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
This action is in response to the communication filed on 08/05/2024.
Claims 1-20 are under examination.
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 08/05/2024 and 11/18/2025 have been entered and considered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 19 are 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,086,238 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: An ecosystem for controlling access to edge apps on edge devices, the ecosystem comprising: an edge device of an automation system with an edge app that is accessible and executable on the edge device, the edge device comprising a first runtime mode with a predefined set of IT-security constraints associated with the edge app and a second, different, runtime mode with at least a part of the predefined set of the IT-security constraints associated with the edge app is void and the edge app is accessible and executable with elevated rights to allow a developer to perform software development operations on the edge app; and an edge device management system configured to set the edge device into the second runtime mode for a predefined time period, and to switch the edge device into the first runtime mode after the predefined time period is expired.
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 of this title, 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, 10-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moeller (US 2021/0216306 A1) and Raber et al. (US 2014/0082157 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Moeller discloses An ecosystem for controlling access to edge apps on edge devices [fig. 2A, par. 0056, edge device 119-121, edge application 132], the ecosystem comprising: an edge device of an automation system with an edge app that is accessible and executable on the edge device [par. 0061, “each of the gateways 119-121 may include one or more edge applications 132 that may provide additional functionality to that of the one or more connected device management applications 122, where such additional functionality may be primarily directed to edge computing aspects of a gateway. It should be appreciated that certain connected device management functions may be shared between one or more connected device management applications 122 and edge applications 132…”].
Moeller does not explicitly disclose the edge device comprising a first runtime mode with a predefined set of IT-security constraints associated with the edge app and a second, different, runtime mode with at least a part of the predefined set of the IT-security constraints associated with the edge app is void and the edge app is accessible and executable with elevated rights to allow a developer to perform software development operations on the edge app; and an edge device management system configured to set the edge device into the second runtime mode for a predefined time period, and to switch the edge device into the first runtime mode after the predefined time period is expired.
However Raber et al. teaches the edge device comprising a first runtime mode with a predefined set of IT-security constraints associated with the edge app and a second, different, runtime mode with at least a part of the predefined set of the IT-security constraints associated with the edge app is void and the edge app is accessible and executable with elevated rights to allow a developer to perform software development operations on the edge app [par. 0024, “The defined mode may be any suitable mode other than the usual mode of operation, to which access is typically limited. By way of example, the defined mode may be a debugging mode for debugging purposes, or a logging mode for data logging purposes, or a special operational mode having enhanced or limited functionality”, par. 0042, “the defined mode may involve presentation of an otherwise inaccessible login screen by which the user may login to the back-end server 100 to perform certain testing, analytical, configuration or other steps” (presentation of an otherwise inaccessible login screen is an elevated rights)]; and an edge device management system configured to set the edge device into the second runtime mode for a predefined time period, and to switch the edge device into the first runtime mode after the predefined time period is expired [par. 0042, “the defined mode may be designed to last for a certain predefined period of time or otherwise terminate in a defined fashion, or may be configured to be turned off from the server side. By way of example, the defined mode may be a debugging mode, an information logging mode, or an operational mode providing enhanced or limited functionality”, par. 0051, “while the defined mode is turned off, the application functions normally”].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Raber et al. into the teaching of Moeller with the motivation of providing application debugging functionality as taught by Raber et al. [Raber et al.: claim 6].
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Moeller further disclose the edge device management system comprises a backend server or a cloud backend server [par. 0056, “The TMN 100 may include secure ICSs 133-135 which may include SIIDs 123-125 and be part of OMNs 143-145, one or more gateways (i.e., edge devices/servers) 119-121, one or more user devices 140-142, a transformation layer 102, a core services layer 110 and other components in a cloud 101”].
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Moeller further disclose the ecosystem of comprising at least two edge devices, wherein each edge device comprises at least one edge app [par. 0061, “each of the gateways 119-121 may include one or more edge applications 132”].
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Raber et al. further teaches at least two edge apps are accessible and executable on the edge device [par. 0020, “The present invention relates to a system and method for selectively permitting entry into a defined operational mode by distributed client-side software applications, e.g., to provide selective server-side control of distributed client-side software applications that allows a selected client-side application on a single client device to be selectively placed in a debugging or other mode in a targeted manner”], and in the first runtime mode, a predefined set of IT-security constraints is associated with each edge app, and in the second runtime mode at least a part of the predefined set of the IT-security constraints is void for at least one of the at least two edge apps and another of the at least two edge apps is accessible with elevated rights [par. 0024, “The defined mode may be any suitable mode other than the usual mode of operation, to which access is typically limited. By way of example, the defined mode may be a debugging mode for debugging purposes, or a logging mode for data logging purposes, or a special operational mode having enhanced or limited functionality”, par. 0042, “the defined mode may involve presentation of an otherwise inaccessible login screen by which the user may login to the back-end server 100 to perform certain testing, analytical, configuration or other steps”].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Raber et al. into the teaching of Moeller with the motivation of providing application debugging functionality as taught by Raber et al. [Raber et al.: claim 6].
Regarding claim 11, it recites limitations like claim 1. The reason for the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 12, it recites limitations like claim 2. The reason for the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 13, it recites limitations like claim 3. The reason for the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 20, it recites limitations like claim 20. The reason for the rejection of claim 20 is incorporated herein.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moeller (US 2021/0216306 A1) and Raber et al. (US 2014/0082157 A1) as applied to claims 1-3, 10-13 and 20 above, and further in view of Tucker et al. (US 2018/0121323 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Moeller and Raber et al. disclose controlling access to edge apps on edge devices.
They do not explicitly disclose a timer configured to control an expiration of the predefined time period.
However Tucker et al. teaches a timer configured to control an expiration of the predefined time period [par. 0111, “a determination (at operation 640) that a a debugger interface on the client device (e.g., the client device 312) is no longer available may be based on the expiration of timer”]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Tucker et al. into the teaching of Moeller and Raber with the motivation for debug session management as taught by Tucker et al. [Tucker et al.: abs.].
Regarding claim 14, it recites limitations like claim 4. The reason for the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated herein.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moeller (US 2021/0216306 A1), Raber et al. (US 2014/0082157 A1) and Tucker et al. (US 2018/0121323 A1) as applied to claims 4 and 14 above, and further in view of Vignesh (US 2019/0042397 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated.
Moeller and Raber et al. disclose controlling access to edge apps on edge devices.
Tucker et al. teaches a timer configured to control an expiration of the predefined time period.
They do not explicitly disclose the timer is further configured to prolong the predefined time period prior to its expiration.
However Vignesh teaches the timer is further configured to prolong the predefined time period prior to its expiration [par. 0022, table B, a solution to overcome or fix that accessibility test, Inform user on the time limits, and provide options to switch off, delay and extend before the time limit expires].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Vignesh into the teaching of Moeller, Raber et al. and Tucker et al. with the motivation for provide techniques of data processing for accessibility testing software automation tool as taught by Vignesh [Vignesh: par. 0017].
Regarding claim 15, it recites limitations like claim 5. The reason for the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated herein.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moeller (US 2021/0216306 A1) and Raber et al. (US 2014/0082157 A1) as applied to claims 1-3, 10-13 and 20 above, and further in view of Scheifler et al. (US 2009/0271472 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Moeller and Raber et al. disclose controlling access to edge app and setting the edge device into the second runtime mode for a predefined time period.
They do not explicitly disclose automatically create, before setting the edge device into the second runtime mode, a full snapshot of a system of the edge device and/or of the edge app runtime and/or of the edge app and/or of configuration and/or of data; and to restore the edge device to a previous state according to the snapshot when setting the edge device into the first runtime mode.
However Scheifler et al. teaches automatically create, before setting the edge device into the second runtime mode, a full snapshot of a system of the edge device and/or of the edge app runtime and/or of the edge app and/or of configuration and/or of data; and to restore the edge device to a previous state according to the snapshot when setting the edge device into the first runtime mode. [par. 0102, “before beginning a debug session, a snapshot operation may be used to capture the current state of the file system… debug may be complete, shown as the negative exit from 650. In this case, a rollback operation may be used to restore the state of the file system to match the snapshot taken before the debugging session”]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Scheifler et al. into the teaching of Moeller and Raber et al. with the motivation for using snapshots in a debugging task as taught by Scheifler et al. [Scheifler et al.: par. 0102].
Regarding claim 16, it recites limitations like claim 6. The reason for the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated herein.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moeller (US 2021/0216306 A1) and Raber et al. (US 2014/0082157 A1) as applied to claims 1-3, 10-13 and 20 above, and further in view of Polk et al. (US 2013/0263090 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Moeller and Raber et al. disclose controlling access to edge app and setting the edge device into the second runtime mode for a predefined time period.
They do not explicitly disclose the software development operations comprise at least one of the following: performing a remote login to the edge app with read and write access; accessing the edge app’s file system with read and write access; tracing the edge app’s log files in real-time mode; attaching a debugger to a running process of the edge app; attaching a CPU, main memory, disk or network I/O profiler to a running process of the edge app; changing the edge app’s log levels.
However Polk et al. teaches the software development operations comprise at least one of the following: performing a remote login to the edge app with read and write access; accessing the edge app’s file system with read and write access; tracing the edge app’s log files in real-time mode; attaching a debugger to a running process of the edge app; attaching a CPU, main memory, disk or network I/O profiler to a running process of the edge app; changing the edge app’s log levels [par. 0031, “The log analysis module 14 provides for real-time log analysis, e.g., tools for parsing that analyze one or more log files, optionally in real-time”]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Polk et al. into the teaching of Moeller and Raber et al. with the motivation to significantly reduce the amount of time between finding an issue to the reporting of the issue, and in particular the subsequent remedy of the issue as taught by Polk et al. [Polk et al.: par. 0055].
Regarding claim 17, it recites limitations like claim 7. The reason for the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated herein.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moeller (US 2021/0216306 A1) and Raber et al. (US 2014/0082157 A1) as applied to claims 1-3, 10-13 and 20 above, and further in view of Wygodny et al. (US 6,282,701 B1).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Moeller and Raber et al. disclose controlling access to edge app and setting the edge device into the second runtime mode for a predefined time period.
They do not explicitly disclose the elevated rights include at least one of the following access rights: remote login into containers of the edge app with read-write access, remote read-write access to a container file system of the edge app; remote online log tracing of the edge app; remote debugging of the edge app; remote profiling of the edge app; changing log levels to include debug-related log information of the edge app into log output; remote login to the edge device’s base system with read-only access; remote login to runtime of the edge app with read-only access.
However Wygodny et al. teaches the elevated rights include at least one of the following access rights: remote login into containers of the edge app with read-write access, remote read-write access to a container file system of the edge app; remote online log tracing of the edge app; remote debugging of the edge app; remote profiling of the edge app; changing log levels to include debug-related log information of the edge app into log output; remote login to the edge device’s base system with read-only access; remote login to runtime of the edge app with read-only access [col. 7, lines 39-43, “The analyzer 106 is used to analyze the trace data and isolate the bug. The developer 112 may either analyze the trace data as it is generated (online mode), or the developer 112 may analyze trace data stored in the trace log file 122 (mainly remote mode)”]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Wygodny et al. into the teaching of Moeller and Raber et al. with the motivation to facilitates the process of tracing the execution paths of a program as taught by Wygodny et al. [Wygodny et al.: abs.].
Regarding claim 18, it recites limitations like claim 8. The reason for the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 10460122 B1 Dynamic Permission Modes
US 20190196801 A1 METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT
US 20180165183 A1 PROGRAMMATIC ACCESS CONTROL VALIDATION
US 20140108876 A1 PROCESSOR SWITCHABLE BETWEEN TEST AND DEBUG MODES
US 20120222010 A1 Loading And Debugging Method And Debugging System Thereof
US 20120102465 A1 Collaborative Software Debugging In A Distributed System With Client-Specific Access Control
US 20100293342 A1 DATA PROCESSING APPARATUS
US 7418697 B2 Method And System For Fast Application Debugging
US 6757829 B1 Program Debugging System For Secure Computing Device Having Secure And Non-secure Modes
US 20020104071 A1 Methods And Systems For Supporting And Deploying Distributed Computing Components
US 6367032 B1 Method And System For Debugging A Microprocessor Core
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON CHIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3393. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 AM to 6 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. 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.
/JASON CHIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431