Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 12/16/2025
Claims 1, 3-8 and 10-22 are pending.
Claims 2 and 9 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended.
Claims 21 and 22 are new.
Objection - Specification
Applicant’s amendments to the specification, filed 12/16/2025, with respect to the specification objection the amendment has been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objection has been withdrawn. The objection is therefore withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pages 9-10, filed 12/16/2025, with respect to the claim rejection the amendment has been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pages 10-11, filed 12/16/2025, with respect to the claim rejection the amendment has been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant argues, “claim 15 is directed to patent eligible subject matter based on the amendments”. Examiner note the amended claim recites “A computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable storage media”, see specification par 81, is also defined as computer readable storage medium. Computer readable storage medium is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se, see Par 82. The claim rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see remarks pages 11-12, filed 12/16/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the claim amendments is made in view of Annaiyappa et al. US 2023/0206779 A1.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mairi Elaine Kerin, NPL “INDUSTRY 4.0: PRODUCT DIGITAL TWINS FOR REMANUFACTURING DECISION-MAKING”, Published: June 2021, (hereafter Kerin), in views of Annaiyappa et al. US 2023/0206779 A1 (hereafter Annaiyappa).
Regarding claim 1. Kerin teaches a computer-implemented method for optimizing disassembly (Page 84, sec 3.6.2, optimized disassembly costs and process planning), the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, object data associated with an object (Page 92, fig 3-6, data sensing and acquisition);
wherein each of the one or more digital twins are comprised of a plurality of object components Page 122, sec 4.3.8, DTs can now represent individual components, products (assets), operators, systems or processes referred herein as “entities”);
performing one or more simulations of the object utilizing the one or more digital twins (Page 122, DT as an integration of simulation) (Page 123, fig 4-3, simulation);
identifying one or more object components of the plurality of object components (Page 122, sec 4.3.8, DTs can now represent individual components, products (assets), operators, systems or processes referred herein as “entities”) (Page 176, sec 5.4.4, components could be automatically updated in the virtual model);
generating an optimized disassembly plan for the object based on the one or more object components, wherein the optimized disassembly plan includes one or more disassembly stages (Page 126, table 4-1, optimize disassembly sequences); and
disassembling the object, wherein the object is disassembled using the optimized disassembling plan (Page 127, fig 4-4, physical entity, remanufacturing) (Page 129, the process of remanufacturing includes both disassembly and assembly operations).
Kerin does not teach generating one or more digital twins of the object based on the object data, object components which are separable or detachable from the object based on the one or more simulations.
Annaiyappa teaches generating one or more digital twins of the object based on the object data, object components which are separable or detachable from the object based on the one or more simulations. (Par 169, creating a digital twin of a rig based on a rig plan for disassembling a rig)(Par 171, simulating disassembly of the rig components)(Par 82, rig components, include structures, derrick, platform, support equipment).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kerin to incorporate the teachings of Annaiyappa to generate a digital twin of an object and have each component separable because it allows training individuals to perform activities of the assembly and disassembly of the rig (Annaiyappa, par 160)
Regarding claim 3. Kerin and Annaiyappa teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying a level of damage associated with the object based, at least in part, on the one or more simulations (Kerin, Page 67, sec 3.4.2, 2D-code damage on readability and errors);
determining the level of damage exceeds a threshold level (Kerin, Page 172, fig 5-9, failure probability is higher); and
generating one or more recommendations, wherein the one or more recommendations are based on the level of damage exceeding the threshold level (Kerin, Page 173, formulate a quality metric to bolster data driven decision making for remanufacturing).
Regarding claim 4. Kerin and Annaiyappa teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
analyzing object data associated with an environment, wherein the environment surrounds the object (Kerin, Page 12, fig 2-1, environment factors)(Kerin, Page 33, sec 2.5.3, environmental factors);
identifying an environmental condition associated with disassembling the object (Kerin, Page 123, fig 4-3, environment monitoring); and
predicting one or more impacts of the environmental condition on the environment (Kerin, Page 192, table 6-1, environmental impact of disassembly of component).
Regarding claim 5. Kerin and Annaiyappa teach the method of claim 4, including: identifying a hazardous impact from the one or more impacts of the environmental condition (Kerin, Page 87, reducing waste and hazardous materials to landfill); and
recommending one or more hazard mitigation techniques associated with the hazardous impact (Kerin, Page 91, sec 3.7.3, waste to the environment, sustainability consciousness).
Regarding claim 6. Kerin and Annaiyappa teach the method of claim 1, including: simulating object data in real-time associated with disassembling the object (Kerin, Page 21, real time data on product manufacturing, data driven simulation);
predicting one or more impacts associated with disassembling the object (Kerin, Page 123, fig 4-3, performance predictions calculations); and
identifying an object impact from one or more impacts, wherein the object impact inhibits at least one disassembly stage of the one or more disassembly stages of the optimized disassembly plan (Kerin, Page 172, safety limit set to minimize the risk, thus by minimizing it eliminates solutions that are not within the limit).
Regarding claim 7. Kerin and Annaiyappa teach the method of claim 6, further comprising:
generating a new disassembly stage (Kerin, Page 172, minimize the risk, thus by minimizing it generates new stages);
replacing the at least one disassembly stage of the one or more disassembly stages inhibited by the object impact with the new disassembly stage (Kerin, Page 172, minimize the risk, thus by minimizing it replaces the non optimal); and
dynamically updating the optimized disassembly plan with the new disassembly stage (Kerin, Page 172, minimize the risk, thus by minimizing it dynamically updating).
Regarding claim 8. Kerin teaches a system for optimizing disassembly (Page 84, sec 3.6.2, optimized disassembly costs and process planning), the system comprising:
a memory (Page 63, computer generated information, thus using a computer having memory); and
a processor in communication with the memory (Page 63, computer connected to memory and processor), the processor being configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving object data associated with an object (Page 92, fig 3-6, data sensing and acquisition);
wherein each of the one or more digital twins are comprised of a plurality of object components Page 122, sec 4.3.8, DTs can now represent individual components, products (assets), operators, systems or processes referred herein as “entities”);
performing one or more simulations of the object utilizing the one or more digital twins ( (Page 122, DT as an integration of simulation) (Page 123, fig 4-3, simulation);
identifying one or more object components of the plurality of object components (Page 176, sec 5.4.4, components could be automatically updated in the virtual model);
generating an optimized disassembly plan for the object based on the one or more object components, wherein the optimized disassembly plan includes one or more disassembly stages (Page 126, table 4-1, optimize disassembly sequences); and
disassembling the object, wherein the object is disassembled using the optimized disassembling plan (Page 127, fig 4-4, physical entity, remanufacturing) (Page 129, the process of remanufacturing includes both disassembly and assembly operations).
Kerin does not teach generating one or more digital twins of the object based on the object data, object components which are separable or detachable from the object based on the one or more simulations.
Annaiyappa teaches generating one or more digital twins of the object based on the object data, object components which are separable or detachable from the object based on the one or more simulations. (Par 169, creating a digital twin of a rig based on a rig plan for disassembling a rig)(Par 171, simulating disassembly of the rig components)(Par 82, rig components, include structures, derrick, platform, support equipment).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kerin to incorporate the teachings of Annaiyappa to generate a digital twin of an object and have each component separable because it allows training individuals to perform activities of the assembly and disassembly of the rig (Annaiyappa, par 160)
Regarding claim 10. Kerin and Annaiyappa teach the system of claim 8, further comprising:
identifying a level of damage associated with the object based, at least in part, on the one or more simulations (Kerin, Page 67, sec 3.4.2, 2D-code damage on readability and errors);
determining the level of damage exceeds a threshold level (Kerin, Page 172, fig 5-9, failure probability is higher); and
generating one or more recommendations, wherein the one or more recommendations are based on the level of damage exceeding the threshold level (Kerin, Page 173, formulate a quality metric to bolster data driven decision making for remanufacturing).
Regarding claim 11. Kerin and Annaiyappa teach the system of claim 8, further comprising:
analyzing object data associated with an environment, wherein the environment surrounds the object (Kerin, Page 12, fig 2-1, environment factors)(Kerin, Page 33, sec 2.5.3, environmental factors);
identifying an environmental condition associated with disassembling the object (Kerin, Page 123, fig 4-3, environment monitoring); and
predicting one or more impacts of the environmental condition on the environment (Kerin, Page 192, table 6-1, environmental impact of disassembly of component).
Regarding claim 12. Kerin and Annaiyappa teach the system of claim 11, including: identifying a hazardous impact from the one or more impacts of the environmental condition (Kerin, Page 87, reducing waste and hazardous materials to landfill); and
recommending one or more hazard mitigation techniques associated with the hazardous impact (Kerin, Page 91, sec 3.7.3, waste to the environment, sustainability consciousness).
Regarding claim 13. Kerin and Annaiyappa teach the system of claim 8, including: simulating object data in real-time associated with disassembling the object (Kerin, Page 21, real time data on product manufacturing, data driven simulation);
predicting one or more impacts associated with disassembling the object (Kerin, Page 123, fig 4-3, performance predictions calculations); and
identifying an object impact from one or more impacts, wherein the object impact inhibits at least one disassembly stage of the one or more disassembly stages of the optimized disassembly plan (Kerin, Page 172, safety limit set to minimize the risk, thus by minimizing it eliminates solutions that are not within the limit).
Regarding claim 14. Kerin and Annaiyappa teach the system of claim 13, further comprising:
generating a new disassembly stage (Kerin, Page 172, minimize the risk, thus by minimizing it generates new stages);
replacing the at least one disassembly stage of the one or more disassembly stages inhibited by the object impact with the new disassembly stage (Kerin, Page 172, minimize the risk, thus by minimizing it replaces the non optimal); and
dynamically updating the optimized disassembly plan with the new disassembly stage (Kerin, Page 172, minimize the risk, thus by minimizing it dynamically updating).
Regarding claim 15. Kerin teaches a computer program product comprising:
one or more computer-readable storage media; and
program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media to perform operations comprising:
receiving object data associated with an object (Page 92, fig 3-6, data sensing and acquisition);
wherein each of the one or more digital twins are comprised of a plurality of object components Page 122, sec 4.3.8, DTs can now represent individual components, products (assets), operators, systems or processes referred herein as “entities”);
performing one or more simulations of the object utilizing the one or more digital twins ( (Page 122, DT as an integration of simulation) (Page 123, fig 4-3, simulation);
identifying one or more object components of the plurality of object components (Page 176, sec 5.4.4, components could be automatically updated in the virtual model);
generating an optimized disassembly plan for the object based on the one or more object components, wherein the optimized disassembly plan includes one or more disassembly stages (Page 126, table 4-1, optimize disassembly sequences); and
disassembling the object, wherein the object is disassembled using the optimized disassembling plan (Page 127, fig 4-4, physical entity, remanufacturing) (Page 129, the process of remanufacturing includes both disassembly and assembly operations).
Kerin does not teach generating one or more digital twins of the object based on the object data, object components which are separable or detachable from the object based on the one or more simulations.
Annaiyappa teaches generating one or more digital twins of the object based on the object data, object components which are separable or detachable from the object based on the one or more simulations. (Par 169, creating a digital twin of a rig based on a rig plan for disassembling a rig)(Par 171, simulating disassembly of the rig components)(Par 82, rig components, include structures, derrick, platform, support equipment).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kerin to incorporate the teachings of Annaiyappa to generate a digital twin of an object and have each component separable because it allows training individuals to perform activities of the assembly and disassembly of the rig (Annaiyappa, par 160)
Regarding claim 16. Kerin and Annaiyappa teach the computer program product of claim 15, further comprising:
identifying a level of damage associated with the object based, at least in part, on the one or more simulations (Kerin, Page 67, sec 3.4.2, 2D-code damage on readability and errors);
determining the level of damage exceeds a threshold level (Kerin, Page 172, fig 5-9, failure probability is higher); and
generating one or more recommendations, wherein the one or more recommendations are based on the level of damage exceeding the threshold level (Kerin, Page 173, formulate a quality metric to bolster data driven decision making for remanufacturing).
Regarding claim 17. Kerin and Annaiyappa teach the computer program product of claim 15, further comprising:
analyzing object data associated with an environment, wherein the environment surrounds the object (Kerin, Page 12, fig 2-1, environment factors)(Kerin, Page 33, sec 2.5.3, environmental factors);
identifying an environmental condition associated with disassembling the object (Kerin, Page 123, fig 4-3, environment monitoring); and
predicting one or more impacts of the environmental condition on the environment (Kerin, Page 192, table 6-1, environmental impact of disassembly of component).
Regarding claim 18. Kerin and Annaiyappa teach the computer program product of claim 17, including:
identifying a hazardous impact from the one or more impacts of the environmental condition (Kerin, Page 87, reducing waste and hazardous materials to landfill); and
recommending one or more hazard mitigation techniques associated with the hazardous impact (Kerin, Page 91, sec 3.7.3, waste to the environment, sustainability consciousness).
Regarding claim 19. Kerin and Annaiyappa teach the computer program product of claim 15, including:
simulating object data in real-time associated with disassembling the object (Kerin, Page 21, real time data on product manufacturing, data driven simulation);
predicting one or more impacts associated with disassembling the object (Kerin, Page 123, fig 4-3, performance predictions calculations); and
identifying an object impact from one or more impacts, wherein the object impact inhibits at least one disassembly stage of the one or more disassembly stages of the optimized disassembly plan (Kerin, Page 172, safety limit set to minimize the risk, thus by minimizing it eliminates solutions that are not within the limit).
Regarding claim 20. Kerin and Annaiyappa teach the computer program product of claim 19, further comprising:
generating a new disassembly stage (Kerin, Page 172, minimize the risk, thus by minimizing it generates new stages);
replacing the at least one disassembly stage of the one or more disassembly stages inhibited by the object impact with the new disassembly stage (Kerin, Page 172, minimize the risk, thus by minimizing it replaces the non optimal); and
dynamically updating the optimized disassembly plan with the new disassembly stage (Kerin, Page 172, minimize the risk, thus by minimizing it dynamically updating).
Regarding claim 21. Kerin and Annaiyappa teach the method of claim 6, further comprising:
determining one or more object stabilization tactics for the one or more disassembly stages inhibited by the object impact (Kerin, Page 130, limits the impact of the DT in reducing disassembly uncertainties)(Kerin, Page 192, different impact being determined),
wherein the one or more object stabilization tactics include at least the one or more disassembly stages a stabilization is added and removed (Kerin, Page 20, minimizing environmental impact and optimizing resource efficiencies and profits)(Kerin, Page 26, waste minimization).
Regarding claim 22. Kerin and Annaiyappa teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving additional object data associated with the object (Kerin, Page 92, Data processing and storage, preprocessed data);
performing additional simulations utilizing the one or more digital twins and the additional object data received (Kerin, Page 123, Fig 4-3, Storage of data, becomes part of the loop for simulation to deliver performance); and
adjusting the optimized disassembling plan based on object impacts identified based on the additional simulations performed (Annaiyappa, Par 41, incorporate alternative tasks to reduce or eliminate impacts to the success of the overall rig plan)( Annaiyappa, Par 86, simulation can be used to determine impacts of changing the assembly or disassembly tasks, adjusted to optimize the rig tasks for disassembling the rig components).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGEL JAVIER CALLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571)-272-3676. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights