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 .
Responsive to the communication dated 3/16/2026
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 2 – 15 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 16 – 28 are presented for examination.
Final Action
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Response to Arguments
Drawings
The Applicant argues that it is not necessary in a non provisional application to show every features of the invention specified in the claims because they assert that they are only required to furnish drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented.
A review of the drawing in the instant application shows that the Applicant provided only 1 drawing.
Drawing 1 illustrates merely what was previously known in the art; namely an elevator. The claim illustrates:
Shaft 5
Conveying apparatus 7
Super structure 9
Elevator car 11
Counterweight 13
Suspension means 15
Drive machine 17
Break device 19
Controller 21
Guide rails 23
Fastenings 25
Support frame 27
The claim, however, is directed towards carrying out a virtualized conformity test and the drawing conspicuously omit any of the claimed elements. The drawing only illustrates one particular embodiment of a transport system and provides no informative value with regard to the claimed virtualized conformity test.
37 C.F.R. 1.83 Content of Drawing states:
(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings. [AltContent: rect]
(b) When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
(c) Where the drawings in a nonprovisional application do not comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the examiner shall require such additional illustration within a time period of not less than two months from the date of the sending of a notice thereof. Such corrections are subject to the requirements of § 1.81(d).
Leniency with regard to the requirement is in regard to conventional features that are not essential and then they are still required to be illustrated in the form of, at least, graphical drawing symbols (e.g., bocks or other symbols). The Applicant has not even provided a rudimentary illustration of the claimed subject matter.
The objection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant argues that the combination of cited prior art does not make obvious the limitation of:
“… performing a conformity assessment according to a specified test protocol before providing the passenger transport system to a user…”
The Applicant asserts that Novack_2017 only teaches in-service testing and does not make obvious conformity testing. The Applicant further assets that neither Siikonen_2019 nor Ghare_2020 in combination with Novack_2017 make such claim elements obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art.
In response the argument is not persuasive.
Novacek_2017 teaches:
Par 8: “… a commissioning digital double data record can be created with planning data, which reflects the characterizing properties with planning data, which reflect the characterizing properties of components of the passenger transport system in a planning configuration. The commissioning digital double data record can be created by means of generic component model data records and defined component model data records.”
Par 29: “… when planning, designing, or commissioning the passenger transport system based on specifications such as those specified by the customer commissioning the passenger transport system… such planned properties can be configured purely on the computer or on a drawing board and mostly represent ideal properties of the passenger transport system, as are assumed during the planning phase…”
Par 113: “the production of the passenger transport system takes place on the basis of the production data (MBOM), with the production data being replace by the physical data, e.g., actual values taken from the physical production, as production progresses. Here, for example, the real component dimensions and the assembly-relevant data such as tightening torques of screw connections, points of use of lubricants and the liked are recorded and transferred to the digital double or commissioning digital double data record, thereby mutating it into the completion digital double data record. When the passenger transport system is delivered, a digital double or completion digital double data record exists in parallel to it, which ideally corresponds exactly to the physical product.
Par 114: “when installing the passenger transport system in the building and during commissioning, additional data such as the operating data and measurement data transmitted by sensors can be updated in the digital double, so that the updated digital double data record is mutated to the updated digital double data record. This happens continuously or periodically even after commissioning.”
The above clearly teaches a manufacturing process that starts with a digital double called a commissioning digital double which is used during the manufacturing/installation process where real-world data is incorporated into the commissioning digital double. The commissioning digital double starts with only MBOM (Manufacturing Build of Material) information prior to obtaining an incrementally modifying this commissioning digital double to incorporate real-world values during the commissioning process before the system is delivered. Notice that paragraph 113 explicitly teaches that the commissioning digital double is mutated into the completion digital double when the passenger transport system is delivered. Paragraph 114 explicitly teaches that the updating of the digital double (i.e., completion digital double) happens “after commissioning.”
Therefore, Novack_2017 clearly teaches a delivery demarcation point. Before deliver to the customer, commissioning is occurring and after commissioning the system is delivered to the customer. During the commissioning, the digital double is a virtual representation that starts with only MBOM data. Commissioning is the process of verifying conformity to specification. A visual illustration is:
PNG
media_image1.png
213
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim recites: “… carrying out an at least partially virtualized conformity assessment… comprising: performing a conformity assessment… before providing the passenger transport system to a user…”
The Applicant is ignoring the planning, design, and commissioning stages and is focused only on the post delivery stage. The planning, design, and commissioning stages certainly occur prior to providing the transport system to a user.
Accordingly, the Examiner finds that Novack_2017 clearly teaches performing a conformity assessment (i.e., commissioning) before deliver (i.e., providing the system to the user).
Further, Siikonen_2019 was cited for teaching “a specified test protocol.” Therefore, in combination, the cited prior art makes the elements argued by the Applicant obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art.
End Response to Arguments
Drawings
The drawings dated 4/15/2022 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The claims recite a method, a system, and non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions. The drawings only illustrate an elevator cab, counter weight, cable, cab, drive unit, various support members, braking devices, and a controller. The drawings do not illustrate, for example, the claimed method with all its elements nor the non-transitory computer readable media.
The claims must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 16 – 20, 23 - 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novacek_2017 (Pub. No. US 2021/0078834 A1 priority to Dec. 14, 2017) in view of Siikonen_2019 (ISO DIS 8100-32 on Planning and Selection of Passenger Lifts, 10th Symposium on Lift & Escalator Technologies, 18th September 2019) in view of Ghare_2018 (US 2020/0156243 A1).
Claim 1. Novacek_2017 makes obvious “A method for carrying out an at least partially virtualized conformity assessment on a passenger transport system, the method comprising (par 2: “the present application relates to a method and an apparatus…”; Par 8: “… the method comprising at least monitoring the properties of the passenger transport system by using an updated digital double data records… changes and trends in the characterizing properties of components can be ascertained and assessed…”; Par 11: “to assess the monitoring described above, assessment criteria associated with the characterizing properties of components, such as, for example, maximum chain elongation of convey chains, an upper limit of the power consumption of the drive machine, maximum and/or minimum dimensions at wear points and the like may be present. These assessment criteria specify the maximum permissible deviations based on planned values, for example. The characterizing properties of components of the updated digital double data record can be compared with these assessment criteria.” Par 18: “… the digital double can thus be viewed as a virtual image of the finished passenger transport system of the components contained therein…”; par 26: “… the updated digital double data record, like a virtual digital copy of the actual passenger transport system, allows conclusions drawn about the characterizing properties… information can at best be obtained solely by analyzing and/or processing the updated digital double data record…”; par 78: “… monitored for their properties during their operation for example in order to be able to determine changes in good time that could endanger operational safety and/or the availability…” NOTE: changes that endanger operational safety are a non-conformity. Therefore, the continuous in-service assessment of component changes that identify/predict operational failures in availability and/or safety are a conformity assessment.)
Performing a conformity assessment before providing the passenger transport system to a user, (par 49: “… wear and tear of even defect in components… which after their production have satisfactorily met the planned specification for this component…” NOTE: teaching that components must “satisfactory meet the planned specification” makes obvious to perform an assessment of the conformity of the component to a design specification. par 55 - 56: “… commissioning… in this commissioning… for example, computer-assisted commissioning tools are used to calculate the characterizing properties of a passenger transport system to be produced, depending on customer specifications. For example, data relating to planned dimensions, planned numbers, planned material properties, planned surface properties, etc… in its planning phase or commissioning phase, that is, before the passenger transport system is actually produced and installed…” NOTE: the above citation teaches to perform computerized calculation that determine/assess properties such as dimensions and material properties (e.g., wear and tear) where the customer specification is used to determine if the components are satisfactory and this is done before producing the transport system and subsequently providing the transport system to the user. par 100 – 101: “the method according to the disclosure provide… a digital double… during the manufacture… the digital double can be created as a commissioning digital double data record, for example using CAD data used during planning, during the production process based on commissioning data, taking into account customer specifications…”; par 51 – 54: “(i) creating a commissioning digital double data record with planned data… in a planned configuration… (ii) creating a completion digital double data record by measuring actual data… directly after assembly and installation thereof in a building… (iii) creating the updated digital double data record… during the operation of the passenger transport system…” NOTE: the above citations teach a sequence of steps up to and including providing the passenger transport system to a user (i.e., being installed and operational) wherein the passenger transport system was designed in advance so as to be individually customized for a specific purpose with a plurality of components (par 55: “… characterizing properties of a passenger transport system to be produced, depending on customer specifications. For example, data relating to planned dimensions, planned numbers, planned material properties, planned surface properties, etc…” NOTE: the customer specification that provides properties that characterize the components teaches that the transport system is individually designed in accordance with the customer’s desired specification. Par 66: “… customer specifications can be understood to mean specifications which are specified by the customer in individual cases, for example when ordering the passenger transport system. The customer specifications typically relate to single passenger transport system to be produced. For example, the customer specifications can comprise prevailing spatial conditions at the installation location, interface information for attachments to supporting structures of a building, etc…. length… height… customer specifications can also comprise customer requirements with regard to functionality, conveying capacity, optics, etc.”; par 99: “… order-specific configuration…”; par 109: “… customer specification (e.g., an order-specific, generated parts list…”; par 110: “… customer specification, the generation of an order-specific generated parts list… for the escalator… according to the entered customer specification, the individual components…”; par 111: “… taking into account customer specification. For example, a size of the elevator cab 55, a weight of the counterweight 57, a design of the suspension means 59, the drive machine 61 and the braking apparatus 63, and the controller 65 can be suitably selected…” NOTE: selecting components according to a customer specification is designing the system to be individually custom purpose.) wherein a digital twin data record depicting the individually designed passenger transport system is created, in which data record physical properties of components of the passenger transport system are reproduced in a machine-processable manner (par 8: “… the updated digital double data record shows characterizing properties of components of the passenger transport system in an actual configuration of the passenger transport system in a machine-processable manner…”; page 11 item 1: “… creating an updated digital double record that reflects characterizing properties of components of the passenger transport system in a machine-processable manner…” NOTE: characterizing properties of components are the physical properties of those components. See par 11: “… characterizing properties of components, such as… chain elongation… power consumption… maximum and/or minimum dimensions…” par 55: “… characterizing properties of a passenger transport system to be produced, depending on customer specifications. For example, data relating to planned dimensions, planned numbers, planned material properties, planned surface properties, etc…” NOTE: the customer specification that provides properties that characterize the components teaches that the transport system is individually designed in accordance with the customer’s desired specification.) wherein, during the conformity assessment, it is checked whether the properties of the passenger transport system correspond to target specifications (par 49: “for example, from the frequent occurrence of excessive wear and tear or even defects in components of a component type, which after their production have satisfactorily met the planned specifications for this component type…”; par 64: “… creation of the commissioning digital double data record comprises the creation of a commissioning data taking into account customer specification…”; par 101; par 105: “… assessment criteria associated with the characterizing properties … specify the maximum permissible deviations based on the planned values of the characterized properties… compared with these assessment values…”) which define at least a correct function of the components (par 75: “static simulations analyze, for example… tolerances…”; par 86 – 88: “… maximum chain elongation… upper limit of the power consumption… maximum and/or minimum dimensions at wear points… maximum permissible deviations based on planned values…”; par 109: “… static simulations, for example in the form of tolerance considerations…”) and/or a correct cooperation of the components with one another (par 76: “dynamic simulation, for example, analyze the dynamic behavior of components… for example, it is possible to analyze whether moving components within a passenger transport system can be shifted in a desired manner or whether, for example, there is a risk of collisions between moving components…”; par 109: “… dynamic simulations, for example for collision checking, can then be carried out…”) and/or safety-relevant properties of the passenger transport system (par 19: “the data contained in the digital double data record should reflect the characterization properties of the components… the digital double, which can be used for an assessment of their present or future operational safety, their present or future availability, and/or a present or future need for maintenance or repair…”; par 78: “… able to determine changes in good time that could endanger operational safety and/or the availability of the escalator or moving walkway…”), and wherein, when carrying out the conformity assessment, at least some of the properties of the passenger transport system that are to be checked during the conformity assessment and are based on the physical properties of components are determined as part of virtualized conformity assessment steps by deriving values from the digital twin data record (par 19: “the data contained in the digital double data record should reflect the characterization properties of the components in sufficient detail to be able to therefrom derive statements about the present structural and/or functional properties… the digital double which can be used for an assessment of their present or future operational safety…”; par 26: “… digital double data record, like a virtual digital copy of the actual passenger transport system, allows conclusions drawn about the characterizing properties… information can at best be obtained solely by analyzing and/or processing the updated digital double data record…”; par 28: “… the use of the updated digital double data record makes it possible to monitor properties characterizing the state of the passenger transport system… if necessary, specific information regarding work to be carried out during maintenance or repair can be derived from this based on an analysis of the digital double alone…”) or by simulations based on the digital twin data record (par 74: “… the commissioning digital double data record, simulations can be performed with which static and/or dynamic properties of the commissioned passenger transport system are simulated… in a computer system…”; par 75: “static simulations analyze, for example, a static interaction of a plurality of assembled components… it can be analyzed…”; par 76: “Dynamic simulations, for example, analyze the dynamic behavior of components during the operation of the assembled passenger transport system… risk of collision…”; par 107: “by using the digital double… by comparison with setpoints or expected values, as well as statements about a future state… by means of a simulation… based on the data of the updated digital double data record…”; par 109: “… various simulations… can be carried out…” par 115: “… queries on the digital double such as wear-related geometric changes can be evaluated using collision simulations…”; par 125: “… corresponding cause can be found by means of dynamic simulations and statistical evaluations on the digital doubles. The cause found can be taken into account in a change in the design of the component…”),
Novacek_2017, however, does not explicitly teach an “assessment according to a specified test protocol” nor “and indicated as virtual values in a results log.”
Siikonen_2019, however, makes obvious an “assessment according to a specified test protocol” (ISO DIS 81-32, page 10-2 section 2: “… update the current ISO 4190-6 standard to cover offices and hotels, in addition to current residential buildings… for selecting passenger lifts in different types of buildings that would be in line with the current ISO 4190-6… present state-of-the-art technology… simulation of more realistic traffic patterns… is needed is needed to determine whether the lift(s) are able to handle the traffic in all traffic situations…” page 10 -3 section 4: “… in the simulation method… to print and interpret output results is described… the rated load of a lift for which the lift has been build and designed to operate… without being in conflict due to safety norms… a series of three simulations is performed with increasing arrival rates should be long enough… a two-hour simulation…”).
Novacek_2017 and Siikonen_2019 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called lift systems (e.g., elevators, etc.). Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Novacek_2017 and Siikonen_2019. The rationale for doing so would have been that Novacek_2017 teaches to perform simulations to verify lift designs to customer specifications and also teaches to ensure safety of the lift systems with the simulation analysis. Siikomen_2019 teaches an International Standards Organization protocol for testing list systems that reflect current lift safety standards (see conclusion). Further, Sikkonen_2019 teaches that revision to the ISO 4190-6:1984 standard started in 2014 and was completed in the spring of 2019 and that the revision extends the standard from residential buildings to also include hotels, offices. (see the abstract). Sikkomen_2019 also states that updated standard simulates more realistic traffic patterns (see 10-2 section 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Novacek_2017 and Siikonen_2019 for the benefit of following an accepted industry international standard that allows compliance testing for residential buildings, hotels, and offices which are locations where list systems (i.e., elevators, escalators, etc.) are often installed to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
While Novacek_2017 clearly teaches to perform simulations and to take into account the simulation results (par 73: “… simulations are performed… data record is created taking into account the results of the simulations…”; page 12 item 9: “… taking into account the results of the at least one simulation…”),
While it may properly be found that that it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art that results of a simulation where the simulation is a virtual digital model (i.e., digital double, digital twin) are virtual values and that that logging the results of a simulation is a common occurrence, Novacek_2017 does not EXPLICITLY recite that the results are “values in a results log.”
Also, Siikonen_2019 clearly teaches to perform simulation that output results. (page 10 -2 section 2 “… the simulation method describes only the inputs and outputs of the simulation…” page 10-3 section 4 “in the simulation method, a simple procedure for how to give inputs and how to print and interpret output results…”). While it may be properly found that it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art to print output results of a simulation into a results log file or that the printed output is a results log, Siikonen_2019, does not EXPLICITLY recites that the results are “values in a results log”.
Therefore, Novacek_2017 and Siikonen_2019, do not explicitly recite “and indicated as virtual values in a results log.”
Ghare_2018 makes obvious “and indicated as virtual values in a results log” (par 90: “the simulation agent 404 also executes a metrics writer 412 within the simulation server 402. The metrics writer 412 is implemented using hardware and software of the simulation server 402… the metrics writer 412 may obtain simulation data form the robot application container 406 and the simulation application container 408 and utilize this simulation data to generate a set of data logs comprising metrics corresponding to the performance of the simulated robotic device… make the data logs available…”)
Novacek_2017 and Ghare_2018 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called design simulations. Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Novacek_2017 and Ghare_2018. The rationale for doing so would have been that Novacek_2017 teaches to have a digital double incorporated with a physical device and for the digital double to simulate the behavior of a physical device. The digital double is continuously used during operation for the purpose, for example, of predictive maintenance and/or safety assessments. The device may be, for example, an escalator, moving sidewalk or an elevator. The elevator is a device that is capable of carrying out the task of lifting or lowering an elevator cab. An elevator is a machine that performs the work of lifting and lowering the cab at least semi-autonomously (e.g., a human pushes a button, but the machine decides when to stop the cab or open the doors). Because escalators, moving sidewalks, and elevators operate at least semi-autonomously; they may properly be classified as a type of robotic machinery that incorporates an application known as a digital double. Ghare_2018 teaches “simulating robotics device applications that are to be incorporated into various robotic devices” as part of deploying the application (par 20) and that the simulating includes the creation of a simulation data log file (par 90). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Novacek_2017 and the simulation data log files of Ghare_2018 for the benefit of providing simulation results to users when testing and verifying equipment such as escalators, moving sidewalks, and elevators to ensure that the equipment is working properly and is safe to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 27. The limitations of claim 27 are substantially the same as those of claim 1 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1. Further, Novacek_2017 makes obvious the additional limitations of “a system for carrying out an at least partially virtualized conformity assessment in a passenger transport system, the system comprising” (abstract: “this application relates to a method and an apparatus…”; par 82: “embodiments of the method… can be performed using an apparatus… the apparatus can comprise one or more computers… the apparatus can have a processor…”).
Claim 28. The limitations of claim 28 are substantially the same as those of claim 1 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1. Further, Novacek_2017 makes obvious the Additional limitations of “a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that configure a processor to:” (par 2: “… a computer program product configured to carry out the proposed method, and a computer-readable medium storing this computer program product…”; par 6: “… a computer program product for carrying out the method on a programmable apparatus, and a computer-readable medium having such a computer program product stored thereon…”; par 13: “… a computer program product is proposed which comprises machine-readable program instructions which, when executed on a programmable apparatus, cause the apparatus to carry out or control a method according to an embodiment of the first aspect…”).
Claims 16. Novacek_2017 makes obvious “wherein as part of designing the passenger transport system, target design data are created for components to be installed in the passenger transport system, which data indicate design-specific target properties of the relevant component (Par 111: “… an EBOM can also be created for an elevator 51 by ascertaining a planned configuration… taking into account customer specifications… a size of the elevator cab 55, a weight of the counterweights 57, a design of the suspension means 59, the drive machine 61 and the braking apparatus 63, and the controller 65 can be suitably selected…”), and wherein the physical properties of a component are indicated in the digital twin data record on the basis of their target design data (par 109: “… the creation of the digital double in the engineering stage from specific and generic component model data records, including the customer specification (e.g., an order-specific, generated parts list, as it is sometimes called) EBOM (“Engineering Bill of Materials”). The generic components model data records contain component data such as their dimensions, tolerances, surface structures, other characterizing properties… a production-compatible parts list…”).
Claim 17. Novacek_2017 makes obvious “wherein, as a part of manufacturing a component of the passenger transport system that is to be installed in the passenger transport system, actual manufacturing data are determined which indicate actual properties of the relevant component that are realized during manufacturing, and wherein the physical properties of the component are indicated in the digital twin data record on the basis of their actual manufacturing data” ( Par 64: “according to one embodiment of the application, the creation of the commissioning digital double data record comprises the creation of commissioning data taking into account customer specification and the creation of production data by modifying the commissioning data taking into account production specifications…”; par 65: “… both customer specifications and production specifications should be taking into account… as a rule, the commissioning data are first created taking into account the customer specification and the these commissioning data are modified or refined taking into account the production specifications… iteratively comprise a multiple calculation and modification of commissioning data taking into account the customer and/or production specifications…”; par 67: “the production specifications typically relate to properties or specifications within a production factory or production line in which the passenger transport system is to be produced… for example, in some production factories certain materials, raw materials, raw components or the like may not be available or may not be processed… all of these production specifications typically have to be taken into account… if necessary, it may be required to fundamentally modify the commissioning data initially created, which only took customer specifications into account, in order to be able to take the production specification into account.”; par 102: “the commissioning digital double data record can then be modified taking into account production specifications…”; Par 112: “… production specific rules concern, for example, the material qualities available at the production site or the present production quality of the means of production depending on the production site… characterizing properties of the component model data records are modified accordingly…”; par 119: “the commissioning data of the defined component model data record are then specified in such a way that the planned values previously ascertained only based on the customer specification are modified taking into account production specifications relative to production data. For example, material information… OEM manufacturer… in doing so, the ascertainment of tolerance specification… takes into account the production specification that are actually prevailing during production…”).
Claim 18. Novacek_2017 makes obvious “wherein, as part of installing components of the passenger transport system that are to be installed in the passenger transport system in the passenger transport system, actual installation data are determined which indicate actual properties of the relevant component data are realized during installation, and wherein the physical properties of the component are indicated in the digital twin data record on the basis of their actual installation data” (Par 9 – 10: “… completion digital double data record…”; par 114: “when installing the passenger transport system in the building and during commissioning, additional data such as the operating data and measurement data transmitted by sensors can be updated in the digital double, so that the completion digital double data record is mutated to the updated digital data record…”; par 115: “… when components are replaced during maintenance, their component model data records are updated in the digital double of this passenger transport system with actual data corresponding to the newly installed physical component…”; abstract: “… updated digital double data record that reflects characterizing properties of components of the passenger transport system in an actual configuration of the passenger transport system in a machine-processable manner after the assembly and installation…”).
Claim 19. Novacek_2017 makes obvious “wherein all of the properties of the passenger transport system to be checked during the conformity assessment are derived from the digital twin data record (par 26: “… the updated digital double data record, like a virtual digital copy of the actual passenger transport system, allows conclusions drawn about the characterizing properties… information can at best be obtained solely by analyzing and/or processing the updated digital double data record…”; par 28: “… the use of the updated digital double data record makes it possible to monitor properties characterizing the state of the passenger transport system… if necessary, specific information regarding work to be carried out during maintenance or repair can be derived from this based on an analysis of the digital double alone…”) or are determined by simulations based on the digital twin data record” (par 74: “… the commissioning digital double data record, simulations can be performed with which static and/or dynamic properties of the commissioned passenger transport system are simulated… in a computer system…”; par 75: “static simulations analyze, for example, a static interaction of a plurality of assembled components… it can be analyzed…”; par 76: “Dynamic simulations, for example, analyze the dynamic behavior of components during the operation of the assembled passenger transport system… risk of collision…”; par 107: “by using the digital double… by comparison with setpoints or expected values, as well as statements about a future state… by means of a simulation… based on the data of the updated digital double data record…”; par 109: “… various simulations… can be carried out…” par 115: “… queries on the digital double such as wear-related geometric changes can be evaluated using collision simulations…”; par 125: “… corresponding cause can be found by means of dynamic simulations and statistical evaluations on the digital doubles. The cause found can be taken into account in a change in the design of the component…”).
Claim 20. Novacek_2017 makes obvious “wherein: the passenger transport system has, as one of its components, a controller by means of which other components of the passenger transport system can be controlled (par 77: “… the passenger transport system is an escalator or a moving sidewalk… the components of a conveyor can be… controllers…”; par 80: “… the passenger transport system is an elevator. The components… can be… controllers…”; par 96: “… a controller…”; par 98: “… a controller 65 controls the operation of the elevator…”), during the conformity assessment, a real existing controller communicates with a computer in which the components to be controlled are simulated on the basis of data from the digital twin data record, in order to virtually control the simulated components,
And the properties of the passenger transport system to be checked during the conformity assessment are derived from physical properties of the real existing controller and from physical properties of the components as indicated in the digital twin data record or as determined by simulations based on the digital twin data record” (Par 38: “… monitoring the properties of the passenger transport system comprises simulating future characterizing properties of the passenger transport system by using the digital double data record…”; par 40: “the simulations can be carried out on a computer system. With the aid of the simulations conclusions can be drawn about a temporal development in the represented characterizing properties and thus forecast or extrapolate relating to future characterizing properties… based on the data currently contained in the updated digital double data record…”; 74: “… the commissioning digital double data record, simulations can be performed with which static and/or dynamic properties of the commissioned passenger transport system are simulated… in a computer system…”; par 75: “static simulations analyze, for example, a static interaction of a plurality of assembled components… it can be analyzed…”; par 76: “Dynamic simulations, for example, analyze the dynamic behavior of components during the operation of the assembled passenger transport system… risk of collision…”; par 107: “by using the digital double… by comparison with setpoints or expected values, as well as statements about a future state… by means of a simulation… based on the data of the updated digital double data record…”; par 109: “… various simulations… can be carried out…” par 115: “… queries on the digital double such as wear-related geometric changes can be evaluated using collision simulations…”; par 125: “… corresponding cause can be found by means of dynamic simulations and statistical evaluations on the digital doubles. The cause found can be taken into account in a change in the design of the component…”).
Claim 23. Novacek_2017 makes obvious “wherein, in addition to the plurality of virtualized conformity assessment, a reality-based conformity assessment is also carried out after completion of the passenger transport system, in which reality-based conformity assessment all of the properties of the passenger transport system to be checked during the conformity assessment are determined on the real passenger transport system and additionally indicated as real values in the results log (par 48: “the method can be implemented particularly advantageously if changes in the characterizing properties of the components during the operation of the passenger transport system are also tracked when the digital double data records are created (as will be described in more detail below… component behavior in real use can be derived from the analysis of a plurality of updated digital double data records…”; par 53: “… the updated digital double data record based on the completion digital double data record by modifying the completion digital double data record during the operation of the passenger transport system taking into account measurement values, which reflect changes in the characterizing properties of components of the passenger transport system during operation…”; par 60 - 62: “… have a virtual image… the completion digital double data record created at this point is time is updated continuously or at suitable intervals during the subsequent operation… measuring devices… monitor geometric dimensions… forces… temperature… stresses… electrical and/or magnetic fields… and much more…”; par 78: “… monitored for their properties during their operation for example in order to be able to determine changes in good time that could endanger operational safety and/or the availability…” NOTE: changes that endanger operational safety are a non-conformity. Therefore, the continuous in-service assessment of component changes that identify/predict operational failures in availability and/or safety are a conformity assessment.)
Claim 24. Novacek_2017 makes obvious “wherein the virtual values are also compared with the real values in the results log in order to identify deficits in the design and/or the implementation of the passenger transport system” (par 48: “the method can be implemented particularly advantageously if changes in the characterizing properties of the components during the operation of the passenger transport system are also tracked… in this case, statistical statements of how the component behaves in real use can be derived from the analysis… this allows conclusions to be drawn about the quality properties of the component type, which also reflect the qualities thereof during use (robustness of the design)…”; par 49: “for example, from the frequent occurrence of excessive wear and tear or even defects in components of a component type, which after their production have satisfactorily met the planned specifications for this component type, it can be concluded that the design of the component type in question already has quality defects that least, for example, to recurring problems in real operation… thereupon, the design of the component type can possibly be suitably changed… to increase robustness, and to increase the service life of the component type…”).
Claim 25. Novacek_2017 makes obvious “wherein the passenger transport system is selected from a group comprising escalators and moving walkways, and wherein the components of the passenger transport system are selected from a group comprising: components of a framework comprising a plurality of components selected from a subgroup comprising upper chords, lower chords, uprights, transverse structs, diagonal struts, gusset plates, support brackets and framework separation points; and components of a conveying apparatus comprising at least one component selected from a subgroup comprising escalator steps, moving walkway pallets, conveyor chains, conveyor belts, deflector sprockets, deflection pulleys, drive machines, service brackets and controllers” (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3; par 2: “… passenger transport system, such as an elevator, an escalator, or a moving walkway…”; par 77: “… the components of a framework can be upper straps, lower straps, uprights, cross struts, diagonal struts, gusset plates, support angles and/or framework separation points… driving stages, driving pallets, conveyor chains, conveyor belts, drive machines, service brakes and/or controllers…”; par 96: “… deflection sprockets… deflection disks… balustrade…”).
Claim 26. Novacek_2017 makes obvious “wherein the passenger transport system is an elevator (par 2: “… passenger transport systems, such as an elevator, an escalator, or a moving walkway…”) and wherein the components of the passenger transport system are selected from a group comprising: components of a support structure comprising a plurality of components selected from a subgroup comprising guide rails, wall fastenings, support frames, floor fastenings, transverse struts, longitudinal struts and diagonal struts (Fig. 2, Fig. 3; par 80: “… the passenger transport system is an elevator. The components of the passenger transport system can be components of a support structure and/or components of a conveyor structure. The components of the support structure can be guide rails, wall fastenings, drive frames, floor fastenings, cross struts, longitudinal struts, and/or diagonal struts…”); and components of a conveying elevator cars, counterweights, suspension means, drive machines, braking devices and controllers” (Fig. 3; par 111: “… taking into account customer specification. For example, a size of the elevator cab 55, a weight of the counterweight 57, a design of the suspension means 59, the drive machine 61 and the braking apparatus 63, and the controller 65…”).
Claims 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novacek_2017 in view of Siikonen_2019 in view of Ghare_2018 in view of Torm_2014 (python logging – default value to extra parameters, December 27, 2014).
Claim 21. While Ghare_2018 teaches to log data from simulation and to use python programming language, Ghare_2018 does not teach to have predefined default properties in the log file.
Torm_2014 makes obvious “wherein properties to be checked that cannot be sufficiently derived solely on the basis of information contained in the digital twin data record are indicated with predefined default properties in the results log” (page 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
138
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
NOTE: the above example code illustrates a situation where the data record could not sufficiently derive an particular information item (e.g., ‘user_id’) and for the log filter to identify this insufficiency and to indicate this with predefined symbology.).
Ghare_2018 and Torm_2014 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor simulation with computer program code. Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ghare_2018 and Torm_2014. The rationale for doing so would have been that Ghare_2018 teaches to use python programming language and Torm_2014 teaches that python can be written in such a way as to identify when a data record is insufficient and indicate the inability of the data record to provide data in the log file. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ghare_2018 and Torm_2014 for the benefit of having a more informational log file to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claims 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novacek_2017 in view of Siikonen_2019 in view of Ghare_2018 in view of Torm_2014 in view of Sajip_2005 (A Logging System for Python, Version 0.4.9.6 2 mar 2005).
Claim 22. Sajip_2005 makes obvious “wherein the properties which cannot be sufficiently derived solely on the basis of information contained in the digital twin data record are specifically characterized in the results log” (page 3:
PNG
media_image3.png
444
906
media_image3.png
Greyscale
NOTE: The above teaches levels of characterization for data in a results log file. The above also teaches that “bespoke” (i.e., customer/predefined) levels are also available. Therefore, when there is insufficiency of a data record that results in, for example, problematic data the data can be flagged as “debug”, “info”, “warning”, “error”, “critical” which indicates, in part, how the user should handle the data.).
Ghare_2018 and Sajip_2005 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor simulation with computer program code. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ghare_2018 and Torm_2014. The rationale for doing so would have been that Ghare_2018 teaches to use python programming language and Sajip_2005 teaches that python can be written in such a way as to identify when a data record is insufficient characterize the results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ghare_2018 and Sajip_2005 for the benefit of having a more informational log file to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN S COOK whose telephone number is (571)272-4276. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/BRIAN S COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights