DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on 08/14/2025. Claims 14-25 were previously pending, of which claims 14, 18, 20, 23, and 25 have been amended, claim 24 has been cancelled, and no claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 14-23 and 25 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 7-14, filed 08/14/2025; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Hershey does not appear to disclose the exchange of digital twin data module based on a physically changed component as amended in claim 1. However, due to the nature of the applicant’s amendments, the scope of the applicant’s invention has changed and thus requires new analysis and new application of prior art and further search found that Cattone in view of Hershey did disclose these limitations, as mapped in the final office action below.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Although the claim constitutes simple data processing, the amendment does not appear to leave the claim with any limitation which could be considered a mental process. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is withdrawn for claims 14-20 and 22. However, the rejection is maintained for claims 21 and 23, which do provide a mental process based on the data processing of claim 14.
In consideration of the “software per se” rejection of claims 24-25, the inclusion of the machine-readable medium provides a transitory medium by which the method is performed. The transitory nature results in the claim being maintained as a 35 U.S.C § 101 “signal per se” rejection, as provided in the final rejection below. The addition of non-transitory to the machine-readable medium would acknowledge that the software was stored on a physical medium, e.g. hard drive, flash drive, or disc.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the amendment renders this rejection moot, the amended claims are no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
With respect to the claim objections, the amendments have rendered the objections moot. Therefore, the objections to the claims are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 14 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Although the term exchange or replace is used in the specification, it is not disclosed that the exchange would include the deletion, retrieval, and adding steps as disclosed in claim 14. Although those terms could describe an exchange, an exchange could include a variety of data transfer methods that may not include deleting or adding new data but rearranging data that already exists. Therefore, the added steps of deleting and adding data is considered new matter under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as being dependent on rejected claim 14 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claim was amended to include “component model dataset module” which is later referred to three times as “component module dataset module” the first module should be replaced with model for consistency and to avoid indefinite interpretation.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: The amendment to claim 18 includes “the the digital double dataset” should be “the digital double dataset.” 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.
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified method Claim 14 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claims 14, 21, and 23 recite the limitations of (additional elements emphasized in bold and are considered to be parsed from the remaining abstract idea):
A machine-readable medium storing instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
based on physically removing an existing component from a passenger transport system and replacing the existing component with a replacement component, replacing, in a digital double data set representative of the passenger transport system, a component model data set module associated with the existing component with a component model data set module associated with the replacement component by:
deleting the component module data set module associated with the existing component from the digital double data set,
retrieving the component module data set module associated with the replacement component from a data storage unit physically attached to the replacement component or from a remotely located computer storage device based on a unique identification of the replacement component,
and adding the component module data set module associated with the replacement component to the digital double data set, in an at least partially automated manner;
wherein the digital double dataset comprises a plurality of component dataset modules,
wherein each of these component dataset modules respectively describes component data concerning physical properties of one of the components in the passenger transport system.
(Claim 21) wherein work steps to be carried out for the physical exchange of the component are specified by a computer program with consideration of the component data concerning the component.
(Claim 23) wherein the current physical properties of the passenger transport system are determined by means of calculations, simulations and/or models based on the initial physical properties specified in the digital double dataset, and wherein individual components of the passenger transport system are exchanged by means of a method according to Claim 14.
which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a mental process (concept performed in the human mind) but for the recitation of generic computer elements. For example, a person could data of a component of the vehicle from the manufacturer and sensor data of that component usage in the vehicle. They could then use pen and paper to calculate current physical properties of the passenger transport system. A person could also specify the work steps required to exchange a physical component.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not practically integrated. The claim recites the additional elements of “a computer system,” “a machine-readable medium,” and “sensors.” These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2B, the aforementioned additional elements are all generic computer elements have been held to be not significantly more than the abstract idea by Alice. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of using the processors to receive information, make decisions, and supply instructions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the limitation step “physically exchanging the component by removing an existing component from the passenger transport system and replacing the existing component with a replacement component, replacing, in a digital double data set representative of the passenger transport system, a component model data set module associated with the existing component with a component model data set module associated with the replacement component” is considered extra solution activity. Although the physical change cannot be performed in the human mind, it is completed by an external installer or robot and not based on a direct command from the computer system processing the digital double dataset. Similarly the exchange of data is not a mental process but is simple data processing and storage, which is also an extra solution activity. Therefore, is not significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is not falling under any of the four statutory categories of invention (processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter). Specifically, the claimed “machine-readable medium,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses a signal per se. Although random-access memory and magnetic tape are statutory media, carrier waves are not because they are signals similar to the transitory, propagating signals held to be non-statutory in Nuijten. 851 F.3d at 1294, 112 USPQ2d at 1133 (citing In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Accordingly, because the BRI of the claims covered both subject matter that falls within a statutory category (the random-access memory), as well as subject matter that does not (the carrier waves), the claims as a whole were not directed to a statutory category and thus failed the first criterion for eligibility. Correction is requested to remedy this deficiency (e.g. by making the machine-readable medium a “non-transitory machine-readable medium”).
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, 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 14-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cattone (US 2016/0189440 A1), hereinafter Cattone, in view of Hershey et al. (US 2017/0286572 A1), hereinafter Hershey.
With respect to claims 14 and 25, Cattone discloses a machine-readable medium (1322) storing instructions, when executed by a processor (1302), cause the processor to: perform a method comprising: based on physically removing an existing component from a passenger transport system and replacing the existing component with a replacement component, replacing, in a (see at least Fig. 3B-3C, [0094-0095] “the mobile device 112 may receive characterization information 312 for a part 106 that signals a replacement of the part. Responsive to receiving the characterization information 312, the mobile device 112 may purge… and create an entry of part description information 304 in the vehicle information 300 for the part 106 that is new.”)
deleting the component module data set module associated with the existing component from the digital double data set, (see at least [0095] “the mobile device 112 may purge an entry of part description information 304 for the part 106 that is being replaced from the vehicle information 300”)
retrieving the component module data set module associated with the replacement component from a data storage unit physically attached to the replacement component or from a remotely located computer storage device based on a unique identification of the replacement component, (see at least [0097] “information 320 may be updated based on characterization information 312 that is received from a smart component 102, the characterization information 312 including results from a test that is performed on the part 106 while it is in place in the vehicle 104… that includes a part identifier 306”)
and adding the component module data set module associated with the replacement component to the digital double data set, in an at least partially automated manner; (see at least [0094-0095] “the mobile device 112 may receive characterization information 312 for a part 106 that signals a replacement of the part… and create an entry of part description information 304 in the vehicle information 300 for the part 106 that is new.”)
wherein the (see at least Fig. 3B, [0093] “The vehicle information 300 may include vehicle identification information 302 that identifies a vehicle 104 and one or more entries of part description information 304 that describes part(s) 106… Each entry of part description information 304 corresponds to a part 106.”)
wherein each of these component dataset modules respectively describes component data concerning physical properties of one of the components in the passenger transport system, (see at least Fig. 3C, [0095-0096] “an entry of part description information 304 in the vehicle information 300 for the part 106 that is new. The maintenance history information 316 may store… a percentage wear of the part 106 replaced (e.g., 80% wear)… The service level information 318 may store the current service level for the part 106… warn the user that the current part 106 is in need of repair.”)
Cattone discloses estimating required replacement of a vehicle component using data modules that are replaced when the new part is replaced, but does not explicitly disclose the use of a stored digital double to determine the required replacement.
However, Hershey teaches the use of a digital twin diagnostic system wherein the digital double data set is digitally stored in a computer system or on a machine-readable medium. (see at least [0049] “The digital twin of twinned physical system 150 may store information into and/or retrieve information from various data sources, such as the computer data store 110”)
As both pertain to component health and replacement, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the component replacement determination of Cattone to include the digital twin disclosed in Hershey, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an answer in a time frame that is useful, that is, meaningfully prior to a projected occurrence of a failure event or suboptimal operation, see Hershey [0037].
With respect to claim 15, Cattone discloses estimating required replacement of a vehicle component using data modules that are replaced when the new part is replaced, but does not explicitly disclose the connections between the various components.
However, Hershey teaches each component dataset module comprises component unit data concerning physical properties of the component itself, as well as interface data concerning physical properties that describe a cooperation of the component with other components. (see at least [0055] “The digital twin 250 may also include a system structure 256 which specifies the components of the twinned physical system and how the components are connected or interact with each other.”)
As both pertain to component health and replacement, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the component replacement determination of Cattone to include the interaction of the components disclosed in Hershey, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to consider the impact of the system as a whole due to the operational controls and externally applied forces, see Hershey [0055].
With respect to claim 16, Cattone discloses estimating required replacement of a vehicle component using data modules that are replaced when the new part is replaced, but does not explicitly disclose the installation type.
However, Hershey teaches the component data concerning physical properties of the replacement component also comprises installation data that is affected by the type of installation of the replacement component in the passenger transport system. ([0068] “Finally, the installation 630 of the system components may alter their expected RUL if the installation suffers misadventure such as, for example, rough handling, incorrect mounting, and/or excessive torque.”)
As both pertain to component health and replacement, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the component replacement determination of Cattone to include the interaction of the components disclosed in Hershey, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to alter their expected remaining useful life if the installation suffers misadventure, see Hershey [0068].
With respect to claim 17, Cattone discloses estimating required replacement of a vehicle component using data modules that are replaced when the new part is replaced, but does not explicitly disclose the installation force data consideration.
However, Hershey teaches the installation data comprises forces and/or torques that were applied for fixing the replacement component in the passenger transport system during the replacement of the component. ([0068] “One embodiment for guiding and monitoring the installation process (and collecting the information respecting any installation mishandling) is to provide an installer with a computer-instructed “wizard” with sensors attached to the installation tools and system components.”)
As both pertain to component health and replacement, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the component replacement determination of Cattone to include the interaction of the components disclosed in Hershey, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to alter their expected remaining useful life if the installation suffers misadventure, see Hershey [0068].
With respect to claim 18, Cattone discloses estimating required replacement of a vehicle component using data modules that are replaced when the new part is replaced, but does not explicitly disclose the installation force data consideration.
However, Hershey teaches the installation data is automatically acquired by a tool used for the installation and transmitted in an automated manner to the digital double dataset. ([0068] “One embodiment for guiding and monitoring the installation process (and collecting the information respecting any installation mishandling) is to provide an installer with a computer-instructed “wizard” with sensors attached to the installation tools and system components. The collected installation information may also be subsequently entered into the digital twin process.”)
As both pertain to component health and replacement, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the component replacement determination of Cattone to include the installation disclosed in Hershey, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to alter their expected remaining useful life if the installation suffers misadventure, see Hershey [0068].
With respect to claim 19, Cattone discloses the component data concerning a replacement component is stored in a data storage unit provided on the replacement component and transmitted in an automated manner to the computer, storing the digital double dataset. (see at least [0086] “Broadly, the smart component 102 may utilize the sensor 108 to sense the part 106 to receive information (e.g., a sense of the part) that is utilized by the smart component 102 to generate characterization information and communicate the characterization information”)
With respect to claim 20, Cattone discloses a unique identification is provided on the component and the component data concerning the replacement component is stored in a data storage unit that is arranged remotely from the component, and wherein the component data concerning the replacement component is transmitted from the data storage unit to the digital double dataset in an automated manner by transmitting the identification. (see at least [0094] “A particular part type identifier 308 may be associated with one or more part identifiers 306. The part log information 310 may include one or more entries of characterization information 312 for the part 106.” [0097] “the test may generate characterization information 312 that includes a part identifier 306 that, in turn, is compared with OEM tracking information stored at the network-based marketplace 118”)
With respect to claim 21, Cattone discloses estimating required replacement of a vehicle component using data modules that are replaced when the new part is replaced, but does not explicitly disclose work steps to replace the component.
However, Hershey teaches work steps to be carried out for the physical exchange of the component are specified by a computer program with consideration of the component data concerning the component. (see at least [0068] “One embodiment for guiding and monitoring the installation process (and collecting the information respecting any installation mishandling) is to provide an installer with a computer-instructed “wizard” with sensors attached to the installation tools and system components. The collected installation information may also be subsequently entered into the digital twin process.”)
As both pertain to component health and replacement, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the links to component installation guides of Cattone to include the installation wizard disclosed in Hershey, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the probability that the installation suffers misadventure, see Hershey [0068].
With respect to claim 22, Cattone discloses estimating required replacement of a vehicle component using data modules that are replaced when the new part is replaced, but does not explicitly disclose the installation force data consideration.
However, Hershey teaches actual data concerning currently prevailing physical properties of the passenger transport system is acquired during the method and associated data in the digital double dataset is replaced with the actual data. ([0037] “The digital twin may comprise a real time efficiency and life consumption state estimation device.”)
As both pertain to component health and replacement, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the component replacement determination of Cattone to include the simulated and real time data disclosed in Hershey, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an adaptable digital twin may detect when unexpected operating scenarios are experienced by a real physical system and then change an underlying system of equations., see Hershey [0126].
With respect to claim 23, Cattone discloses estimating required replacement of a vehicle component using data modules that are replaced when the new part is replaced, but does not explicitly disclose the simulation or models used to prediction the life of the components.
However, Hershey teaches a method for monitoring current physical properties of a passenger transport system, wherein initial physical properties of the passenger transport system are specified in a computer in a digitally stored digital double dataset that can also be processed, wherein the current physical properties of the passenger transport system are determined by means of calculations, simulations and/or models based on the initial physical properties specified in the digital double dataset, and wherein individual components of the passenger transport system are exchanged by means of a method according to Claim 14. ([0071] “The dimensions that significantly affect a particular component (and should therefore be tracked) during the component's life may be initially estimated by best engineering judgment and can be augmented or refined as more is learned about a particular component's behavior under different operational and/or environmental conditions.”)
As both pertain to component health and replacement, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the component replacement determination of Cattone to include the simulated and real time data disclosed in Hershey, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an adaptable digital twin may detect when unexpected operating scenarios are experienced by a real physical system and then change an underlying system of equations., see Hershey [0126].
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY MARIE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (703)756-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.
/S.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669