DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 remain for examination. The amendment filed 1/20/26 amended claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 13, 14, & 19; and cancelled claim12.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11 of the amendment filed 1/20/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 in view of Choi and Storms have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly discovered reference to Rieger.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “A Hierarchical Distributed Energy Management Agent Framework for Smart Homes, Grids, and Cities” (hereinafter, “Choi”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0104138 (hereinafter, “Storms”; previously cited in the IDS from 4/1/24) in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0175181 (hereinafter, “Rieger”).
Regarding claim 1:
Choi discloses a distributed automated response controller network, comprising: a plurality of information technology devices (page 116, “Experimental Results”, subsection “An Experimental Testbed”, first paragraph); and a plurality of operational technology devices (Ibid), the plurality of information technology devices and the plurality of operational technology devices comprising a plurality of communication endpoints organized to operate in a distributed hierarchy (page 114, first column: “This article proposes an HD energy management agent (HD-EMA) framework that combines the advantages of both the hierarchical and distributed architectures, allowing massive EMA deployments while ensuring distributed energy management from the home to the grid. The experimental results validate that the HD-EMA allows coordinated control and management through cloud computing and provides distributed energy management using the concepts of MEC.”; see also pages 114-116, “The Hierarchical Distributed Energy Management Agent Framework in Homes and the Grid”) including: a bottom tier of the distributed hierarchy including a first portion of the plurality of communication endpoints, the first portion of the plurality of communication endpoints configured to perform device controls for the plurality of operational technology devices (the cEMAs of Figure 2, and pages 116-118, including page 117 first column: “When a cEMA receives a DR provisioning request, it executes its own energy scheduling algorithm and sends control signals directly to the appliances to reduce power consumption below the threshold… The bottom-level cEMAs enable distributed information acquisition and autonomous appliance decision making or energy source switches in a unified way.”); and one or more higher tiers of the distributed hierarchy including one or more other portions of the plurality of communication endpoints, the one or more other portions of the plurality of communication endpoints configured to perform network controls (the EMS and sEMAs: Figure 2, Ibid; see also pages 114-115, including “The cEMAs are connected to the EMS via server EMAs (sEMAs). The intermediate sEMAs allocate a limited energy budget at the metro-edge level aggregation points (the metro-edge). The top-level EMS enables dynamic cooperation among different EMAs to allocate the limited energy resources and calculates customers’ energy bills, allowing the data to be processed in a coordinated and controlled fashion. The EMS provides coordination control and cost optimization in the cloud to offload computation and store data from the EMAs.”).
Although Choi acknowledges that there are security mechanisms in place for his system (e.g. page 116, second column, first paragraph; and page 118, “Emerging Challenges and Opportunities in Smart Cities”, second paragraph), Choi does not explicitly disclose wherein any actions taken by any of the devices in the hierarchy are done responsive to a detected threat. However, Storms discloses a related invention for managing a mixed operational technology and information technology network wherein control actions can be taken by various devices in direct response to detecting a threat (paragraphs 0002-0008, including “...the edge devices monitor components of an operational technology system to detect cyber-attacks and/or other threats based on threat profiles received from the server device(s), and in which the edge devices are able to detect and respond to detected threats. In some instances, the edge devices operate to detect and respond to threats in an autonomous manner, such as when a network connection to the server device(s) is not available.”) It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application for Choi’s devices to take security-related actions in response to a detected threat, as taking a mitigating action to thwart a cyberattack can minimize the negative impact on the provision of public services (Storms, paragraph 0001).
Neither Choi nor Storms discloses wherein each of the bottom tier and the one or more higher tiers implements a cyber-physical feedback loop, the cyber-physical feedback loop utilizing both cyber data and physical data. However, Rieger discloses a related invention for controlling a cyber-physical system wherein this limitation is taught (Rieger, paragraphs 0337-0339). It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application for Choi and/or Storms to use a feedback loop comprising both cyber and physical data to ensure the health of their controller network(s), as the technique allows one to correlate the health of the cyber components with the state of the physical components potentially affected thereby, to better detect threats to the system (Rieger, paragraph 0004).
Regarding claims 14 and 19:
The rejection of claim 1 applies mutatis mutandis to claims 14 & 19.
Regarding claims 2 and 20: The combination further discloses wherein the first portion of the plurality of communication endpoints is configured to continue to perform the device controls for the plurality of operational technology devices responsive to last instructions received from the one or more other portions of the plurality of communication endpoints of the one or more higher tiers even if operation of the one or more other portions of the communication endpoints is interrupted (Storms, paragraph 0036: “Because the edge device(s) are able, in some instances, to take actions themselves in response to a detected threat, the edge device(s) may continue to operate even when the network connection with the OTE monitor service 124 is interrupted or weak.”; see also paragraph 0002).
Regarding claims 3 and 15: The combination further discloses wherein the first portion of the plurality of communication endpoints of the bottom tier of the distributed hierarchy is configured to perform local remedial action responsive to a determination that a communication endpoint of the plurality of communication endpoints is compromised (Storms, paragraph 0036: “In such instances, the edge device(s) continue to monitor for threats based on the last set of threat profiles received from the OTE monitor service 124, and the edge device(s) may perform actions (e.g., signals to the component control(s)) in response to a detected threat, even while out of communication with the OTE monitor service 124. In this way, the edge device(s) 106 may be described as autonomous or at least semi-autonomous, and are able to act independently of the server device(s) 122 in at least some scenarios”).
Regarding claim 4: The combination further discloses wherein the remedial action includes one or more of isolating compromised equipment and replacing operation of the compromised equipment with operation of redundant equipment (Storms, paragraph 0042: “Action(s) 208 may include sending alert message(s) as described above, and/or taking remediating actions such as shutting down components, removing components from a network, closing or opening relays, loading or changing code executing on processors, changing configuration settings on substations, flashing a system back to a known good state, and so forth.”).
Regarding claim 5: The combination further discloses wherein the one or more higher tiers include a centralized orchestration tier configured to orchestrate action of the distributed automated response controller network (Storms, paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 6: The combination further discloses 5, wherein the one or more higher tiers include an intermediate defense tier configured to perform network behavior analysis and response (Choi, page 117, 1st column: “The sEMAs receive these DR provisioning requests from the EMS and deliver them to the cEMAs through CoAP messages.”.
Regarding claim 7: The combination further discloses wherein the plurality of communication endpoints is configured to establish a new centralized orchestration tier responsive to loss of operation of the centralized orchestration tier (Storms, paragraph 0042).
Regarding claims 8 and 16: The combination further discloses wherein the plurality of communication endpoints is configured to detect anomalous behavior responsive to observed network traffic that deviates from expected network traffic (Storms, paragraph 0049: “As described above, in some implementations the edge device(s) may send the state value(s) to the server device(s) in instances where the state values are determined to be anomalous. The communicated state value(s) may include measured OT value(s). IT state value(s), such as network traffic data, may also be received (404). The IT state value(s) may describe network traffic and/or other IT characteristics of the OTE during a time period in which the OT state value(s) were collected”).
Regarding claim 9: The combination further discloses wherein the device controls include isolation of access controls, services, and device indicators of attack (Storms, paragraph 0042).
Regarding claims 10 and 17: The combination further discloses wherein the network controls include application of perimeter protection and traffic controls (perimeter protection at Storms, paragraph 0042; traffic controls at Choi, page 118, 1st column; and Figure 4A).
Regarding claim 11: The combination further discloses wherein the bottom tier of the distributed hierarchy includes a distributed defense tier configured to sense network intrusions and respond to the network intrusions (Storms, paragraph 0036: “…and provide the threat profiles to enable the edge device(s) to detect the threat as they manifest themselves through detectable physical effects within the monitored OTE. Accordingly, the edge device(s) 106 may have a network connection to the OTE monitor service 124 to receive periodic updates of threat profiles. Because the edge device(s) are able, in some instances, to take actions themselves in response to a detected threat, the edge device(s) may continue to operate even when the network connection with the OTE monitor service 124 is interrupted or weak”).
Regarding claim 13: The combination further discloses wherein the cyber-physical feedback loop is configured to make adjustments to operator setpoints, control action, and sensed data responsive to attacks on settings, controls, and the sensed data, respectively (Storms, paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 18:
The combination further discloses wherein applying the perimeter protection comprises applying a firewall (Storms, paragraph 0018).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: “Context-Aware Social Task Resolution Using Feedback Control in Cyber Physical Systems” (hereinafter, “Krishna”).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas A Gyorfi whose telephone number is (571)272-3849. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00am - 6:30pm.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at 571-270-3351. 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.
THOMAS A. GYORFI
Examiner
Art Unit 2435
/THOMAS A GYORFI/Examiner, Art Unit 2435 4/3/2026
/AMIR MEHRMANESH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2435