IP Library Granted Patent US 12,488,017
Granted Patent B2
US 12,488,017 · App. 18/322,677 · Granted Dec 2, 2025

Multi-tenant database replication and sharding

Inventors: Daniel A. Vanbrocklin (Troy, MI); Matthew G. White (Rochester Hills, MI); Joshua Searles (Flushing, MI); Andrew M. Wilber (Franklin, WI); Jason W. Malzahn (Rochester Hills, MI); Alex G. Castle (Seattle, WA); Michael J. Pantaleano (Milwaukee, WI); Jerry L. Foster (Goodrich, MI)
Assignee: ROCKWELL AUTOMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
G06F16/27
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,488,017
App. No.
18/322,677
Granted
Dec 2, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

A multi-tenant, cloud-based Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) manufacturing platform offers a variety of industrial applications to end customers—including but not limited to MES, ERP, quality management, supply chain management, and customer relationship management (CRM)—and implements associated architectural features that address a number of issues relating to data sharing, security, scalability, and other concerns.

Claims (58)

1 . A system, comprising:

a memory that stores executable components; and

a processor, operatively coupled to the memory, that executes the executable components, the executable components comprising:

internal services that implement a manufacturing cloud system, wherein

the manufacturing cloud system is a multi-tenant Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) system that executes an industrial manufacturing execution system (MES) on a cloud platform,

the manufacturing cloud system collects and stores industrial data owned by multiple customer entities in multiple data silos, and the cloud platform comprises at least:

a first data center that stores data for, and is accessible by, a first subset of the multiple customer entities within a first region, the first subset including a first entity of the multiple customer entities, and

a second data center residing in a different country than the first data center and that stores data for, and is accessible by, a second subset of the multiple customer entities within a second region, the second subset including a second entity of the multiple customer entities;

a tagging component configured to tag items of the industrial data associated with the first entity with metadata to yield tagged data, wherein the metadata for a data item, of the items of the industrial data, identifies a data type of the data item and indicates whether the data item is sharable with the second entity;

a service communicator component configured to determine a scope of the tagged data permitted to be shared with the second entity based on the metadata, a business relationship between the first entity and the second entity defined by tenant map data that defines business relationships between the multiple customer entities, and an egress rule that defines types or sets of data that are not to be passed to data centers outside a country in which the first data center resides, wherein the business relationship is at least one of a relationship between a supplier and a manufacturer, a relationship between a manufacturer and a shipper, or a relationship between a manufacturer and a retailer; and

a data packaging component configured to route at least a subset of the tagged data from the first data center to the second data center in accordance with the scope of the tagged data permitted to be shared with the second entity, wherein the data packaging component is configured to redact a portion of the tagged data in accordance with the egress rule to yield the subset of the tagged data.

2 . The system of claim 1 , wherein

the data packaging component is further configured to archive the tagged data in response to elapse of a duration of time subsequent to collection of the tagged data, and

the duration of time is defined by retention rules associated with respective data types.

3 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the metadata further identifies the second entity with which the data item is sharable.

4 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the tagged data comprises at least one of recipe data defining control process parameters for manufacturing a type of product or material, employee information, production statistics, or device configuration data.

5 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the data packaging component is configured to package the subset of the tagged data as a deployment artifact, and to route the deployment artifact to the second data center.

6 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the tenant map data defines at least one of a limitation or a condition on sharing of data between the first entity and the second entity.

7 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the egress rule further defines permitted data boundaries for the country in which the first data center resides.

8 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the manufacturing cloud system further executes, on the cloud platform, at least one of an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, a quality management system, a supply chain management system, or a customer relationship management (CRM) system.

9 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the executable components further comprise a data sharing component configured to distribute, based on the metadata, a portion of the tagged data from a first data silo, of the multiple data silos, to one or more second data silos of the multiple data silos accessible by the second entity.

10 . A method, comprising:

executing, by a system comprising a processor, a manufacturing cloud system, wherein

the manufacturing cloud system is a multi-tenant Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) system that executes an industrial manufacturing execution system (MES) on a cloud platform,

the manufacturing cloud system collects and stores industrial data owned by multiple customer entities in multiple data silos, and

the cloud platform comprises at least:

a first data center that stores data for, and is accessible by, a first subset of the multiple customer entities within a first region, the first subset including a first entity of the multiple customer entities, and

a second data center that resides in a different country than the first data center and that stores data for, and is accessible by, a second subset of the multiple customer entities within a second region, the second subset including a second entity of the multiple customer entities;

tagging, by the system, items of the industrial data associated with the first entity with metadata to yield tagged data, wherein the metadata for a data item, of the items of the industrial data, identifies a data type of the data item and indicates whether the data item is sharable with the second entity;

determining, by the system, a scope of the tagged data permitted to be shared with the second entity based on the metadata, and a business relationship between the first entity and the second entity defined by tenant map data that defines business relationships between the multiple customer entities, and an egress rule that defines types or sets of data that are not to be passed to data centers outside a country in which the first data center resides; and

routing, by the system, a subset of the tagged data from the first data center to the second data center in accordance with the scope of the tagged data permitted to be shared with the second entity,

wherein

the business relationship is at least one of a relationship between a supplier and a manufacturer, a relationship between a manufacturer and a shipper, or a relationship between a manufacturer and a retailer, and

the routing comprises redacting a portion of the tagged data in accordance with the egress rule to yield the subset of the tagged data.

11 . The method of claim 10 , further comprising archiving, by the system, the tagged data in response to elapse of a duration of time subsequent to collection of the tagged data, wherein the duration of time is defined by retention rules associated with respective data types.

12 . The method of claim 10 , wherein the metadata further identifies the second entity with which the data item is sharable.

13 . The method of claim 10 , wherein the tagged data comprises at least one of recipe data defining control process parameters for manufacturing a type of product or material, employee information, production statistics, or device configuration data.

14 . The method of claim 10 , wherein the routing further comprises:

packaging the subset of the tagged data as a deployment artifact, and routing the deployment artifact to the second data center.

15 . The method of claim 10 , wherein the tenant map data further defines at least one of a limitation or a condition on sharing of data between the first entity and the second entity.

16 . The method of claim 10 , wherein the manufacturing cloud system further executes, on the cloud platform, at least one of an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, a quality management system, a supply chain management system, or a customer relationship management (CRM) system.

17 . A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, in response to execution, cause system comprising a processor to perform operations, the operations comprising:

implementing a manufacturing cloud system, wherein

the manufacturing cloud system is a multi-tenant Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) system that executes an industrial manufacturing execution system (MES) on a cloud platform,

the manufacturing cloud system collects and stores industrial data owned by multiple customer entities in multiple data silos, and

the cloud platform comprises at least:

a first data center that stores data for, and is accessible by, a first subset of the multiple customer entities within a first region, the first subset including a first entity of the multiple customer entities, and

a second data center residing in a different country than the first data center that stores data for, and is accessible by, a second subset of the multiple customer entities within a second region, the second subset including a second

entity of the multiple customer entities;

tagging items of the industrial data associated with the first entity with metadata to yield tagged data, wherein the metadata for a data item, of the items of the industrial data, identifies a data type of the data item and indicates whether the data item is sharable with the second entity;

determining a scope of the tagged data permitted to be shared with the second entity based on the metadata, a business relationship between the first entity and the second entity defined by tenant map data that defines business relationships between the multiple customer entities, and an egress rule that defines types or sets of data that are not to be passed to data centers outside a country in which the first data center resides; and

routing a subset of the tagged data from the first data center to the second data center in accordance with the scope of the tagged data permitted to be shared with the second entity,

wherein

the business relationship is at least one of a relationship between a supplier and a manufacturer, a relationship between a manufacturer and a shipper, or a relationship between a manufacturer and a retailer, and

the routing comprises redacting a portion of the tagged data in accordance with the egress rule to yield the subset of the tagged data.

18 . The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17 , wherein the tagged data comprises at least one of recipe data defining control process parameters for manufacturing a type of product or material, employee information, production statistics, or device configuration data.

19 . The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17 , wherein the operations further comprise archiving the tagged data in response to elapse of a duration of time subsequent to collection of the tagged data, wherein the duration of time is defined by retention rules associated with respective data types.

20 . The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17 , wherein the tenant map data further defines at least one of a limitation or a condition on sharing of data between the first entity and the second entity.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded May 24, 2023
From: VANBROCKLIN, DANIEL A.; WHITE, MATTHEW G.; SEARLES, JOSHUA; WILBER, ANDREW M.; MALZAHN, JASON W.; CASTLE, ALEX G.; PANTALEANO, MICHAEL J.; FOSTER, JERRY L.
To: ROCKWELL AUTOMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Reel/Frame 063743/0074 →
Continuity (1)
Related Publication 20240394275A1 · Nov 28, 2024
References Cited (80)
US 10291607B1 · Cifelli · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20030055933A1 · Ishizaki et al. · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 20060074498A1 · Kalan et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20080189287A1 · Traub · 2008 [cited by examiner]
US 20090089682A1 · Baier et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090288084A1 · Astete et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20120144313A1 · Park et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20130191106A1 · Kephart et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130211870A1 · Lawson et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20140047107A1 · Maturana et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140289391A1 · Balaji et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140317701A1 · Eicken et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140336791A1 · Asenjo et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140336795A1 · Asenjo et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20160306866A1 · Kuruganti · 2016 [cited by examiner]
US 20170277171A1 · Asenjo · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 20180225317A1 · Lalani et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180373811A1 · Fink · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20190132301A1 · Banga et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190312857A1 · Lander et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20200067789A1 · Khuti · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20200133224A1 · Popp · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200201827A1 · Chacko · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20200265062A1 · Srinivasan et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200272981A1 · Kirkegaard · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20210089009A1 · Höfele et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210089959A1 · Ghosh et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210096551A1 · Sayyarrodsari et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210097554A1 · Manicka · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210132582A1 · Biernat · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210144517A1 · Guim Bernat et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210208571A1 · Thomsen · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 20220027529A1 · Zarur et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220222623A1 · Stump · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220239465A1 · Woerner · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220245177A1 · Mack · 2022 [cited by examiner]
US 20220255854A1 · Baker et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220327119A1 · Gasper · 2022 [cited by examiner]
US 20220337699A1 · Byrne · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220353339A1 · Singh · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20230017237A1 · Dunn et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20230048011A1 · Mody et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20230114142A1 · Panikkar et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20230126456A1 · Donelan et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20230156826A1 · Palermo · 2023 [cited by examiner]
US 20230224304A1 · Lukanov · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20230281618A1 · Cella · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20230376859A1 · Miller · 2023 [cited by examiner]
US 20240086416A1 · Singh et al. · 2024 [cited by applicant]
US 20240364509A1 · Potlapally et al. · 2024 [cited by applicant]
EP 2801935A1 · 2014 [cited by applicant]
EP 3979166A1 · 2022 [cited by applicant]
WO 2019092544A1 · 2019 [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 18/320,268, dated Apr. 9, 2024, 23 pages. [cited by applicant]
Final Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 18/320,268, dated Sep. 26, 2024, 40 pages. [cited by applicant]
Wikipedia, “Software as a Service”, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Online available at URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?t%20itle=Software%20as%20a%20service&oldid=499825452, Retrieved from the internet Dec. … [cited by applicant]
Extended European Search Report received for European Patent Application Serial No. 24176038.8 dated Oct. 14, 2024, 9 pages. [cited by applicant]
Extended European Search Report received for European Patent Application Serial No. 24176036.2 dated Oct. 14, 2024, 7 pages. [cited by applicant]
Extended European Search Report received for European Patent Application Serial No. 24176037.0 dated Oct. 9, 2024, 10 pages. [cited by applicant]
Shojaeinasab et al., “Intelligent Manufacturing Execution Systems: A Systematic Review”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, vol. 62, 2022, pp. 503-522. [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 18/322,268 dated Mar. 20, 2025, 18 pages. [cited by applicant]
Final Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 18/320,287 dated May 27, 2025, 23 pages. [cited by applicant]
Saberi et al., “Blockchain Technology and its Relationships to Sustainable Supply Chain Management”, International Journal of Production Research, 2018, 20 pages. [cited by applicant]
Barenji et al., “Blockchain-based Ubiquitous Manufacturing: A Secure and Reliable Cyber-physical System”, International Journal of Production Research, Oct. 29, 2019, 24 pages. [cited by applicant]
Final Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 18/320,268 dated May 23, 2025, 14 pages. [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 18/322,162 dated Jun. 4, 2025, 20 pages. [cited by applicant]
Perducat et al., “Evolution and Trends of Cloud on Industrial OT Networks”, in IEEE Open Journal of Industry Applications, vol. 4, 2023, pp. 291-303. [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 18/320,261 dated Jun. 18, 2025. [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 18/320,268, dated Dec. 13, 2024. [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 18/320,287, dated Feb. 12, 2025. [cited by applicant]
Abeyratne, et al. Blockchain Ready Manufacturing Supply Chain Using Distributed Ledger. Wolfson School of Mechanical, Electrical, and Manufacturing Engineering, Loughborough University, UK. International Journal of Engi… [cited by applicant]
Leng, et al. Blockchain Secured Smart Manufacturing in Industry 4.0: A Survey. Guandong University of Technology. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybermetrics Systems. Jan. 2021. [cited by applicant]
Peters, et al. Understanding Modern Banking Ledgers Through Blockchain Technologies: Future of Transaction Processing and Smart Contracts on the Internet of Money. Department of Statistical Science, University College L… [cited by applicant]
Final Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 18/322,162 dated Oct. 1, 2025, 16 pages. [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 18/322,235 dated Sep. 15, 2025, 29 pages. [cited by applicant]
Final Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 18/322,268 dated Sep. 26, 2025, 19 pages. [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 18/320,282 dated Aug. 26, 2025, 29 pages. [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 18/322,655 dated Sep. 11, 2025, 32 pages. [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 18/320,287 dated Sep. 22, 2025, 25 pages. [cited by applicant]
Christidis et al., “Blockchains and Smart Contracts for the Internet of Things”, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, IEEE Access, vol. 4, May 10, 2016, pp. 2292-2303. [cited by applicant]