Id.).
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected for the additional reasons given in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claims 4, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kostadinov in view of Smith et al., U.S. 2020/0374700 A1 (“Smith/Agis”).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Kostadinov does not more particularly teach that the machine verifies that the first model is cryptographically signed. However, Smith/Agis does teach: wherein the processor is to execute the instructions to cause the machine to verify that the first model is cryptographically signed (Smith/Agis, e.g., ¶44, “example Platform Certificate and an example OCF Approved Product List (APL) … depict a plurality of elements including attributes about hardware or software components, metadata, or the like. The Platform Certificate may describe properties or an actual device, platform, network, or the like. The APL may describe details required to configure a device …” See also, e.g., ¶48, “onboarding tool is pre-provisioned with trust anchors for both the testing lab and the product vendor issuing the Platform Certificate so that the onboarding tool may verify a signature of the APL or the Platform Certificate …”) for the purpose of configuring and validating the configurations of IoT devices to be onboarded onto a network in a controlled and automatable manner (Smith/Agis, e.g., ¶¶44-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method for configuring industrial control devices as taught by Kostadinov to provide that the machine verifies that the first model is cryptographically signed because the disclosure of Smith/Agis shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for onboarding IoT devices to a network to provide that the machine verifies that the first model is cryptographically signed for the purpose of configuring and validating the configurations of IoT devices to be onboarded onto a network in a controlled and automatable manner (Smith/Agis, Id.).
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected for the additional reasons given in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kostadinov in view of Hodson et al., U.S. 2007/0280144 A1 (“Hodson”).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Kostadinov does not more particularly teach that the plurality of fields includes a vendor identifier and a device identifier. However, Hodson does teach: wherein the plurality of fields includes a vendor identifier and a device identifier (Hodson, e.g., ¶72, “Vendor, Model, DevRev, and SerialNum parameters …” See also, e.g., ¶31, “Profibus DDL or GSD file …”) for the purpose of identifying and configuring wireless process control devices (Hodson, e.g., ¶¶72-82).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method for configuring industrial control devices as taught by Kostadinov to provide that the plurality of fields includes a vendor identifier and a device identifier because the disclosure of Hodson shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for configuring and integrating field devices in a process control system to provide that the plurality of fields includes a vendor identifier and a device identifier for the purpose of identifying and configuring wireless process control devices (Hodson, Id.).
Claim 14 is rejected for the additional reasons given in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kostadinov in view of Mohammad Siddique et al., U.S. 2017/0364045 A1 (“Mohammad Siddique”).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Kostadinov does not more particularly teach that the plurality of fields includes a module identifier and a sub module identifier. However, Mohammad Siddique does teach: wherein the plurality of fields includes a module identifier and a sub module identifier (Mohammad Siddique, e.g., ¶55, “selection of a graphical element … corresponding to a module or submodule … development workspace 100 may present highlight compatible slots of which the selected module or submodule may be applied …” See also, e.g., ¶56, “retrieve hardware configuration data associated with the selected IO module and to update the software configuration in the development workspace of the IO hardware module … subsequently converted to configuration instructions to be transmitted to the IO hardware device to configure hardware configuration of the plurality of IO modules connected thereto …” and ¶61, “development workspace 100 may maintain an index of searchable hardware description that is created from one or more CML files or Generic Station Description in XML format (GSDML) files …”) for the purpose of allowing a user to search for and configure one or more modules and/or submodules for a particular IO controller in a configurable control system (Mohammad Siddique, e.g., ¶¶54-69).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method for configuring industrial control devices as taught by Kostadinov to provide that the plurality of fields includes a module identifier and a sub module identifier because the disclosure of Mohammad Siddique shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for configuring programmable IO controllers to provide that the plurality of fields includes a module identifier and a sub module identifier for the purpose of allowing a user to search for and configure one or more modules and/or submodules for a particular IO controller in a configurable control system (Mohammad Siddique, Id.).
Claim 15 is rejected for the additional reasons given in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Conclusion
Examiner has identified particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of Applicant. Although the citations made are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the enumerated claims, the teaching of the cited art as a whole is not limited to the cited passages. Other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art and/or disclosed by Examiner.
Examiner respectfully requests that, in response to this Office Action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO-supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant is encouraged to submit an Automated Interview Request (AIR) which may be done via https://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form, or may contact Examiner directly via the methods below.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from Examiner should be directed to Andrew M. Lyons, whose telephone number is (571) 270-3529, and whose fax number is (571) 270-4529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM ET. If attempts to reach Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at (571) 272-3708. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system. For more information about the Patent Center system, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. 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.
/Andrew M. Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights