DETAILED ACTION
Application No. 18/660,410 filed on 05/10/2024 has been examined. In this Office Action, claims 1-21 are pending.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-21 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "for each of the devices", line 5, 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-10 either include the same limitation or are respective dependent claims and are therefore likewise rejected.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "for each of the devices", line 5, 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 12-20 either include the same limitation or are respective dependent claims and are therefore likewise rejected.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "for each of the devices", line 7, 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In view of applicant claim limitations it is not clear if system include definitive hardware or physical components. Applicant is suggested to insert – “memory and processor” in the claims to obviate this rejection.
Claims 12-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S. C 101 because they fail to resolve the deficiencies of claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, 15-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosold et al (US 8,739,178 B2) in view of Ananchaperumal et al (US 2016/0328719 A1) further in view of Gooding et al (US 20150281278 A1).
As per claim 1, Bosold teaches a method comprising: obtaining, for each of multiple devices, manufacturer-specific configuration data that is specific to a manufacturer of the device and that configures the device for protection, automation, or control of a power system (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 4; Col. 3–5, e.g., describing engineering/configuration of multiple IEDs and vendor device configuration and wherein an engineering environment that receives configuration information for multiple IEDs used in electric power systems. Each IED retains its own vendor/native configuration information for configuring protection and automation functions);
Bosold does not explicitly teach translating, for each of the devices, the manufacturer-specific configuration data for the device into generalized configuration data for the device that is manufacturer-agnostic;
However, Ananchaperumal teaches translating, for each of the devices, the manufacturer-specific configuration data for the device into generalized configuration data for the device that is manufacturer-agnostic (see paragraphs [0012]-[0013], e.g., disclose identifying a vendor-specific metric, associating it with a vendor-agnostic metric, determining a standardized metric, and processing vendor-specific information into standardized information. Figure 19 further shows processing vendor-specific information into standardized information before publishing it. The processing of vendor-specific information into standardized information corresponds to the claimed translation from manufacturer-specific to manufacturer-agnostic configuration information);
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Ananchaperumal with the teachings of Bosold in order to efficiently translate manufacturer-specific configuration data for power-system devices into generalized, manufacturer-agnostic configuration data that can be commonly stored and used by applications for evaluation (Ananchaperumal).
Bosold and Ananchaperumal do not explicitly teach storing the generalized configuration data for each of the devices in a common data storage that is commonly accessible by applications configured to use the generalized configuration data to evaluate protection, automation, or control of the power system.
However, Gooding teaches storing the generalized configuration data for each of the devices in a common data storage that is commonly accessible by applications configured to use the generalized configuration data to evaluate protection, automation, or control of the power system (see paragraph [0012], discloses wherein the central security services maintain a database describing the desired configuration data for each commercial platform. Paragraphs [0150]-[0152], e.g., explain that the Asset Management function performs centralized configuration management, maintains configuration baselines, and uses a database accessed through a common integrated security management interface. Figure 5 illustrates the centralized Security Information Repository/Security Database, while Figure 12 shows multiple applications interfacing with the centralized services).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Gooding with the teachings of Bosold and Ananchaperumal in order to centrally store, manage, and evaluate generalized configuration data for power-system devices in a common security/configuration management environment (Gooding).
As per claim 2, wherein said translating comprises, for each of the devices, translating manufacturer-specific parameters in the manufacturer-specific configuration data into generalized parameters that are manufacturer-agnostic (see paragraphs [0012]-[0013],e.g., disclose identifying a vendor-specific metric, associating the vendor-specific metric with a vendor-agnostic metric, determining a standardized IoT device metric using a conversion function, receiving vendor-specific information, and processing the vendor-specific information into standardized information. Figures 8-19, particularly Fig. 19, illustrate the conversion of vendor-specific parameters into standardized vendor-agnostic parameters, Ananchaperumal).
As per claim 3, wherein said translating comprises, for each of the devices: processing the manufacturer-specific configuration data for the device to identify one or more operational functions with which the manufacturer-specific configuration data configures the device (see col. 1-2, e.g., teaches processing IED configuration files (ICD/CID/SCD) describing the functional capabilities and communication services of intelligent electronic devices within an IEC 61850 engineering environment. The engineering tool processes the configuration information to determine device functions used for protection, monitoring, automation, and control, Bosold); and translating manufacturer-specific parameters in the manufacturer-specific configuration data that support the one or more operational functions into generalized parameters that are manufacturer-agnostic (Paragraphs [0012]-[0013], e.g., teaches identifying vendor-specific metrics, mapping those metrics to vendor-agnostic metrics, applying conversion functions, and producing standardized metrics independent of the originating vendor. Figure 19 illustrates processing vendor-specific information into standardized information before publication, Ananchaperumal).
As per claim 5, wherein the generalized configuration data for a device represents the manufacturer-specific configuration data for the device with (col. 1-2, e.g., background, explains that power systems include multiple IEDs from different manufacturers and that IEC 61850/SCL allows exchange of device descriptions and system parameters among different IEDs, Bosold): manufacturer-agnostic terminology (paragraph [0039], e.g., describes vendor-specific metrics such as Samsung refrigerator values being mapped to corresponding vendor-agnostic metrics such as “Freezer Temperature,” “Refrigerator Temperature,” and “Power Consumed, Ananchaperumal); one or more manufacturer-agnostic expressions ([0048], e.g., teaches obtaining a conversion function to apply to the vendor-specific metric based on the vendor-agnostic metric and paragraph [0049] teaches generating standardized information by applying that conversion function, Ananchaperumal); and/or one or more manufacturer-agnostic parameters (paragraph [0003], e.g., teaches associating a vendor-specific metric with a vendor-agnostic metric and determining a standardized IoT device metric and paragraph [0039] gives examples of vendor-specific parameters mapped to vendor-agnostic parameters, including temperature and power metrics, Ananchaperumal).
As per claim 6, wherein the common data storage comprises a database of generalized configuration data organized and stored based on logical identification and/or classification of devices (paragraph [0009], [0012] and [0151], e.g., disclose centralized configuration management and a database describing desired configuration data for each commercial platform that is supported, Gooding).
As per claim 7, wherein the method further comprises executing the applications by, for each of the executed applications: retrieving, by the executed application, from the common data storage, generalized configuration data for one or more of the devices and performing, by the executed application, evaluation of the retrieved generalized configuration data and/or evaluation of protection, automation, or control of the power system provided by the one or more devices as configured according to the retrieved generalized configuration data (paragraph [0012]-[0013], [0150]-[0151] of Gooding teaches the executed applications and evaluation function, and paragraph [0035] of Ananchaperumal teaches generalized/vendor-agnostic data stored and retrieved for analytics/reporting, and col.1-2 of Bosold ties the configuration data to IEDs in a power-system network).
As per claim 8, wherein executing the applications further comprises, for each of the executed applications, outputting results of the evaluation by the executed application to a separate common data storage that is logically and/or physically separate from the common data storage storing the generalized configuration data and that commonly stores results of the respective evaluations by the executed applications ([0151], [0169], [0202], e.g., teaches continuous monitoring of configuration changes with online reporting and vulnerability assessment capabilities, the results of vulnerability/compliance evaluations are output as reports or monitoring results, a security information repository comprising a CCSC security database 506 and a CCSC audit log collector 508. The audit log collector is described as a separate unstructured database required to support SIEM data, [0169] separates the CCSC security database from the CCSC audit log collector and states that the audit log collector is a separate unstructured database, SIEM/log/alert data corresponds to commonly stored evaluation results, Gooding).
As per claim 9,retrieving, from the separate common data storage, the results output by one or more of the executed applications (paragraph [0169] teaches a separate audit log collector database supporting SIEM data and paragraph [0202] teaches an audit & reporting services interface that receives log and alert information, Gooding); generating one or more reports about the retrieved results (paragraph [0135] teaches audit and reporting functions customized for the smart-grid application environment and paragraph [0151] also teaches online reporting for configuration monitoring, Gooding); and storing or outputting the one or more reports (paragraph [0151] teaches online reporting to a policy enforcement server and paragraph [0169] teaches SIEM data storage in the audit log collector, Gooding).
Regarding claims 11, 21, claim 11, 21 are rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 12-13, 15-19, claims 12-13, 15-19 are rejected for substantially the same reason as claims 2-3, 5-9 above.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosold et al (US 8,739,178 B2) in view of Ananchaperumal et al (US 2016/0328719 A1) in view of Gooding et al (US 20150281278 A1) further in view of Hickman et al (US 2013/0167192 A1).
As per claim 10, Bosold, Ananchaperumal and Gooding do not explicitly teach further comprising, for each of the devices, sanitizing the manufacturer-specific configuration data to remove data designated as sensitive data, and wherein said translating comprises translating the sanitized manufacturer-specific configuration data.
However, Hickman teaches further comprising, for each of the devices, sanitizing the manufacturer-specific configuration data to remove data designated as sensitive data, and wherein said translating comprises translating the sanitized manufacturer-specific configuration data (paragraph [0011] teaches “desensitizing raw, unstructured data” by masking or removing specific data values whose presence would violate sensitive data protection rules, paragraph [0017] teaches inputting data, determining sensitive-data policies, selecting a handling approach, masking/removing sensitive data, verifying compliance, and outputting processed data and [0032] teaches converting data from source systems into a common source-agnostic model).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Hickman with the teachings of Bosold, Ananchaperumal and Gooding in order to efficiently sanitize manufacturer-specific configuration data by removing data designated as sensitive before translating the sanitized data into generalized, manufacturer-agnostic configuration data (Hickman).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 10 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 14 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.
The prior art of record, including Bosold, Ananchaperumal, and Gooding, fails to teach or suggest parsing programmable logic in the manufacturer-specific configuration data to determine operational functions underlying the programmable logic, and further fails to teach identifying active operational functions by checking which operational functions are enabled according to enable fields in the manufacturer-specific configuration data. While Bosold teaches power-system lED configuration using standardized IEC 61850/SCL files, Ananchaperumal teaches translating vendor-specific device information into vendor-agnostic information, and Gooding teaches centralized configuration management and security evaluation of power-grid cyber assets, none of the references teaches the specific claimed process of parsing programmable logic…. and checking enable field identify active operational functions.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
Robertson et al US 2015/0149602 A1 discloses computer-implemented Method for Collecting Configuration Data from Source, Involves Receiving Configuration Data from Selected Sub-model And Source, And Storing Received Configuration Data in Partitioned Configuration Result Store.
Maloney et al US 20230161604 A1 discloses Method for Automated Computer Configuration for Organization Such as Universities, Involves Automatically Configuring Computer with Particular Software That Is Identified Based on Particular Settings by Execution of Configuration Tool.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad A Sana whose telephone number is (571)270-1753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at 5712724098. 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.
/Mohammad A Sana/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights