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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 has overcome the previous 112(b) rejection. However, the amendments to claim 1 has introduced a new 112(b) issue presented below.
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.
Claim 1, line 5, recites the limitation "for the IED configurator tool”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the IED configurator tool is not introduced in the claim until line 14, “using an IED configurator tool”.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0036633 in view of Bosold et al. U.S. Patent No. 8,739,178, in further view of Meyer, U.S. PGPUB No. 2013/0096695 (previously cited on 9/3/2025).
Per Claim 1, Lee discloses a method for platform capability description (PCD) file-based configuring of intelligent electronic devices (IEDs), the method comprising:
generating, by at least one processor (Paragraph 69), first PCD files for a first IED, the first PCD files stating capabilities of the first IED (Paragraph 36; The market position filter may define the basic function of a configurable device.),
an International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 61850 data model (Paragraph 40; A naming convention filter 305 may use the naming conventions provided in IEC 61850 7-4 for protection logical node settings in some embodiments.),
a first license of functions of the first IED for a first user (Paragraph 42; A user-defined template filter 307 may permit users to develop and modify custom templates.),
and first rules applying to settings of the IED (Paragraph 39; A localization filter 304 may provide configuration of a device relating to visible attributes of settings.);
generating, by the at least one processor, second PCD files for a second IED, the second PCD files stating capabilities of the second IED, the IED 61850 data model, a second license of functions of the second IED for a second user, and second rules applying to settings of the second IED (Please see the above mapping of limitations to the claimed “first IED” and the configuration of it as the steps performed for one IED can be performed for a second IED, and Lee discloses a plurality of IEDs (104, 106, 108, 115, 170). Further, as seen in Fig. 3; The configuration tool provides a plurality of different filters which provides the flexibility to configure IED’s similarly or differently, thereby creating different IED families of either a common or different configuration.);
generating, using an IED configurator tool (configuration tool 204) from which IED rules are absent (Paragraph 32; feature-selecting filters and configuration filters, Fig. 2), based on the first PCD files, a bundle of files for the first IED, the first bundle comprising a first manifest and first configuration files for the first IED (Paragraphs 32-34; device configuration files, Fig. 2; The manifest is an implementation detail that is considered implicit to any configuration file.);
and providing, by the IED configurator tool, to the IED, the bundles, the licenses of functions, and the rules, wherein the first IED is configured based on the first bundle, the first license of functions, and the first rules; and wherein the second IED is configured based on the second bundle, the second license of functions, and the second rules (Paragraph 33; The device 206 may be configured to receive the device configuration filters and feature-selecting filter 202 and map the settings or parameters from the feature-selecting filters and configuration filters 202 to the settings of the device 206. As mentioned above, Lee discloses a plurality of IEDs and the steps performed with respect to a first IED can be performed with respect to a second, different, IED.).
Lee does not specifically disclose that two of the IED’s are from different manufacturers.
However, Bosold, of a common assignee and field of endeavor, discloses configuring a plurality of IED’s to facilitate standardized communication messaging among a plurality of IEDs within a network (Col. 1 lines 21-26). Bosold teaches that power systems generally include a plurality of IED’s which perform various functions, and of which are typically manufactured by different companies, leading to varying communication protocols and/or messaging structures (Col. 1 lines 27-40; “Power systems generally include a plurality of intelligent electronic devices (IEDs) which perform various functions including, but not limited to, protection, monitoring, control, and automation of an associated portion of the power system. For example, IEDs may be associated with supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems, energy management systems (EMS), distribution management systems (DMS), distribution automation (DA) systems, and teleprotection systems for power systems to name a few. Each IED generally performs different functions and is typically manufactured by different companies. Likewise, the communication protocols, messaging structures and messaging sequences used often varies from IED to IED.”).
Bosold further teaches an IED configuration process for configuring the IED’s from different manufacturers (Col. 2 lines 32-38; Col. 6 lines 1-21; Col. 6 lines 57-64, An IED repository of standard files may include template files, and information such as manufacturer, model number, etc.; Col. 13 lines 25-34; Col. 14 lines 22-32, “wherein the first intelligent electronic device and at least some of the other intelligent electronic devices are manufactured by different manufacturers,”; Col. 14 lines 32-41).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Lee’s IED configuration teachings with Bosold’s ability of configuring IED’s from different manufacturers because IED’s from different manufacturers are commonly implemented within an industrial system/environment and configuration and interoperability is paramount for successful operation of the IED devices within said system (Bosold; Col. 2 lines 32-38 and Col. 3 lines 39-44).
Lee and Bosold do not specifically teach generating files that include “domain-specific language (DSL) files” as inputs for the IED configuration tool to understand what a type/stack/family of IED’s supports.
However, Meyer teaches an arrangement for performing a method for configuring a user-programmable control device for the integration of intelligent field devices into a control or automation system, and the integration of devices from different manufacturers into the control or automation system with acceptable outlay (Paragraph 21). Meyer further teaches IED’s connected to a user-programmable control device, wherein a flexibly expandable hardware structure is assumed and, in addition, newly produced device descriptions are adapted to the respective application of the control or automation system are provided (Paragraph 24), allowing new devices from a wide variety of device manufacturers to be incorporated into the control/automation system (Paragraph 25). Meyer teaches producing device-specific configuration descriptions ICD’s for a user-programmable control device having a flexible field device structure to incorporate a flexible device into an existing configuration tool landscape (Paragraphs 28-37 and Figure 3; Device specific configuration description ICD is generated by the flexible IED tool 62 and provided to a system configuration tool 10 where SCD and CID files are then provided to an IED configuration tool 30 to generate device configuration data for the IED.)
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Meyer’s flexible IED configuration tool teachings with Bosold/Lee’s ability of configuring IED’s from different manufacturers because it allows new devices from a wide variety of device manufacturers to be incorporated into the control or automation system with comparably low outlay/cost in terms of configuration (Meyer; Paragraph 25).
because IED’s from different manufacturers are commonly implemented within an industrial system/environment and configuration and interoperability is paramount for successful operation of the IED devices within said system (Bosold; Col. 2 lines 32-38 and Col. 3 lines 39-44).
Per Claim 2, Lee discloses the method of claim 1, wherein first IED is of a first IED family (The configuration tool provides a plurality of different filters which provides the flexibility to configure IED’s similarly or differently, thereby creating different IED families of either a common or different configuration.).
Per Claim 3, Lee discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first license of functions restricts the first user to use of a subset of functions of the first IED (Paragraph 42; A user defined template filter 307 may permit users to develop and modify custom templates. In some embodiments, the user defined template may be constrained by the preconfigured template filter 306 or other filters.).
Per Claim 4, Lee discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first configuration files comprise a security configuration file, an applicative configuration file, and an IEC 61850 configuration file (Paragraphs 35-42 and 52; The configuration tool may translate the design choices (filters) into a plurality of device configuration files.).
Per Claim 5, Lee discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first configuration for the first IED comprises a file-based fully flexible IED data model with which the IED configurator tool configures the first IED (Paragraph 40; naming convention filter 305).
Per Claim 6, Lee discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first rules define which of the settings of the first IED are to be available, hidden, or changed (Paragraph 39; A localization filter 304 may provide configuration of a device relating to visible attributes of settings. By definition, a “configuration” related to settings of the device will determine/define which settings will be available, hidden, or changed.).
Per Claim 7, Lee discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the IED configurator tool is IED family-agnostic based on the first PCD files (Please see the rejection of claim 1. Additionally, Lee discloses a plurality of IEDs (104, 106, 108, 115, 170). Further, as seen in Fig. 3; The configuration tool provides a plurality of different filters 202 which provides the flexibility to configure IED’s similarly or differently, thereby creating different IED families of either a common or different configuration. The families are considered agnostic as the configuration of one IED is not dependent upon knowledge or another IED configuration.).
Per Claims 8-14, please refer to the above rejection of claims 1-7 as they are substantially similar and the mapping of the references to the limitations is equally applicable. Additionally, Lee discloses IED 600 comprises a memory and processor for performing the steps disclosed in claims 1-7 (Paragraph 65, Figure 6).
Per Claims 15-20, please refer to the above rejection of claims 1-6 as they are substantially similar and the mapping of the references to the limitations is equally applicable. Additionally, Lee discloses a computer-readable medium embodiment (Paragraphs 57, 58, and 69).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T MISIURA whose telephone number is (571)272-0889 - (Direct Fax: 571-273-0889). The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Jung can be reached on (571) 272-3779. 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).
/Brian T Misiura/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights