DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to remarks filed 27 August 2025.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10-13, 16, 18, 19, 21-23, 26, 28, 29, 31-34, 37, 39, 40, and 42-48 are pending and have been examined.
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 Arguments
Examiner notes that throughout Applicants’ remarks, Applicants refer to the claims as “amended” or that “Applicant has amended” the claims, however no such amendments were submitted. Further clarification could be required if Applicant is arguing claim amendments not present in the claim set filed.
Applicants’ remarks with respect to the §112 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicants argue that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection under the Alice Corp. vs. CLS Bank Int’l be withdrawn; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that in order to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims must be directed towards a patent eligible concept, which, the instant claims are not directed. Contrary to Applicants’ assertion that the claims are not one of the four listed groupings of abstract ideas, the Examiner notes that creating and providing some sort of traceability such as documentation for a manufacturing process and bills of materials which is a business relation/fundamental economic practice/commercial or legal interaction/managing personal behavior. Next, the claims are not directed to a practical application of the concept. The claims do not result in improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. They do not effect a particular treatment for a disease. They are not applied with or by a particular machine. They do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. And they are not applied in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception (i.e., information related towards a physical product and digital twin) to a particular technological environment (i.e., with the use of computers or computing components). Here, again as noted in the previous rejections, the processor in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of electronic data storage, query, and retrieval—some of the most basic functions of a computer) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Specifically the claims amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or invoking computers as tools by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recitation of the “digital twins” and “herein each of the first digital trigger and the second digital trigger have a trigger type comprising one or more of an Radio Frequency Identification(RFID) device, a barcode, a Quick Response (QR) code, a wireless personal area network device, a low-energy wireless personal area network device, an Near Field Communication (NFC) device, a recognizable image, a recognizable sound, and a wireless transmission” only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(h). Applicants’ augments as to whether the claimed limitations are not traditional human interactions and cannot be replicated these techniques without technical infrastructure; however this argument appears to be whether or not the use of computer or computing components for increased speed and efficiency integrates the claims into a practical application, to which the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted)). The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible, the arguments not persuasive, and the rejection not overcome.
Applicant next argues the claims are an improvement; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial note, the arguments are not compliant under 37 CFR 1.111(b) as they amount to a mere allegation of patent eligibility based upon a bare assertion of improvement. The Examiner respectfully does not find the assertion persuasive because a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent is not sufficient to show an improvement (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) (discussing MPEP 2106.05(a)). That is, the Examiner does not find any evidence that the claimed aspects are any improvement over conventional systems. Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicants’ products and systems add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Viewed as a whole, Applicants’ claims simply recite the concept of data collection as performed by a generic computer. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of collecting data using some unspecified, generic computer. Under these precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. 134 S.Ct. at 2360. Merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information—to provide a “humanly comprehensible” amount of information useful for users, by itself does not transform the otherwise-abstract processes of information collection and analysis. Instead, the claims are more analogous to those in FairWarningIP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016), wherein claims reciting “a few possible rules to analyze audit log data” were found directed to an abstract idea because they asked “the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades.” FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1094, 1095. This argument also appears to be whether or not the use of computer or computing components for increased speed and efficiency integrates the claims into a practical application, to which the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted)). The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible, the arguments not persuasive, and the rejection not overcome.
This argument also appears to be that the claims are patent eligible due to the arguments regarding the §103 rejections; however, the Examiner asserts that subject matter eligibility and novelty/non-obviousness are two separate inquires, neither being a benchmark for the other. See Amdocs Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Novelty is the question of whether the claimed invention is new. Inventiveness is the question of whether the claimed matter is invention at all, new or otherwise. The inventiveness inquiry of § 101 should therefore not be confused with the separate novelty inquiry of § 102 or the obviousness inquiry of § 103.”). As such, the arguments not persuasive, and the rejection not overcome.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art have been fully considered but are not persuasive for a plurality of reasons. Firstly, 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. Secondly, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Thirdly, Applicant argues only a single portion of the Ryan reference which is not even relied upon in the previous rejection. Next, Applicant appears to be arguing whether or not the system in Ryan relies in data stored for a digital twin; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, as noted in the previous rejection, “Section 502 comprises the full transaction log, which transmits critical details of transactions from POS systems. IoT services modernize hardware and transform previously isolated devices into writers on the blockchain. Section 502 includes purchase details, including UPCs, product count, product cost, and promotions and discounts. UPCs can be used to unlock a myriad of product dimensions, such as product classification, nutrition information, manufacturer information, and recall information. The information in section 502 can be used to validate inventory, document sales, validate promotions, flag stores for product recall, track product movement, and manage customer notifications in the event of a recall, (Ryan ¶794);” Oracle—trusted third-party that finds and verifies real-world information and then transmits that information to the blockchain, (Ryan ¶395)” and how said POS system in Ryan is also able to not only be concerned with digital twins of products but the entire system, such that products scanned at any given POS point will register and be stored (Ryan ¶700), which is able to then be tracked for integrity (i.e. verified). As such, the arguments are not persuasive,, and the rejection not overcome.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by the Applicants in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in the Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). The Examiner asserts that the Applicants only argue that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
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 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10-13, 16, 18, 19, 21-23, 26, 28, 29, 31-34, 37, 39, 40, and 42-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to a process (an act, or series of acts or steps), a machine (a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), and a manufacture (an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1). However, the claim(s) recite(s) associating identifiers with digital twins of components, updating said digital twins and providing data associated with a trust condition for components and a final product which is an abstract idea of organizing human activities.
The limitations of “associating a first component and a first unique identifier with at least one of a plurality of digital twins for a group of final products comprising clothing articles, the first unique identifier corresponding to a first digital trigger; when a manufacturing step occurs, automatically detecting the first digital trigger associated with the first component when a manufacturing step occurs; updating at least one of the plurality of digital twins based on an evolution that is associated with the first component and that is at least part of a process resulting in a commercial product comprising a clothing article, wherein the commercial product is formed from the first component; , and wherein the evolution comprises the manufacturing step involving the first component, coupling a second digital trigger to the commercial product, wherein the first digital trigger and the second digital trigger are associated with different information; associating the at least one of the plurality of digital twins with the commercial product and a second unique identifier, the second unique identifier corresponding to the second digital trigger; and providing data associated with a trust condition applicable to the first component and the final product to a customer upon scanning the second digital trigger, providing data associated with a trust condition applicable to the first component and the final product to a customer upon scanning the second digital trigger, the trust condition including at least one of a manufacturer identity and a component material confirmation; and verifying, the trust condition based on stored data entries within the digital twin, wherein verifying the trust condition comprises retrieving data from an electronic data storage system based on the second digital trigger, cross-referencing manufacturer, distributor, and retailer identities, and validating compliance with trust factors via an additional data source managed by a third party for at least one of certification of fair labor, material authenticity, and recall status ” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activities—such as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components (Step 2A Prong 1). That is, other than reciting “A computer processor-based method using at least one processor and at least one non-transitory computer readable memory, the method comprising:,” (or “a digital twin system comprising: a non-transitory computer readable memory; a processor coupled to the memory and configured based on instructions stored on the memory to:” in claim 21 and “non-transitory computer readable memory comprising software instructions configured to cause a computer processor, upon execution of the software instructions to:” in claim 42) nothing in the claim element precludes the step from the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. For example, but for the “a processor” language, “associating,” “automatically detecting,” “updating,” “coupling,” “associating,” ”providing,” and “verifying…“ in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually creating and providing some sort of traceability such as documentation for a manufacturing process and bills of materials which is a business relation/fundamental economic practice/commercial or legal interaction/managing personal behavior. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as one of the certain methods of organizing human activities but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two). In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of electronic data storage, query, and retrieval) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Specifically the claims amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or invoking computers as tools by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recitation of the “digital twins” and “herein each of the first digital trigger and the second digital trigger have a trigger type comprising one or more of an Radio Frequency Identification(RFID) device, a barcode, a Quick Response (QR) code, a wireless personal area network device, a low-energy wireless personal area network device, an Near Field Communication (NFC) device, a recognizable image, a recognizable sound, and a wireless transmission” only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, even when considered as a whole.
The claim does not include a combination of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2), the combination of additional elements of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim. As such, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible, even when considered as a whole.
Claims 2, 5, 7-8, 10-12, 16, 22-23, 26, 28-29, 31-33, 37, and 43-48 are dependent on claims 1, 21, and 42 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 21, and 42. Therefore, claims 2, 5, 7-8, 10-12, 16, 22-23, 26, 28-29, 31-33, 37, and 43-48 recite the same abstract idea of “associating identifiers with digital twins of components, updating said digital twins and providing data associated with a trust condition for components and a final product.” The claim recites the additional limitations further limiting information such as the components, products, and triggers, which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 21, and 42, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 13, 18-19, 22, 34, and 39-40 are dependent on claims 1 and 21 and include all the limitations of claims 1 and 21. Therefore, claims 13, 18-19, 22, 34, and 39-40 recite the same abstract idea of “associating identifiers with digital twins of components, updating said digital twins and providing data associated with a trust condition for components and a final product.” The claim recites the additional limitations further limiting communications, protocols, and user interfaces, which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 21, and 42, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10-13, 16, 18, 19, 21-23, 26, 28, 29, 31-34, 37, 39, 40, and 42-48 are therefore not eligible subject matter, even when considered as a whole.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10-13, 16, 18, 19, 21-23, 26, 28, 29, 31-34, 37, 39, 40, and 42-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parfenov et al. (US PG Pub. 2019/0392646) and further in view of Ryan et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0366586).
As per claims 1, 21, and 42, Parfenov discloses a computer processor-based method using at least one processor and at least one non-transitory computer readable memory, a digital twin system comprising: a non-transitory computer readable memory; a processor coupled to the memory and configured based on instructions stored on the memory to: and non-transitory computer readable memory comprising software instructions configured to cause a computer processor, upon execution of the software instructions to: the method comprising (a computer program tangibly embodied in one or more information carriers, e.g., in one or more tangible machine-readable storage media, for execution by, or to control the operation of, data processing apparatus, e.g., a programmable processor, a computer, or multiple computers, Parfenov ¶115):
associating, by the at least one processor, a first component and a first unique identifier with at least one of a plurality of digital twins for a group of final products comprising clothing articles, the first unique identifier corresponding to a first digital trigger attached to the first component, the first digital trigger comprising at least one of a first RFID tag, a first barcode and a first QR code (identifying a component of a device; generating, on-demand, a digital twin of part of the device proximate to the component, where the digital twin is generated based, at least in part, on sensor readings from the component and information about the device available from one or more sources, and where the digital twin includes information that models a structure and function of the part of the device and the component, Parfenov ¶7; A device's DT is generated based on design data, manufacturing data, and/or any other appropriate information (e.g., product specifications) about the device, which may be generic to all such devices. The DT is also generated based on sensor data that is obtained for the particular instance of the device. In the motorcycle example of FIG. 1, the DT may be generated using data that describes the structure and function of the motorcycle. This data may be obtained from any appropriate public or private database, such as product specifications. The structure and function are common to all motorcycles having the same make, model, etc. as motorcycle 101. The DT, however, is also generated based on sensor data, which may be obtained from readings taken from sensors placed on, or near, the instance of the device (e.g., motorcycle 101). Since that sensor data is unique to motorcycle 101, the DT for motorcycle 101 will be unique relative to DTs for other motorcycles, including those that are identical in structure and function, ¶53; instance scans, ¶74; For example, the identifying information may be, or include, any combination of unique or semi-unique identifiers, such as a Bluetooth address, a media access control (MAC) address, an Internet Protocol (IP) address, a serial number, a quick response (QR) code or other type of bar code, a subnet address, a subscriber identification module (SIM), or the like. Tags, such as RFIDs, may be used for identification. For devices that do not move, the identifying information may be, or include, global positioning system (GPS) or other coordinates that defines the location of the device. For devices that do not include intelligence or other specific identifiers (like bar codes or readable serial numbers), unique features of the device may be used to identify the device instance. For example, a database may store information identifying markings, wear, damage, or other distinctive features of a device, together with a unique identifier for the device. A sensing mechanism (e.g., a camera) may capture an image of the device. The AR system may compare that image a stored image. Comparison may be performed on the mobile device or on a remote computer. The result of the comparison may identify the device, ¶81) (Examiner notes the digital twin being generated based upon sensor data for a particular instance as the equivalent to associating a first component and a first unique identifier with at least one of a plurality of digital twins for a group of final products, the first unique identifier corresponding to a first digital trigger);
automatically detecting, by a sensor communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the first digital trigger associated with the first component when a manufacturing step occurs (In some implementations, a DT can be generated at the time that the PT is manufactured, but before the PT becomes has a network connection (for PTs that are capable of network connection). For example, the AR system may obtain information indicating that a washing machine having a given configuration and a given serial number has been manufactured. The AR system may create, or tag, a DT for the washing machine based on information such as that described herein. Operational information about the instance washing machine, in this example may not be available prior its use; however, that information can be incorporated into the DT as the information is obtained. The DT may be linked to a device, such as the washing machine, after the device is identified or connected to a network, Parfenov ¶51; Taking again the above torque wrench example, in some implementations, information about the torque and the bolt may originate from some other system, not technically the DT, but one that provides the same types of information for AR purposes. In an example implementation of this type, there may be three-way communication between, for example, a manufacturing system that specifies torqueing bolts to a specific value, element(s) of the AR system understanding that the wrench and the bolt should be torqued to the specific value, and the DT (e.g., for the wrench and/or device containing the bolt) actually recording what the torque was when it was completed. In some implementations, this could be done using the DT as a proxy for the manufacturing system. The AR system may know if the DT is providing the value or if some other system provides the value. In some implementations, the DT may be programmed with code so that the DT knows its identity and/or can discover from upstream systems what that identity is, ¶95) (Examiner notes these portions of Parfenov discussing the digital triggers occurring during the manufacturing/assembly of the product, such as the install/torque of a bolt, as the ability to automatically track the manufacturing step occurring);
updating, by the at least one processor, at least one of the plurality of digital twins based on an evolution that is associated with the first component and that is at least part of a process resulting in a commercial product comprising a clothing article, wherein the commercial product is formed from the first component, and wherein the evolution comprises the manufacturing step involving the first component (The example process may also include: identifying an order for the at least one component; determining that a technician bound for the instance of the device is in possession of the at least component; receiving confirmation that the at least one component has been changed in the instance of the device; and updating the digital twin to reflect a change in the at least one component, Parfenov ¶13; Taking again the above torque wrench example, in some implementations, information about the torque and the bolt may originate from some other system, not technically the DT, but one that provides the same types of information for AR purposes. In an example implementation of this type, there may be three-way communication between, for example, a manufacturing system that specifies torqueing bolts to a specific value, element(s) of the AR system understanding that the wrench and the bolt should be torqued to the specific value, and the DT (e.g., for the wrench and/or device containing the bolt) actually recording what the torque was when it was completed. In some implementations, this could be done using the DT as a proxy for the manufacturing system. The AR system may know if the DT is providing the value or if some other system provides the value. In some implementations, the DT may be programmed with code so that the DT knows its identity and/or can discover from upstream systems what that identity is, ¶95; Information about replaced parts may also be used to update the BOM. This information may include identifying information, such as that described herein (e.g., serial number), along with any other relevant information that has changed (e.g., differences in performance information, composition, and so forth). Such information may be obtained from any appropriate source based on the identifying information for the replaced parts. For example, the AR system may identify the serial number of a replaced tire on a bicycle. The AR system may obtain information about that tire, such as its size, tread, composition, or the like, from product specifications or other appropriate sources. That information may be incorporated into the DT for the bicycle automatically, along with identifying information for the replaced part, ¶102);
coupling, by the at least one processor, a second digital trigger comprising at least one of a second RFID tag, a second barcode, and a second QR code to the commercial product, wherein the first digital trigger and the second digital trigger are associated with different information (the AR system may determine, from one or more other systems such as those described above, that a replacement part has been ordered for a device instance. The AR system may also detect that a technician is in proximity to the device instance based, e.g., on location monitoring software on the technician's mobile device, and that the technician has the replacement part. This information may trigger the AR system to update the device's DT and its BOM to reflect that the replacement part has been included in the device. In some implementations, the AR system may request confirmation from the technician or, if the device is intelligent, from the device itself, if such information is available, Parfenov ¶103);
associating, by the at least one processor, the at least one of the plurality of digital twins with the commercial product and a second unique identifier, the second unique identifier corresponding to the second digital trigger (The device may be an instance of a general device and the compiled model may define a digital twin of the instance. The example method may include determining, based at least in part on the digital twin, that there has been a change in at least one component of the instance; updating a bill of materials for the device automatically using information from the digital twin to produce an updated bill of materials; and storing the updated bill of materials in computer memory. The device may be an instance of a general device and the compiled model may define a digital twin of the instance. The digital twin may be based on sensor readings obtained from sensors on the device and may be based on information about the structure and function of the device obtained from one or more sources. The example method may include: updating the digital twin in real-time based at least in part on changes in the sensor readings to produce an updated digital twin; updating the augmented reality content in real-time based on the updated digital twin to produce updated augmented reality content; and presenting the updated augmented reality content in real-time on the display device, Parfenov ¶22; see also In some implementations, the AR system may determine, from one or more other systems such as those described above, that a replacement part has been ordered for a device instance. The AR system may also detect that a technician is in proximity to the device instance based, e.g., on location monitoring software on the technician's mobile device, and that the technician has the replacement part. This information may trigger the AR system to update the device's DT and its BOM to reflect that the replacement part has been included in the device. In some implementations, the AR system may request confirmation from the technician or, if the device is intelligent, from the device itself, if such information is available, ¶103) (Examiner notes the updating of the digital twin as the associating the at least one of the plurality of digital twins with the commercial product and a second unique identifier, the second unique identifier corresponding to a second digital trigger); and
wherein each of the first digital trigger and the second digital trigger have a trigger type comprising one or more of an Radio Frequency Identification(RFID) device, a barcode, a Quick Response (QR) code, a wireless personal area network device, a low-energy wireless personal area network device, an Near Field Communication (NFC) device, a recognizable image, a recognizable sound, and a wireless transmission (instance scans, Parfenov ¶74; For example, the identifying information may be, or include, any combination of unique or semi-unique identifiers, such as a Bluetooth address, a media access control (MAC) address, an Internet Protocol (IP) address, a serial number, a quick response (QR) code or other type of bar code, a subnet address, a subscriber identification module (SIM), or the like. Tags, such as RFIDs, may be used for identification. For devices that do not move, the identifying information may be, or include, global positioning system (GPS) or other coordinates that defines the location of the device. For devices that do not include intelligence or other specific identifiers (like bar codes or readable serial numbers), unique features of the device may be used to identify the device instance. For example, a database may store information identifying markings, wear, damage, or other distinctive features of a device, together with a unique identifier for the device. A sensing mechanism (e.g., a camera) may capture an image of the device. The AR system may compare that image a stored image. Comparison may be performed on the mobile device or on a remote computer. The result of the comparison may identify the device, ¶81).
Parfenov does not expressly disclose providing, by the at least one processor, data associated with a trust condition applicable to the first component and the final product to a customer upon scanning the second digital trigger, the trust condition including at least one of a manufacturer identity and a component material confirmation and verifying, by the at least one processor, the trust condition based on stored data entries within the digital twin, wherein verifying the trust condition comprises retrieving data from an electronic data storage system based on the second digital trigger, cross-referencing manufacturer, distributor, and retailer identities, and validating compliance with trust factors via an additional data source managed by a third party for at least one of certification of fair labor, material authenticity, and recall status..
However, Ryan teaches providing, by the at least one processor, data associated with a trust condition applicable to the first component and the final product to a customer upon scanning the second digital trigger, the trust condition including at least one of a manufacturer identity and a component material confirmation and verifying, by the at least one processor, the trust condition based on stored data entries within the digital twin, wherein verifying the trust condition comprises retrieving data from an electronic data storage system based on the second digital trigger, cross-referencing manufacturer, distributor, and retailer identities, and validating compliance with trust factors via an additional data source managed by a third party for at least one of certification of fair labor, material authenticity, and recall status. (tracking for product integrity, Ryan ¶55; FIG. 25 depicts an embodiment of the system showing alerts to a customer for a recall of a purchased item. A unique manufacturer log 201 is created for each UPC 181 tracked within the food safety tracking system. These manufacturer logs 201 are clustered within a larger manufacturer log and hold a consumer GUID (or customer identifier) 117 and transaction data 062a for each customer 200 that purchased a product 108 that carries this UPC 181, ¶769; brand-specific manufacturer logs 201 are created within the food safety tracking system 130 based on a UPC 181 that is assigned to a product 118 by a brand 107 (a unique manufacturer log 201 for each unique UPC 181). A manufacturer log 201 houses consumer GUIDs 117 for each consumer 200 that has purchased the product carrying the UPC 181 that is associated with that manufacturer log 201, ¶771; Product progression—during each step of the production and delivery process (production 131, packaging 132, shipping 133, transportation 134, distribution 135, other transport 134, delivery to retail 100), the product 118 is tracked via the third-party blockchain 017i. The system 130 is approved with the third-party blockchain 017i to write on behalf of the brand. The system 130 writes to its own blockchain/database 017c and the third-party blockchain 017i on behalf of the brand. Using data processing adapters (e.g., block chain adapters) 060. The system's blockchain adapter technology 060 is used to write to brand registered third-party blockchain networks 017i, ¶781-¶782; Section 502 comprises the full transaction log, which transmits critical details of transactions from POS systems. IoT services modernize hardware and transform previously isolated devices into writers on the blockchain. Section 502 includes purchase details, including UPCs, product count, product cost, and promotions and discounts. UPCs can be used to unlock a myriad of product dimensions, such as product classification, nutrition information, manufacturer information, and recall information. The information in section 502 can be used to validate inventory, document sales, validate promotions, flag stores for product recall, track product movement, and manage customer notifications in the event of a recall, ¶794; Oracle—trusted third-party that finds and verifies real-world information and then transmits that information to the blockchain, ¶395) (Examiner notes the product/manufacturing information logs which are tracked for integrity as taught by Ryan as including the trust condition).
Both the Parfenov and Ryan references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with tracking of digital twins. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Ryan’s method of accounting for trustworthy transactions/sources in Parfenov’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a product management system that is able to utilize digital twins as part of verification.
The motivation being that There are many database systems (e.g., IBM Food Trust, FoodloqiQ, RSM Clearthru) and blockchain technologies (Hyperledger Sawthooth, Hyperledger Fabric, Quorum, Ethereum, etc..) that are utilized to track products from the farm or manufacturer to retail locations. However, these systems fall short in collecting data about end users and notifying end users in the event of product recalls. Thanks to the problems with food and product supply chains, consumers are demanding more and more information about the quality and genesis of the products they consume and use. Consumers want to know where the products came from, if the product contains genetically modified ingredients, if the product is organic, if antibiotics were used in the product, whether source animals were healthy, and any safety concerns about the product (Ryan ¶9 and ¶11).
Furthermore, under MPEP 2144.04, any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels which does not explicitly alter or impact the functionality of the claimed invention, does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the commercial product to include a commercial product comprising a clothing product since the specific type of commercial product does not functionally alter or relate to the steps of the method and merely labeling the information differently from that in the prior art does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
As per claims 2 and 23, Parfenov and Ryan disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 21. Parfenov further discloses wherein the evolution comprises a manufacturing process that alters the component (The information and parameters can cover a range of characteristics stored, e.g., in a bill of material (BOM) associated with the device (e.g., EBOM—engineering BOM, MBOM—manufacturing BOM, or SBOM—service BOM), the device's service data and manuals, the device's behavior under various conditions, the device's relationship to other device(s) and artifacts connected to the device, and software that manages, monitors, and/or calculates the device's conditions and operations in different operating environments. A DT, like its corresponding PT, may have a lifecycle that can be managed as the DT progresses through various stages. A DT can be generated, modified, instantiated, published, connected, and analyzed; can become intelligent; and can mature, retire, and cease to exist, Parfenov ¶50; a DT can be generated at the time that the PT is manufactured, but before the PT becomes has a network connection, ¶51; a device’s digital twin is generated based upon manufacturing data, ¶53; updating BOMs to reflect changed parts by technician, ¶103).
As per claims 5 and 26, Parfenov and Ryan disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 21. Ryan further teaches wherein the trust condition further comprises at least one composition factor comprising one or more of an allergen confirmation, an organic material confirmation, an antibiotic-free confirmation, and a recycled material confirmation, and an ingredient confirmation (product integrity, tracking, food providence, animal health, genetically modified organism (GMO)-tracking, organic-tracking, antibiotics-in-food-chain-tracking, ingredient-tracking, parts-tracking, pharmaceuticals-tracking, cannabis-tracking, seed-tracking, genetic-tracking, and the like, Ryan ¶55).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Ryan’s method of accounting for trustworthy transactions/sources in Parfenov’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a product management system that is able to utilize digital twins as part of verification.
The motivation being that There are many database systems (e.g., IBM Food Trust, FoodloqiQ, RSM Clearthru) and blockchain technologies (Hyperledger Sawthooth, Hyperledger Fabric, Quorum, Ethereum, etc..) that are utilized to track products from the farm or manufacturer to retail locations. However, these systems fall short in collecting data about end users and notifying end users in the event of product recalls. Thanks to the problems with food and product supply chains, consumers are demanding more and more information about the quality and genesis of the products they consume and use. Consumers want to know where the products came from, if the product contains genetically modified ingredients, if the product is organic, if antibiotics were used in the product, whether source animals were healthy, and any safety concerns about the product (Ryan ¶9 and ¶11).
Furthermore, under MPEP 2144.04, any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels which does not explicitly alter or impact the functionality of the claimed invention, does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the data to include a composition factor comprising one or more of a component material confirmation, an allergen confirmation, an organic ingredient confirmation, a non-GMO confirmation, an antibiotic-free confirmation, a free-range confirmation, a recycled material confirmation, and an ingredient confirmation since the specific type of composition factor does not functionally alter or relate to the steps of the method and merely labeling the information differently from that in the prior art does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
As per claims 7 and 28, Parfenov and Ryan disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 21. Parfenov further discloses wherein the