DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 3-21 have been presented for examination based on the amendment filed on 11/6/2025.
Claim 2 is cancelled.
Claim 21 is new.
Claims 1, 12, 13, 17 and 18 are amended.
Rejection for claims 1-20, rejected under 35 USC 101 is WITHDRAWN in view of arguments presented as the virtual representation of digital twin cannot be performed as mental step.
Claim(s) 1, 3-21 are rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210383611 A1 by Kanski; Ian et al. and in view of US 20230359778 A1 by Brett; Dale et al..
This action is made Final.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Response to Arguments
(Argument 1) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.9-10:
PNG
media_image1.png
505
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Response 1) Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Further, responding to First, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Mapping is updated in the Kanski to show the identifier associated with virtual representation.
Further, responding to Second, Kanski teaches the digital twin in 1712 is driven by the model 202. The representation in model 202 is also digital twin as it is not physical. See Kanski [0145]:
[0145] FIGS. 17-28B show additional functions and features for monitored item modeler 172 and 3D virtual model 202. Referring to FIG. 17, FIG. 17 is a block diagram displaying the components of monitored item modeler 172, including the components illustrated in FIG. 1. Additionally, monitored item modeler 172 is configured to provide reciprocal rendering 1702 of the 3D virtual model 202. Reciprocal rendering 1702 may imply many various functions and meanings. Reciprocal rendering 1702 may imply that the 3D virtual model 202 on the first user 160 computing device 100 is driving or controlling particular actions, in some cases, (e.g., IOT control system manipulation 1706) and visual presentation via extended reality 1704 of the digital twin model 1712 on the second user 162's computing device 100. The digital twin model 1712 is in turn in communication via one or more signals or other aspects with the monitored item 206 and/or facility 164 as shown in FIG. 17.
Further, responding to Third, Arguments towards Collins are moot in view of new grounds of rejection that has changed the scope of independent claim 1 which now incorporates limitations from claim 2 and addition of language pertaining to digital twin.
No new arguments are made for the dependent claims and examiner respectfully maintains the rejection.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-21 are rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210383611 A1 by Kanski; Ian et al. and in view of US 20230359778 A1 by Brett; Dale et al..
Regarding Claims 1, 12 and 17
Kanski teaches
(Claims 1) A method (Kanski : Fig.2 & [0084]) comprising:
(Claim 12) An apparatus (Kanski: [0064] & Fig.1 showing apparatus) , comprising: at least one processor and at least one memory storing computer program instructions wherein (Kanski: [0064] & Fig.1) , when the at least one processor executes the computer program instructions, the apparatus is configured to:
(Claim 17) A computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Kanski: [0064]-[0065] & Fig.1 memory) and comprising machine executable instructions, the machine executable instructions, when executed, causing a processing device to perform steps of:
assigning identifiers to virtual representations of physical items within a computing environment, wherein each one of the virtual representations comprises a digital twin (KANSKI : [0145]-[0146] "... [0146] In some instances, reciprocal rendering 1702 means that the 3D virtual model 202 may have a twin 3D virtual model 1712 as displayed on a second user's 162 computing device 100 that can be displayed adjacent to a physical asset (i.e., monitored item 206), as shown in FIG. 20 and FIG. 21....") and is assigned an identifier that is unique with respect to each other one of the virtual representations (KANSKI [0135] “In one or more non-limiting embodiments, each virtual sensor 204 (virtual representation of physical item) may have an identifying label 804 (assigning identifiers), which is an assigned label or title (assigning to virtual representations of physical items) for the particular sensor (an identifier unique) 204. Further, data visualization 802 (computing environment) may include the most current data value or reading 806 for the sensor 204 as well as an average range 808 of data values for the particular sensor 204.”) See also KANSKI ([0073] “Monitored item modeler 172 may provide an interactive computer based platform or software module (computing environment) that allows users to view the 3D virtual model 202 of the facility 164, whereby the user 160, as shown in FIG. 2, can view any part of the 3D virtual model from any side or direction (with respect to each other one of the virtual representations), as well as view any virtual representation of sensors 204 and sensor data in the 3D virtual model 202 (e.g., as shown in FIG. 2).”), wherein each identifier (KANSKI: [0052] "...[0052] Accordingly, one or more embodiments described herein provide for a computer implemented system that can create and implement a highly accurate three dimensional (3D) virtual models of a facility that includes accurate visualization of any sensors located in the facility, including their placement [emphasis added] and current output. ..." [0096] "... Virtual sensors 204 are a set of virtual sensors 204 displayed in the 3D virtual model 202 in the same general location or position as the corresponding location or position for the set of real sensors 214 at the real facility 164. Virtual sensors 204 are the digital representation of the actual set of sensors 214 located at the real facility 164...."; [0097] "... [0097] 3D virtual model 202 is a highly accurate replica or reproduction of all or part of the facility 164 that is relevant to user 160 (i.e., any areas in the facility 164 that include set of sensors 204). By being able to view 3D virtual model 202, the user 160 is better able to visualize the environment in which the set of sensors 214 are located..." the location of the sensors is therefore a captured and stored so that it can be visualized; [0125] "...[0125] Turning to FIG. 3, the position and location of each sensor 204 in FIG. 3-FIG. 12 are indicated by icon 305. Each icon 305 may include a symbol 306 that represents a variable, value, metric, and/or function of each virtual sensor 204...."); and
PNG
media_image2.png
483
356
media_image2.png
Greyscale
KANSKI Figure 2 Reference
KANSKI also anticipates managing the virtual representations within the computing environment using the identifiers KANSKI ([0052] “Notably, the one or more systems allow a facility and its users to provide for the computer-implemented system (computing environment) to manage the data obtained from these sensors (managing virtual representations using the identifiers) on a computing device for either monitoring the sensors (virtual representations) in real time.”) See also KANSKI ([0135] “Further, data visualization 802 may include the most current data value or reading 806 for the sensor 204 as well as an average range 808 of data values for the particular sensor 204.) See also KANSKI ([0051] “Capturing and managing the sensor readings and data obtained from these sensors (managing virtual representations) is a difficult and time-consuming process. Important decisions regarding the facility's operation are regularly made based on data obtained from sensors so it is important to be able to track and monitor these sensors (using the identifiers) correctly and efficiently.”) See also KANSKI ([Figure 8] and [Figure 10].)
PNG
media_image3.png
525
895
media_image3.png
Greyscale
KANSKI Figure 8 Reference
KANSKI also anticipates wherein the assigning and managing steps are performed by at least one processor and at least one memory storing executable computer program instructions KANSKI ([0056] “The hardware elements of computing device 100 may include one or more processors 104, including without limitation one or more general-purpose processors and/or one or more special-purpose processors (such as digital signal processing chips, graphics acceleration processors, and/or the like).”) See also KANSKI ([0057] “Processors 104 may have access to a memory such as memory 120. Memory 120 may include one or more of various hardware devices for volatile and non-volatile storage and may include both read-only and writable memory.”) See also KANSKI ([0058] “Memory 120 may include program memory such as program memory 122 capable of storing programs and software (storing executable computer program instructions), such as an operating system such as operating system 126, monitored item modeler 172, and other computerized programs or application programs. Memory 120 may also include data memory such as data memory 124 that may include database query results, configuration data, settings, user options or preferences, etc., which may be provided to program memory 122 or any element of computing device 100.”) See also KANSKI ([0061] “The computing device 100 also can comprise software elements, shown as being currently located within the memory 120, which in some instances may include an operating system 126, device drivers, executable libraries, and/or other code, which may comprise computer programs provided by various embodiments, and/or may be designed to implement methods, and/or configure systems, provided by other embodiments, as described herein. Merely by way of example, one or more procedures (storing) described with respect to the method(s) discussed above might be implemented as code and/or instructions executable by a computer (and/or a processor within a computer) (executable computer program instructions). In an aspect, then, such code and/or instructions can be used to configure and/or adapt computing device 100 to perform one or more operations in accordance with the described methods.”) Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Kanski does not explicitly teach wherein each identifier comprises an identifier field representing a location of the corresponding virtual representation within the computing environment (Emphasis on the bolded aspect).
Brett teaches wherein each identifier comprises an identifier field representing a location of the corresponding virtual representation within the computing environment (Brett: ¶[0133] & [0144]-[0154] showing identifier as Global Unique Identifier (GUID) for each asset including the location of the virtual representation in “PROJECT.location” to be shown the virtual representation as in Fig.6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Brett with KANSKI to create asset identification for actual physical assets (Brett: "... [0009] extracting the data sets from the one or more BIM model files thereby to populate an asset register, such that the asset register includes an asset record for each of the networked physical assets, wherein each asset records includes the respective UID from the BIM model file;...") already identified in Kanski (Kanski: )[0052][0096]-[0097][0125] as mapped above) . The motivation to combine would have been that Brett automates the process of such unique asset generation (Brett: "... [0177] It will be appreciated that this approach to digital twin generation provides substantial technical advantages over prior art approaches, particularly in the sense that mapping of data between physical devices and the digital twin interfaces is essentially automated by virtue of a separate asset register generation and compliance process, which is of separate utility in the context of monitoring building completion progress...."). Further motivation to combine would be that Brett and Kanski are analogous art to instant claim in the field of asset tracking (like sensors in digital twin)(Brett: [0111] "... These assets include standard infrastructure assets (for example walls, floors, ceilings, etc.) and connected assets (for example sensors, controllers, IOT devices, cameras, access control devices, HVAC components, and so on)....", Abstract, [0127]; Kanski: Abstract).
Regarding Claim 3
Brett teaches wherein each identifier comprises an identifier field representing the physical item associated with the corresponding virtual representation (Brett: [0127] "... Asset records are created to each represent, in data form, a physical asset, which is represented in BIM data during the design phase and physically installed as a physical asset during the construction phase. For example, the assets include standard infrastructure assets (for example walls, floors, ceilings, etc) and connected assets (for example sensors, controllers, IOT devices, cameras, access control devices, HVAC components, and so on)....") .
Regarding Claim 4
Brett teaches wherein each identifier comprises an identifier field representing a provider of the physical item associated with the corresponding virtual representation (Brett: [0128] Asset type as including provider/manufacturer information in the COBie standard1) .
Regarding Claim 5
Brett teaches wherein each identifier comprises an identifier field representing a type of data of the physical item associated with the corresponding virtual representation (Brett: [0128] Asset type; [0133]; [0154]).
Regarding Claim 6
Brett teaches wherein each identifier comprises an identifier field representing a type of runtime environment of the physical item associated with the corresponding virtual representation (Brett: [0156] "...[0156] Asset data input module 101 is configured to enable a user of a remote client terminal (for example terminal 130A-130n, which represent computing devices that download from a web server computer executable code thereby to enable rendering in a browser application a user interface with which to interact with system 100) to add data values to data fields for a subset of the records in the asset register. This subset is defined based on permissions maintained by the permissions management module, which define scope of responsibility for each user. For example, a user's permissions are tied to one or more asset field values including category, location, type and system...."; [0190] Java environment).
Regarding Claim 7
Brett teaches using the identifiers further comprises: addressing a virtual representation within the computing environment using the unique identifier assigned thereto (Brett: [0176]) ; and one of executing and causing execution of a function with respect to the addressed virtual representation (Brett: [0156] "... FIG. 3 provides an example user interface component rendering from an asset editor module 113 according to one embodiment, showing assets of type “Air Handling Unit” belonging to the category “Mechanical”. ..." Fig.3 showing virtual representation in interface to capture data & Fig.6 showing the rendering ) .
Regarding Claims 8, 15 & 20
Brett teaches wherein the function comprises at least one of a benchmark function, a monitor function (Brett: [0069][0160]-[0161] as compliance monitoring module) , and a report function (Brett: "... [0069] One embodiment provides a system wherein the compliance monitoring module is configured to provide output data representative of a number of compliant physical assets against a number of compliant physical assets...." ) .
Regarding Claim 9
Brett & Kanski teaches wherein the computing environment comprises a distributed computing environment (Brett: [0143][0155][0178][0179] cloud hosted environment; Kanski: [0135]) .
Regarding Claim 10
Brett & Kanski teaches wherein the distributed computing environment comprises one or more of a cloud computing platform and an edge computing platform (Brett: [0143][0155][0178][0179] cloud hosted environment; Kanski [0135] as Enhanced Data GSM Environment (EDGE) (edge computing platform)).
Regarding Claim 11
Kanski teaches wherein the distributed computing environment comprises one or more on-premise locations where the virtual representations are deployed (Kanski : [0076]"...([0076] “Hosting system 190 (distributed computing environment) may include data storage systems 182 that can provide access to stored data by applications running on computing devices (e.g., 100) that may be geographically separate from each other (one or more on-premise locations), provide offsite data backup and restore functionality, provide data storage to a computing device with limited storage capabilities, and/or provide storage functionality not implemented on a computing device (e.g., 100) (virtual representations are deployed).”)...". ).
Regarding Claim 13
Brett teaches the physical item associated with the corresponding virtual representation; a provider of the physical item associated with the corresponding virtual representation (Brett: [0127] "... Asset records are created to each represent, in data form, a physical asset, which is represented in BIM data during the design phase and physically installed as a physical asset during the construction phase. For example, the assets include standard infrastructure assets (for example walls, floors, ceilings, etc) and connected assets (for example sensors, controllers, IOT devices, cameras, access control devices, HVAC components, and so on)...."; [0128]); a type of data of the physical item associated with the corresponding virtual representation (Brett: [0128] Asset type; [0133]; [0154]); and a type of runtime environment of the physical item associated with the corresponding virtual representation (Brett: [0156] "...[0156] Asset data input module 101 is configured to enable a user of a remote client terminal (for example terminal 130A-130n, which represent computing devices that download from a web server computer executable code thereby to enable rendering in a browser application a user interface with which to interact with system 100) to add data values to data fields for a subset of the records in the asset register. This subset is defined based on permissions maintained by the permissions management module, which define scope of responsibility for each user. For example, a user's permissions are tied to one or more asset field values including category, location, type and system...."; [0190] Java environment).
Regarding Claims 14 & 19
Brett teaches wherein, when managing the virtual representations within the computing environment using the identifiers, the apparatus is further configured to: address a virtual representation within the computing environment using the unique identifier assigned thereto (Brett: ¶[0133] & [0144]-[0154] showing identifier as Global Unique Identifier (GUID) for each asset including the location of the virtual representation in “PROJECT.location” to be shown the virtual representation as in Fig.6); and one of execute and cause execution of a function with respect to the addressed virtual representation(Brett: [0156]).
Regarding Claims 16 & 21 (New)
Brett & Kanski teaches wherein the computing environment comprises a distributed computing environment comprising one or more of at least one cloud computing platform, at least one edge computing platform (Brett: [0143][0155][0178][0179] cloud hosted environment; Kanski: [0135]), and at least one on-premise location where the virtual representations are deployed (Kanski : [0076]"...([0076] “Hosting system 190 (distributed computing environment) may include data storage systems 182 that can provide access to stored data by applications running on computing devices (e.g., 100) that may be geographically separate from each other (one or more on-premise locations), provide offsite data backup and restore functionality, provide data storage to a computing device with limited storage capabilities, and/or provide storage functionality not implemented on a computing device (e.g., 100) (virtual representations are deployed).”)...". ).
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Relevant Prior Art
US 20190354922 A1 by Berti; Joseph G. et al. teaches in [0006] the processor associates a unique identifier with the digital representation of the physical asset. The processor records, in a digital registry, a data record comprising the unique identifier and a location of the digital representation of the physical asset, the location comprising location information of the first storage device.
US 20190306665 A1 by Vissa; Sudhir C. et al. shows the location information in the virtual environment of each modeled asset as shown in Fig.1,& Fig.3.
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 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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH SAXENA whose telephone number is (571)272-8351. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7AM-3:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RYAN PITARO can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
AKASH SAXENA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/AKASH SAXENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188 Tuesday, July 28, 2026
1 COBie Standard V3 Pg.20 shows the asset information to include manufacturer information in Name_Table_Table.Name value of ManufacturerEquipmentInformation; Pg. 26 “Table 8: Type” Manufacturer
Prosecution Insights