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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/16/2026 has been entered. No Claims have been amended. Claims 1-9 have been/remain canceled. Claims 10-18 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, on page 2-5 of the remark filed on 03/16/2026, on the limitations of independent claim 10, : “producing a common timestamp for the downloaded data, wherein the common timestamp is produced in the connecting unit after the data is downloaded and represents a single time of creation of the digital twin;”, arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pages 3-4 that the cited references fail to teach a common timestamp. Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Moeller teaches on Par. (0114) downloaded data of software loading parameters and on Par. (0119-0120) of a timestamp or time of day corresponding to the download or software update data. Moeller then discloses on Par. (0119-0120 and 0076) that after the software update or downloaded data is received with timestamp of time of day a container that is a digital twin representation has a date of the time of creation. Moeller describes in detail on Par. (0076) that a container is a digital twin and has database that contains information such as a common timestamp or date of creation. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claims 10, 13 and 15-16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20170323274, hereinafter referred to as “Johnson”) Moeller et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20190272495, hereinafter referred to as “Moeller”) and Hazeghi et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180130255, hereinafter referred to as “Hazeghi”) further in view of Brebner et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200285788, hereinafter referred to as “Brebner”)
In regards to Claim 10, Johnson teaches a method for providing a digital twin for a nondigital automation engineering field device, comprising the following method steps: (Fig. 5 label 502, 504, 505; digital twins operation corresponding to data lakes of aircraft))
connecting a connecting unit to the nondigital field device; (Fig. 5 label 502, 504, 505; non digital field device (data lakes of aircraft) connected to digital twins operation))
downloading data that are held in the nondigital field device to the connecting unit; (Par. (0141); raw output of data corresponding to installation of aircraft items)
downloading the digital twin with the aid of the link and executing the digital twin on a computer unit, which is preferably operated by an operator of the nondigital field device; (Par. (0182); link used for reinstallation of aircraft using Weibulls an LLP’s)), (Par. (0112); operator of the nondigital field device (operator corresponding to aircraft))
Johnson does not explicitly teach producing a common timestamp for the downloaded data; wherein the common timestamp is produced in the connecting unit after the data is downloaded and represents a single time of creation of the digital twin; transmitting the downloaded data together with the timestamp to a cloud; instantiating a digital image of the nondigital field device in the cloud, wherein the transmitted data and further data specific to the nondigital field device that are held in the cloud are supplied to the digital image, wherein the digital image comprises all the data available for the nondigital field device at a time of the timestamp, wherein the digital image is also provided with the timestamp; producing and providing an authenticated link for downloading the digital twin for the nondigital field device from the cloud, wherein the digital twin comprises at least one asset administration shell and the digital image with the timestamp; linking the digital twin executed on the computer unit to a product database located in the cloud, which product database comprises product data that contain at least all the master data relevant to the nondigital field device, a serial number, all the relevant data relating to a life cycle of the nondigital field device and the asset administration shell; checking whether the product data held in the product database have undergone a change in comparison with the data that were supplied to the digital image at the time of the timestamp.
Wherein Moeller teaches producing a common timestamp for the downloaded data, (Par. (0114) downloaded data (loaded software parameters)) (Par. (0119-0120); time of day corresponding to updated software parameters),
wherein the common timestamp is produced in the connecting unit after the data is downloaded and represents a single time of creation of the digital twin; (Par. (0119-0120); updated software parameters after software updated and received with time of day), (Par. (0076); container representing digital twin and date of creation of container digital twin is stored))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Johnson to incorporate the teaching of Moeller to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of digital twin technologies, with the motivation of having a time mechanism to ensure the quality of the digital twin throughout the lifecycle and store accurate data that can be analyzed effectively. (Moeller Par. (0076))
Johnson and Moeller do not explicitly teach transmitting the downloaded data together with the timestamp to a cloud; instantiating a digital image of the nondigital field device in the cloud, wherein the transmitted data and further data specific to the nondigital field device that are held in the cloud are supplied to the digital image, wherein the digital image comprises all the data available for the nondigital field device at a time of the timestamp, wherein the digital image is also provided with the timestamp; producing and providing an authenticated link for downloading the digital twin for the nondigital field device from the cloud, wherein the digital twin comprises at least one asset administration shell and the digital image with the timestamp; linking the digital twin executed on the computer unit to a product database located in the cloud, which product database comprises product data that contain at least all the master data relevant to the nondigital field device, a serial number, all the relevant data relating to a life cycle of the nondigital field device and the asset administration shell; checking whether the product data held in the product database have undergone a change in comparison with the data that were supplied to the digital image at the time of the timestamp.
Wherein Hazeghi teaches transmitting the downloaded data together with the timestamp to a cloud; (Par. (0116); transmitting data to cloud ), (Par. (0053); cloud based computing), (Par. (0053-0055); timestamp to a cloud (images corresponding to times, second/minutes))
instantiating a digital image of the nondigital field device in the cloud, (Par. (0047); digital twin or virtual 3D model corresponding to products)), (Fig. 8A; non-digital device (product being captured in image form))
wherein the transmitted data and further data specific to the nondigital field device that are held in the cloud are supplied to the digital image, (Par. (0116); transmitting data to cloud, images transmitted includes combining from cloud), (Par. (0127); transmitted data includes accumulated point cloud selected color of images that are transmitted based on individual point clouds)
wherein the digital image comprises all the data available for the nondigital field device at a time of the timestamp, wherein the digital image is also provided with the timestamp; (Par. (0093-0094); digital image comprises all the data available (images that are scanned capture different views of object and output information at the time-of-flight), (Par. (0097-0098); digital images associated with depth data)), (Par. (0093); images corresponding to the time of capture), (Par. (0120 and 0126-0127); time and metric calculated associated with scanning and processing of image)
checking whether the product data held in the product database have undergone a change in comparison with the data that were supplied to the digital image at the time of the timestamp. (Par. (0010); matching of images and comparing based on depth associated with a time))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Johnson and Moeller to incorporate the teaching of Hazeghi to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of virtual model and automation, with the motivation of using images produced for automation to detect possible hazards and storing all data in a cloud utilized by multiple entities. This proves important on autonomous vehicles, aircrafts and vessels by using captured sensor images to monitor patterns and keep the consumer securely protected in transit. (Hazeghi Par. (0006-0007 and (0076-0077))
Johnson, Moeller and Hazeghi do not explicitly teach producing and providing an authenticated link for downloading the digital twin for the nondigital field device from the cloud, wherein the digital twin comprises at least one asset administration shell and the digital image with the timestamp; linking the digital twin executed on the computer unit to a product database located in the cloud, which product database comprises product data that contain at least all the master data relevant to the nondigital field device, a serial number, all the relevant data relating to a life cycle of the nondigital field device and the asset administration shell;
Wherein Brebner teaches producing and providing an authenticated link for downloading the digital twin for the nondigital field device from the cloud, (Par. (0067); digital twin corresponding to a product/item)), (Par. (0435-0440 and 0466) authentication corresponding to digital twin (item), (Par. (0409-0410); authentication from cloud services)(Par. (0131); content item corresponding to published in cloud), (Par. (0164); item downloaded), (Par. (0387-0390); cloud services and content corresponding to downloading),
wherein the digital twin comprises at least one asset administration shell and the digital image with the timestamp; (Par. (0067); digital twin corresponding to a product/item)), (Par. (0397); digital twin with items associated with administrator and digital photo or picture)), (Par. (0268); from the cloud (cloud services), (Par. (0611); images with timestamp))
linking the digital twin executed on the computer unit to a product database located in the cloud, which product database comprises product data that contain at least all the master data relevant to the nondigital field device, especially also a serial number, all the relevant data relating to a life cycle of the nondigital field device and the asset administration shell; (Par. (0445-0449) ; database of product and item information, products with invoice number, amount date etc.), (Par. (0493); items stored in database with query on data relevant)), (Par. (0397); digital twin with items associated with administrator
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Johnson, Moeller and Hazeghi to incorporate the teaching of Brebner to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of digital twin technology in automation, with the motivation of linking the lifecycle and data to a cloud database the user will be able to effectively asses issues with the automation such be able to provide real-time assistances based on the stored information. This proves important for automation of the years with wear and tear and concerns by the consumer. (Brebner Par. (0065))
In regard to Claim 13, the combination of Johnson, Moeller, Hazeghi and Brebner teach the method of claim 10, Johnson further teaches the method according to claim 10, wherein the trigger signal is output from the digital twin to a maintenance management system of the operator of the nondigital field device, wherein the operator of the nondigital field device is informed of the change. (Par. (0023); trigger signal from digital twin to maintenance e (control signal used for sleet of assets and changes in flight schedule/ operations))(Par. (0283) sensed signals informing aircraft of change or operation control change))
In regard to Claim 15, the combination of Johnson, Moeller, Hazeghi and Brebner teach the method of claim 10, Hazeghi further teaches wherein the connecting unit is connected to the nondigital field device via a wireless connection. (Par.(0047); via wireless network))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Johnson, Moeller and Brebner to incorporate the teaching of Hazeghi for the reasons discussed in independent claim 10 stated above.
In regard to Claim 16, the combination of Johnson, Moeller, Hazeghi and Brebner teach the method of claim 10, Hazeghi further teaches wherein the connecting unit is connected to the nondigital field device using a connecting line. (Par. (0068); connected lines of non-digital field device))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Johnson, Moeller and Brebner to incorporate the teaching of Hazeghi for the reasons discussed in independent claim 10 stated above.
Claims 11 and 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20170323274, hereinafter referred to as “Johnson”), Moeller et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20190272495, hereinafter referred to as “Moeller”)
Hazeghi et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180130255, hereinafter referred to as “Hazeghi”) and Brebner et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200285788, hereinafter referred to as “Brebner”) further in view of Ito et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200313964, hereinafter referred to as “Ito”)
In regard to Claim 11, the combination of Johnson, Moeller, Hazeghi and Brebner do not explicitly teach wherein a further check is carried out as to whether there has been a change in the asset administration shell in comparison with the asset administration shell of the digital image.
Wherein Ito teaches wherein a further check is carried out as to whether there has been a change in the asset administration shell in comparison with the asset administration shell of the digital image. (Par. (0042); comparing asset with image obtained from camera current location of asset compared to current image)), (Par. (0024); asset administration shell (asset manager)), (Par. (0028); check is carried out [..] change in the asset (determines the changes of the asset using detection server))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Johnson, Moeller, Hazeghi and Brebner to incorporate the teaching of Ito to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of sensor data and images of automation devices, with the motivation detecting changes in digital images based on a comparison to determine possible irregularities and modification. This in turn promotes high credibility in the system and assures users their data is not forged or tampered with. (Ito Par. (0002-0004))
In regard to Claim 12, the combination of Johnson, Moeller, Hazeghi and Brebner do not explicitly teach wherein, when there was a change in the data held in the product database in comparison with the data held in the digital image and/or a change in the asset administration shell, a trigger signal is output by the digital twin.
Wherein Ito teaches wherein, when there was a change in the data held in the product database in comparison with the data held in the digital image and/or a change in the asset administration shell, a trigger signal is output by the digital twin. ((Par. (0042); comparison with digital image)), (Fig. 3 label 301, 302, data held in the image (image with binary data of image taken)), (Par. (0062); change in the data held in the product database (images received used to determine movement of assets associated with tracking database))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Johnson, Moeller, Hazeghi and Brebner to incorporate the teaching of Ito for the reason discussed in dependent claim 11 stated above.
Claims 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20170323274, hereinafter referred to as “Johnson”), Moeller et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20190272495, hereinafter referred to as “Moeller”) Hazeghi et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180130255, hereinafter referred to as “Hazeghi”) and Brebner et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200285788, hereinafter referred to as “Brebner”) further in view of Ahmad et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180183902, hereinafter referred to as “Ahmad”)
In regard to Claim 14, the combination of Johnson, Moeller, Hazeghi and Brebner do not explicitly teach wherein a serial number, one or more parameters and/or one or more measured values are downloaded as data from the nondigital field device.
Wherein Ahmad teaches wherein a serial number, one or more parameters and/or one or more measured values are downloaded as data from the nondigital field device. (Par. (0036-0038); measured values are downloaded ( sub routine with sensor data is downloaded) from nondigital field device (building or factory with automation))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Johnson, Moeller, Hazeghi and Brebner to incorporate the teaching of Ahmad to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of sensor data and images of automation devices, with the motivation of using download data of nondigital automated devices and comparing measured values and parameters to detect inconsistencies and alert the user to possible risk and harm based on the downloaded data. (Ahmad Par. (0015-0016))
Claims 17 and 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20170323274, hereinafter referred to as “Johnson”), Moeller et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20190272495, hereinafter referred to as “Moeller”) Hazeghi et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20180130255, hereinafter referred to as “Hazeghi”) and Brebner et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200285788, hereinafter referred to as “Brebner”) further in view of Altman et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210114616, hereinafter referred to as “Altman”)
In regard to Claim 17, the combination of Johnson, Moeller, Hazeghi and Brebner do not explicitly teach wherein the connecting unit is designed as a stationary unit that is permanently connected to the nondigital field device, and wherein, when a change is detected, the method steps are repeated.
Wherein Altman teaches wherein the connecting unit is designed as a stationary unit that is permanently connected to the nondigital field device, and wherein, when a change is detected, the method steps are repeated. (Par. (0026); stationary unit of tracking device and towing cable connected to opposite end of aircraft)), (Par. (0031); if emergency detected connecting/disconnecting rope/pulling force))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Johnson, Moeller, Hazeghi and Brebner to incorporate the teaching of Ito to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of automation of nondigital devices, with the motivation of connecting and disconnecting the automation devices once a change is detected. This safeguard the system from harm and prevents further damages to autonomous vehicles such as vessel, aircrafts and other vehicles because in an emergency situation the user can be notified and proper steps can be put into place to securely protects users. (Altman Par. (0013-0014))
In regard to Claim 18, the combination of Johnson, Moeller, Hazeghi and Brebner do not explicitly teach wherein the connecting unit is designed as a mobile unit that, after the data is downloaded according to the method, is disconnected from the nondigital field device, and wherein, when a change is detected, the method steps are repeated.
Wherein Altman teaches wherein the connecting unit is designed as a mobile unit that, after the data is downloaded according to the method, is disconnected from the nondigital field device, and wherein, when a change is detected, the method steps are repeated. (Par.(0026); downloading data of vehicle and disconnecting from the operator after detection from sensors))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Johnson, Moeller, Hazeghi and Brebner to incorporate the teaching of Altman for the reason discussed in dependent claim 17 stated above.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
OPSENICA; Miljenko (U.S Pub. No. 20220210160) “RESOURCE PROVISION FOR MOBILE ENTITIES”. Considered this reference because it addressed downloading and updating data after a period of time associated with automation.
Chacko; Rubin (U.S Pub. No. 20190019090) “FIELD SERVICES PLATFORM”. Considered this application because it relates functionalities of digital twin technologies and automation using time based data and images.
ZIA; Muhammad (U.S Pub. No. 20200089954) “GENERATING SYNTHETIC DIGITAL ASSETS FOR A VIRTUAL SCENE INCLUDING A MODEL OF A REAL-WORLD OBJECT”. Considered this application because it addressed digital twin technologies or 3D virtual models using digital images verified based on time.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HASSAN A HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3554. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5pm.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. 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 https://ppair-y.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/H.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2497
/ELENI A SHIFERAW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2497