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 .
Claims 1-30 are pending. Claims 1-30 have been examined and rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments, see Remarks pgs. 15-16, filed 06/18/2026, with respect to claims 1, 11, and 21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to claims 1-30 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 35 USC 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments, see Remarks pgs. 16-18, filed 06/18/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1,11, and 21 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US Publication No. 2005/0256665 A1 issued to Hartmann et al.
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 1-3, 7-13, 17-23, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denby et al. (US 2005/0204333) in view of Gao et al. (The Architecture of Digital System Model for System-of-Sytems Engineering, 2019 Chinese Automation Congress) and further in view of US Publication No. 2005/0256665 A1 issued to Hartmann et al.
As per claim 1, Denby teaches a method for generating an enhanced digital model for of a system of systems, 1, the method comprising:
generating an end-to-end model of the system of systems, wherein the end-to-end model of the system of systems comprises a plurality of constituent systems of the systems of systems (SoS) (¶ 0005, 0042; Denby teaches using a tool for a complete modeling and representation of an end-to-end horizonal and top-to-bottom vertical view of a modeled environment of a system-of-systems);
identifying one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform an analysis of the SoS (¶ 0041-0042; Denby teaches model components at various levels allowing for a system-of-systems to be modeled analyzed from vertical and/or horizonal perspective; this teaching indicates that one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform an analysis of the SoS are identified);
generating a digital model, wherein the digital model is based on the generated end-to-end model of the SoS and the identified one or more constituent systems, wherein the digital model includes one or more constituent system of the plurality of constituent systems of the SoS (¶ 0041-0042; Denby teaches Denby teaches a modeling environment facilitating both an individual system model and system-of-systems modeling; in addition, in ¶ 0027-0028 Denby teaches an environment 150 including a plurality of cohesive intergraded modeling framework 50, each of which corresponding one of a plurality systems in a SoS, and the framework 50 are integrated with one another in that modeling is based on a single representation with multiple views of system-of-systems; in other words, the integration is based on the generated end-to-end model of the SoS and the identified one or more constituent systems; the generated model corresponds to a digital model as recited); and
associating data to the one or more constituent systems of the digital model (¶ 0030, 0036; Denby teaches configuration of the integrated modeling allowing user to target a system and individual data elements such as key performance parameters, assumptions, constraints, and systems architect inputs of a system); and
simulating the enhanced digital subset model to perform the desired analysis of the operation of the SoS (See: par [0037] An Extend.TM. discrete event simulator engine 404 is used to perform discrete event simulation of hardware and software under analysis; par [0038] Modeling can be performed that incorporates system latency, and that represents message routing based on a destination process (as opposed to being based on a fixed destination). Impact of a system event on other systems and/or a wide-area network can be analyzed within a single system model environment).
Denby does not teach:
generating a digital model, wherein the digital model includes one or more connections between the plurality of constituent systems of the plurality of constituent systems of the SoS.
However, Gao teaches:
generating a digital model, wherein the digital model includes one or more connections between the plurality of constituent systems of the plurality of constituent systems of the SoS (p. 2744 right col. ¶ 3, p. 2745 right col. ¶ 4; Gao teaches describing the internal structure of the block according to the interconnection mode of the constituent elements corresponding to systems).
Denby and Gao are analogous art because they are in the same field of modeling and analysis of a system-of-systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Denby and Gao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Gao’s teachings would have supported the application of modeling and simulation based to describe the architecture and capability of SoS (Gao, Abstract).
Further, Denby et al discloses generating an enhanced analysis model based on the generated digital model and the data associated to the one or more constituent systems of the digital model (¶ 0030, 0036; Denby teaches building a digital model as recited in the limitation above and associating data to one or more constituent systems of the digital model to perform analysis on the digital model to generate analysis data; this teaching reads onto this limitation).
However, neither Denby et al nor Gao et al disclose adding additional data regarding identified one or more constituent system model to generate an enhanced digital model, the additional data not being in the digital end-to-end model.
Hartmann et al discloses adding additional data regarding identified one or more constituent system model to generate an enhanced digital model, the additional data not being in the digital end-to-end model (See: par [0083] ator to automatically create those additional tests. Individual test steps need to be refined--generalized or parameterized--so that they are independently callable from an automatically generated test script and driven using their arguments or the data structures that reference those arguments).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine system and method for model based system testing of interactive applications as taught by Hartmann et al to integrated system-of-systems modeling environment method of Denby et al would be to allow software testing to be integrated with the design phase (Hartmann et al, par [0005]).
As per claim 2, Denby and Gao in combination teach the method of claim 1, Denby further teaches wherein generating the end-to-end model comprises:
identifying the plurality constituent systems belonging to the SoS (¶ 0005, 0042; Denby teaches using a tool for a complete modeling and representation of an end-to-end horizonal and top-to-bottom vertical view of a modeled environment of a system-of-systems, so naturally the plurality constituent systems belonging to the SoS has to be identified for modeling);
Denby does not teach:
identifying the one or more connections between the plurality of constituent systems.
However, Gao teaches:
identifying the one or more connections between the plurality of constituent systems (p. 2744 right col. ¶ 3, p. 2745 right col. ¶ 4; Gao teaches describing the internal structure of the block according to the interconnection mode of the constituent elements corresponding to systems; these teachings read onto this limitation).
As per claim 3, Denby and Gao in combination teach the method of claim 2, Gao further teaches wherein generating the end-to-end model comprises:
identifying one or more mission threads associated with the SoS (p. 2744 right col. ¶ 3; Gao teaches modeling SoS including mission; this teaching means one or more mission threads associated with the SoS are identified); and
associating the one or more mission threads with plurality of constituent systems or
As per claim 7, Denby and Gao in combination teach the method of claim 1, Denby futher teaches wherein generating the digital model comprises:
specifying one or more criteria associated with the digital model (¶ 0023; Denby teaches modeling performance requirements of a system and/or SoS, which correspond to one or more criteria associated with the digital model); and
selecting one or more constituent systems from the end-to-end model based on the identified one or more constituent systems of the SoS and the one or more criteria associated with the digital model (¶ 0023; Denby teaches modeling performance requirements of a system and/or SoS; this teaching indicates that one or more constituent systems from the end-to-end model are selected and modeled with the one or more criteria associated with the digital model).
As per claim 8, Denby and Gao in combination teach the method of claim 7, Gao further teaches wherein the one or more criteria associated with the digital model comprises a degree of connectivity between the identified constituent systems, and other constituent systems of the plurality of constituent systems of the end-to-end model (p. 2745 right col. ¶ 3-4; Gao teaches defining relationship between blocks according to the interconnection mode of the constituent elements; definitions of relationship between blocks according to the interconnection mode of the constituent elements are interpreted as a degree of connectivity between the identified constituent systems, and other constituent systems of the plurality of constituent systems of the end-to-end model as recited in the claim, see the instant application specification ¶ 0086).
As per claim 9, Denby and Gao in combination teach the method of claim 1, Denby further teaches wherein the data associated to the one or more constituent systems of the digital model includes information pertaining to the operation of the one or more constituent systems associated with the data (¶ 0027; Denby teaches modeling operational aspects of a system or a SoS; this teaching reads onto this limitation).
As per claim 10, Denby and Gao in combination teach the method of claim 1, Gao further teaches wherein the end-to-end model, the digital model, and the enhanced analysis model are generated using SysML (p. 2747 right col. ¶ 1).
As per claim 11, Denby and Gao in combination teach a system for generating an enhanced digital model for of a system of systems, the system comprising:
a memory (Denby, ¶ 0037);
one or more processors (Denby, ¶ 0037);
wherein the memory stores one or more programs that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (¶ 0024; Denby teaches using UML software tool for modeling): (these limitations below are analogous to those in claim 1. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons by Denby in view of Gao)
generate an end-to-end model of the system of systems, wherein the end-to-end model of the system of systems comprises a plurality of constituent systems of the systems of systems (SoS), and one or more connections between the plurality of constituent systems;
identify one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform an analysis of the SoS;
generate a digital model, wherein the digital model is based on the generated end- to-end model of the SoS and the identified one or more constituent systems, wherein the digital model includes one or more constituent system of the plurality of constituent systems of the SoS and one or more connections between the one or more constituent systems of the plurality of constituent systems of the SoS; and
associate data to the one or more constituent systems of the digital model; and
generate an enhanced analysis model based on the generated digital model and the data associated to the one or more constituent systems of the digital model.
As per claim 12, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 2. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 13, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 2. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 17, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 7. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 18, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 8. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 19, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 9. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 20, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 10. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 21, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 11. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 22, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 2. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 23, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 3. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 27, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 7. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 28, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 8. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 29, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 9. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 30, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 10. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 4, 14, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denby et al. (US 2005/0204333) in view of Gao et al. and further in view of Hartmann et al as applied to claims 2, 12, and 22 above, and further in view of Czekster et al. (Introduction to Performance Evaluation of Systems, 2019).
As per claim 4, Denby and Gao in combination teach the method of claim 2, Denby further teaches generating the end-to-end model.
Denby and Gao do not teach:
identifying one or more mission metrics associated with the SoS; and
associating the one or more mission metrics with plurality of constituent systems or the one or more connections between the plurality of constituent systems.
However, Czekster teaches:
identifying one or more mission metrics associated with the SoS (p. 3 ¶ 5, 7, p. 4 ¶ 2, p. 6 last paragraph; Czekster teaches SoS and modeling a system in systems associated with a mission with metrics or measures such as throughput, utilization, response time; this teaching indicates one or more mission metrics associated with the SoS is identified); and
associating the one or more mission metrics with plurality of constituent systems or the one or more connections between the plurality of constituent systems (p. 3 ¶ 5, 7, p. 4 ¶ 2, p. 6 last paragraph; Czekster teaches SoS and modeling a system in systems associated with a mission with metrics or measures such as throughput, utilization, response time).
Denby, Gao, and Czekster are analogous art because they are in the same field of modeling and analysis of a system-of-systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Denby, Gao, and Czekster. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Czekster’s teachings would have evaluated performance and ability to conduct “what-if” analysis by the definition of multiple scenarios (Czekster, p. 5 ¶ 3).
As per claim 14, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 4. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 24, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 4. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 5, 15, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denby et al. (US 2005/0204333) in view of Gao et al. and further in view of Hartmann et al as applied to claims 1, 11, and 21 above, and further in view of Runchy (US Pat 72774388).
As per claim 5, Denby and Gao in combination teach the method of claim 1, Denby further teaches wherein identifying one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform the analysis of the SoS comprises:
identifying the one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform the analysis of the SoS (¶ 0041-0042; Denby teaches model components at various levels allowing for a system-of-systems to be modeled analyzed from vertical and/or horizonal perspective; this teaching indicates that one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform an analysis of the SoS are identified).
Denby and Gao do not teach:
labelling each constituent system of the plurality of constituent systems with one or more stereotypes;
selecting a stereotype of the one or more stereotypes; and
identifying the one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform the analysis of the SoS based on the selected one or more stereotypes.
However, Runchy teaches:
labelling each constituent system of the plurality of constituent systems with one or more stereotypes (col. 31 lines 44-49; Runchy teaches applying labels onto systems, which are collections of things or ideas cohered by common group label; the teaching of labels for collections of things, corresponding to systems, reads onto labelling each constituent system of the plurality of constituent systems, and the teaching of labeling by common group label means stereotyping; these teachings in combination read onto this limitation);
selecting a stereotype of the one or more stereotypes (col. 31 lines 44-49; Runchy teaches applying labels onto systems as discussed immediately above, which means a stereotype of the one or more stereotypes is selected); and
identifying the one or more constituent systems of the SoS based on the selected one or more stereotypes (col. 4 lines 48-55, col. 31 lines 44-49; Runchy teaches applying labels/stereotypes onto systems as discussed above for searching sysetms)
Denby, Gao, and Runchy are analogous art because they are in the same field of modeling and analysis of a system-of-systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Denby, Gao, and Runchy for “identifying the one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform the analysis of the SoS based on the selected one or more stereotypes”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Runchy’s teachings would have helped search people find and manage information more successfully (Runchy, col. 4 lines 48-55).
As per claim 15, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 5. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 25, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 5. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 16, and 26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claim 6, Denby, Gao, and Runchy in combination teach the method of claim 5, wherein identifying the one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform the analysis of the SoS comprises:
identifying the one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform the analysis of the SoS (¶ 0041-0042; Denby teaches model components at various levels allowing for a system-of-systems to be modeled analyzed from vertical and/or horizonal perspective; this teaching indicates that one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform an analysis of the SoS are identified).
However, Denby, Gao, and Runchy and other cited prior arts either alone or in combination do not teach:
labelling one or more mission threads associated with the plurality of constituent systems with one or more stereotypes;
selecting a stereotype of the one or more stereotypes; and
identifying the one or more constituent systems of the SoS required to perform the analysis of the SoS based on the mission threads associated with the selected one or more stereotypes;
in combination with other limitations as recited in the claim.
Claims 16 and 26 recite limitations analogous to those in claim 6. They would, hence, be allowable for the same reasons.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-8571. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571 272 3676. 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.
KIBROM K. GEBRESILASSIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189 08/05/2026
Prosecution Insights