DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on April 22, 2026.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-13, and 16-26 are under examination.
Claims are objected to for informalities.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-13, and 16-26 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for reciting new matter.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-13, and 16-26 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-13, and 16-26 are allowable over the prior art.
Response To Amendments And Arguments
EXAMINER’S NOTE: Concerning claim 1 limitations:
when the digital twin operates during a peak operational period or processes an order that meets a predefined threshold, the one or more processors selects a model optimized for accuracy, and
when the digital twin operates outside a peak operational period or processes an order below the threshold, the one or more processors selects a model optimized for conserving power and processing resources;
These limitations are contingent limitations, as the conditions precedent for the potential actions taken may never occur. Specifically, (1) the digital twin may never operate and (2) the digital twin may never process an order. Without explicitly specifying that these conditions are satisfied within the claim, these conditions precedent may never be satisfied, such that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the resulting events may never occur, conferrring the limitations with no patentable weight. This issue does not apply to the analogous apparatuses of claims 7 and 13, because the configurations/stored instructions exist as elements of the programming regardless of whether the configurations/stored instructions are ever used. The examination will proceed as if these features of claim 1 have patentable weight for the purposes of a thorough examination and compact prosecution. To confer patentable weight on these limitations for claim 1, the claim will have to be amended to ensure that at least one of the conditions are always met. For example, the Applicant could amend to indicate that the elements of the claim occur during operation of the digital twin, such as modifying the claim to recite “selecting, by the one or more processors, during operation of the digital twin, a model […]” This would make it such that the operation is occurring, and the condition of during or outside of peak hours/harvest time must always be satisfied (eliminating the contingency). The Applicant should take care not to introduce new matter.
35 USC 101: WITH REGARD TO THE INDEPENDENT CLAIMS: The Arguments presented for 35 USC 101 have been considered but are not persuasive. The arguments will be addressed in the order presented in the response.
Receiving Data From Sensors: The Applicant notes that a person cannot receive data from sensors. However, receiving data from sensors is mere data gathering and well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity under MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d), respectively.
Receiving A Knowledge Graph: Receiving a knowledge graph as data is mere data gathering and well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity under MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d), respectively.
Using A Knowledge Graph For Determinations: A person is practically able to use a knowledge graph to make determinations and associations mentally or with simple aids, so it does not provide an additional limitation that confer eligibility.
Refraining From Processing: A person is practically able to refrain from processing a possibility mentally or with simple aids, so it does not provide an additional limitation that confer eligibility. For example, a person can decide that an event is insufficient on its own to indicate a condition (e.g., grey skies could mean but does not necessarily mean it will rain) is satisfied that requires further processing.
Receiving Steps: These are treated as the above receiving steps.
Selection Based On Conditions: A person is practically able to select elements based on conditions mentally or with simple aids, so it does not provide an additional limitation that confer eligibility.
Selection of a Model: An interesting issue with the claims is that there are recited digital twins and recited models, but there is no claimed link between the two. Accordingly, the selection of a model to have an effect on something will not confer eligibility unless it is related to the digital twin, and it is clear from the claim that the digital twin is operating using that model.
Selection From A Database: The Applicant asserts that a person cannot select from a database because humans do not retrieve data from databases. In reality, this is a combined step of receiving data from a database and then selecting based on the received data. The receiving is mere data gathering and WURC for the same reasons as the other receiving steps. In fact, one could argue that this limitation, even with the selection. is entirely insignificant extra-solution activity and WURC according to MPEP 2106.05(g) examples: “i. Limiting a database index to XML tags” “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display”; and 2106.05(d) examples: “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network” “vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price.” It is also reasonable to argue that the selection is practically performable in the mind or with simple aids, rendering it an element of the abstract idea that cannot confer eligibility. Either way, the limitation fails to confer eligibility.
Updating a Prediction: Updating a prediction based on other determinations is practically performable in the mind or with simple aids, rendering it an element of the abstract idea that cannot confer eligibility. Either way, the limitation fails to confer eligibility.
Transmitting […] To […] Sensors For Adaptive Monitoring: The transmission is insignificant extra-solution activity and WURC under MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d) for the reasons recited below, so this fails to confer eligibility. The recited purpose is an end to be achieved with no meaningful patentable weight, as there is no recitation that the sensors are changed in any way.
Providing a Visualization: The display of a result is nothing more than insignificant post-solution activity and WURC for the reasons stated below. Also, providing an output image is a generic computer implementation, recited at a high level, or and “apply it” step as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly this limitation fails to confer eligibility.
Step 2B: The Applicant asserts that the claim saves power and compute resources, however, there is no recitation in the claim of the activities that save power. The claim merely states determinations and how those determinations could potentially (but are not actually) used. For example, a model is selected, but there is no recitation that the model is used or how it relates to the digital twin. Also, the sensors receive data that could be used for a purpose, but the claim does not recite that the functions of the sensors are modified in any way. Accordingly, the claim fails to provide any improvement to anything. It merely makes a determination that is transmitted and displayed but never used. This distinguishes from the holding in DDR:
In particular, the ’399 patent’s claims address the problem of retaining website visitors that, if adhering to the routine, conventional functioning of Internet hyper link protocol, would be instantly transported away from a host’s website after “clicking” on an advertisement and activating a hyperlink.
The claim in DDR directly provides the advantage within the claim language. Here, the system does nothing other than transmit and display determined data, and, because the recited model is not linked in the claim to the digital twin, there is not any clear technical effect on the digital twin or the real environment the digital twin is intended to mimic at all based on the determinations used to select the model. That is, contrary to the Applicant’s assertions, the claim conserves neither power nor processing resources. Accordingly, the Applicant’s arguments and amendments are not persuasive, and the rejections are maintained.
35 USC 102: The Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered and are persuasive. The existing art rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 13, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 7, and 13 recite, “wherein determining that the first event is associated with one or more probable second events based on a hierarchy of event types in the knowledge graph […]” This appears to be a typo. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted to mean, “wherein determining that the first event is associated with one or more probable second events is based on a hierarchy of event types in the knowledge graph […].”
Claim 22 recites, “processors,” which appears to by a spelling typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-13, and 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The independent claims recite:
when the digital twin operates during a peak operational period or processes an order that meets a predefined threshold, the one or more processors selects a model optimized for accuracy, and
when the digital twin operates outside a peak operational period or processes an order below the threshold, the one or more processors selects a model optimized for conserving power and processing resources;
The specification does not explicitly recite a “peak operational period.” The specification describes harvest seasons in paragraphs [0024]-[0025], but this is merely one example which does not clearly lead one of ordinary skill in the art to the class of “peak operational periods.” (See MPEP 2163.05(I)(B), In re Herschler, 591 F.2d 693, 697, 200 USPQ 711, 714 (CCPA 1979) (disclosure of corticosteriod in DMSO sufficient to support claims drawn to a method of using a mixture of a "physiologically active steroid" and DMSO because "use of known chemical compounds in a manner auxiliary to the invention must have a corresponding written description only so specific as to lead one having ordinary skill in the art to that class of compounds.) Accordingly, this feature recites new matter and should be removed.
Dependent claims that depend from the rejected claims are rejected based on their dependence.
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.
Subject Matter Eligibility
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-6 are processes. Claims 7-20 are machines.
Independent Claims
Step 2A, Prong 1
Independent claims -----1, 7, and 13 recite a mental process, an abstract idea.
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites:
[…]
determining that the first event is associated with one or more probable second events, wherein determining that the first event is associated with the probable second events based on a hierarchy of event types in the knowledge graph;
(Mental Evaluation, Mental Process - Determining that a first event is associated with a probably second event based on a hierarchy of event types is practically performable in the mind or with aid of pen and paper. A person can anticipate that if they see rain that the ground will be wet.)
refraining […] from processing the first input for a period of time, wherein the period of time is indicated by a data structure that indicates relationships between different types of events in the hierarchy of reports; and (Mental Evaluation, Mental Process – Refraining from processing/considering data at a particular time is practically performable in the mind or with aid of pen and paper. For example, a person can decide to hold off on considering what to wear in the rain if the rain might stop.)
[…]
selecting, by the one or more processors, a model, from the plurality of possible models, based on a context associated with a current state of the digital twin and a context associated with the first event and the one or more probable second events, wherein the one or more processors selects the model from the plurality of possible models based on contextual operating conditions, such that when the digital twin operates during a peak operational period or processes an order that meets a predefined threshold, the one or more processors selects a model optimized for accuracy, and when the digital twin operates outside a peak operational period or processes an order below the threshold, the one or more processors selects a model optimized for conserving power and processing resources; (Mental Evaluation, Mental Process – Selecting data based on a model is practically performable in the mind or with aid of pen and paper.)
updating, by the one or more processors, the prediction associated with the digital twin based on the selected model, the first input associated with the first event, and the second input associated with the one or more probable second events; (Mental Evaluation, Mental Process – Modifying a prediction associated with a model based on elapsed time or a likely event is practically performable in the mind or with aid of pen and paper. For example, a person can decide someone is likely to wear a rain coat if it rains long enough, which would be associated with a model that is configured to indicate that the coat is being worn.)
Claim 1 recites mental evaluations, mental processes that comprise an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Claims 7 and 13 recite substantially the same features as those discussed with respect to claim 1, so claims 7 and 13 recite an abstract idea for at least the same reasons.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The claims fail to recite additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims recite the following additional limitations:
[Claims 1, 7, and 13]
receive/ing, […] from one or more sensors a first input associated with a first event; wherein the first input comprises measurements that satisfy thresholds associated with the first event;
receive/ing, […] from an event database, a knowledge graph associated with the first event;
[…]
receive/ing, by the one or more processors, a second input associated with the one or more probable second events;
receive/ing, by the one or more processors, from a model database, a plurality of possible models to apply;
select/ing, by the one or more processors, a model, from the plurality of possible models, based on a context associated with a current state of the digital twin and a context associated with the first event and the one or more probable second events, wherein the one or more processors selects the model from the plurality of possible models based on contextual operating conditions, such that when the digital twin operates during a peak operational period or processes an order that meets a predefined threshold, the one or more processors selects a model optimized for accuracy, and when the digital twin operates outside a peak operational period or processes an order below the threshold, the one or more processors selects a model optimized for conserving power and processing resources;
The steps are mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity similar to the MPEP 2106.05(g) examples: “e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.” “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions” “v. Consulting and updating an activity log” “vi. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood” “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display.” The steps are insignificant extra-solution activity, and, under MPEP 2106.05(g), fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2.
[Claim 1]
[…] by a/the one or more processors […]
[…] from one or more sensors and at an interface associated with a digital twin, […]
[…] digital twin[…]
[…] a storage […]
[…] a data structure […]
[Claim 7]
A device, comprising:
one or more memories; and
one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
[…]
from one or more sensors and at an interface associated with a digital twin,
[…] digital twin[…]
[…] a storage […]
[…] a data structure […]
[Claim 13]
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising:
one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to:
[…], from one or more sensors and at an interface associated with a digital twin, […]
[…] a storage […]
[…] a data structure […]
[…] digital twin […]
These are generic computing elements recited at a high level and, under MPEP 2106.05(f), fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2. Should it be found otherwise, these limitations merely limit the abstract idea top a particular technological field and, under MPEP 2106.05(h), fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2.
[Claims 1, 7, and 13]
transmit/ting, by the one or more processors, the updated predictions as updated instructions to the one or more sensors for adaptive monitoring in an industrial environment; and
provide/ing, to at least a user device by the one or more processors, a visualization associated with the updated prediction, wherein the updated prediction includes a text indication or a graph of the updated prediction.
Transmitting and displaying data are post-solution, insignificant extra-solution activity similar to the MPEP 2106.05(g) examples: “e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.” “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display” “ii. Printing or downloading generated menus.” Also, transmitting and displaying data are generic computing, “apply it” steps, recited at a high level, similar to the MPEP 2106.05(f) examples: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data)” “(i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information)” "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data" “i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information.” Accordingly, under MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(f), these features fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 fail to recite any additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims fail to recite additional limitations that combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept.
The claims recite the following additional limitations:
[Claims 1, 7, and 13]
receive/ing, […] from one or more sensors a first input associated with a first event; wherein the first input comprises measurements that satisfy thresholds associated with the first event;
receive/ing, […] from an event database, a knowledge graph associated with the first event;
[…]
receive/ing, by the one or more processors, a second input associated with the one or more probable second events;
receive/ing, by the one or more processors, from a model database, a plurality of possible models to apply;
select/ing, by the one or more processors, a model, from the plurality of possible models, based on a context associated with a current state of the digital twin and a context associated with the first event and the one or more probable second events, wherein the one or more processors selects the model from the plurality of possible models based on contextual operating conditions, such that when the digital twin operates during a peak operational period or processes an order that meets a predefined threshold, the one or more processors selects a model optimized for accuracy, and when the digital twin operates outside a peak operational period or processes an order below the threshold, the one or more processors selects a model optimized for conserving power and processing resources;
The steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity similar to the MPEP 2106.05(d) examples: “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network” “iii. Electronic recordkeeping” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory” “v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document” “i. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood by any means” The steps are WURC and, as previously demonstrated, insignificant extra-solution activity, and, under MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(g), fail to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
[Claim 1]
[…] by a/the one or more processors […]
[…] from one or more sensors and at an interface associated with a digital twin, […]
[…] digital twin[…]
[…] a storage […]
[…] a data structure […]
[Claim 7]
A device, comprising:
one or more memories; and
one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
[…]
from one or more sensors and at an interface associated with a digital twin,
[…] digital twin[…]
[…] a storage […]
[…] a data structure […]
[Claim 13]
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising:
one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to:
[…], from one or more sensors and at an interface associated with a digital twin, […]
[…] a storage […]
[…] a data structure […]
[…] digital twin […]
These are generic computing elements recited at a high level and, under MPEP 2106.05(f), fail to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B. Should it be found otherwise, these limitations merely limit the abstract idea top a particular technological field and, under MPEP 2106.05(h), fail to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
[Claims 1, 7, and 13]
transmit/ting, by the one or more processors, the updated predictions as updated instructions to the one or more sensors for adaptive monitoring in an industrial environment; and
provide/ing, to at least a user device by the one or more processors, a visualization associated with the updated prediction, wherein the updated prediction includes a text indication or a graph of the updated prediction.
Transmitting and displaying data are WURC activity similar to the MPEP 2106.05(d) examples: “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network” “iii. Electronic recordkeeping” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory” “v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document” “iii. Restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement” “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics” “vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price.” Also, transmitting and displaying data are generic computing, “apply it” steps, recited at a high level, similar to the MPEP 2106.05(f) examples: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data)” “(i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information)” "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data" “i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information.” Accordingly, under MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f), these features fail to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 lack additional limitations that combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims:
The dependent claims are also ineligible for the following reasons. Note: The hardware of the sensors, computing device, and CRM have already been addressed as failing to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(f), and will not be further addressed with respect to the dependent claims. Also, claims identifying what data represents merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological field and, under MPEP 2106.05(h), fails to confer eligibility.
Claims 5 and 16
wherein determining that the first event is associated with the one or more probable second events comprises: inputting, to a machine learning model, the first input; and receiving, from the machine learning model, output indicating the one or more probable second events.
This merely states that a generic machine learning model conducts the inference of the determining step of the respective independent claim.
The inference is an element of the abstract idea for the same reasons as the respective determining step in the independent claims.
The use of the machine learning model for the inference is the user of a generic computing element that, under MPEP 2106.05(f), fails to confer eligibility.
Claims 5 and 16 fail to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claims 5 and 16 are ineligible.
Claims 6 and 17
further comprising: filtering the first input in order to generate the updated prediction based on the second input.
Filtering data to make a determination is an evaluation practically performable in the mind or with aid of pen and paper, so it is a mental, process, an element of the abstract idea.
Claims 6 and 17 fail to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claims 6 and 17 are ineligible.
Claims 9 and 18
wherein […], to select the model, are configured to:
calculate a corresponding cost and a corresponding error for each model of the plurality of possible models; and
Calculation of cost and error is both (1) an evaluation practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and/or a calculator, a mental process, and abstract idea; and (2) a mathematical calculation, a mathematical concept, an abstract idea.
select the model based on the corresponding cost and the corresponding error for the model.
Selection of a model based on data is an evaluation practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and/or a calculator, a mental process, and abstract idea;
These abstract idea elements merge with the abstract idea of the respective independent claims.
Claims 9 and 18 fail to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claims 9 and 18 are ineligible.
Claims 10 and 19
wherein the context associated with the current state of the digital twin comprises a location associated with the digital twin, a time associated with the digital twin, or a current function associated with the digital twin.
This merely characterizes what data represents, which merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and, under MPEP 2106.05(h), fails to confer eligibility.
Claims 10 and 19 fail to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claims 10 and 19 are ineligible.
Claims 11 and 20
wherein the context associated with the event comprises a location associated with the event, a time associated with the event, or a current function associated with the event.
This merely characterizes what data represents, which merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and, under MPEP 2106.05(h), fails to confer eligibility.
Claims 11 and 20 fail to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claims 11 and 20 are ineligible.
Claim 12
receive one or more additional inputs based on the selected model
This receive step is WURC and insignificant extra-solution activity and fails to confer eligibility for the same reasons as the receive/receiving steps in the respective independent claims.
Claim 12 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 12 is ineligible.
Claim 21
wherein the first input comprises at least one of temperature measurements, humidity measurements, pressure measurements, or signals from machines such as manufacturing machines
This merely characterizes what data represents, which merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and, under MPEP 2106.05(h), fails to confer eligibility.
This is also an element of the receiving steps, so it is insignificant extra-solution activity and WURC for at least the same reason as the receiving steps.
Claim 21 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 21 is ineligible.
Claims 22, 24, and 25
further comprising updating, by the one or more processorss , one or more other digital twins that are related to the digital twin associated with the updated prediction.
According to the broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim merely involves transmitting data and fails to confer eligibility for at least the same reasons as the transmitting steps of the respective independent claims.
Claims 22, 24, and 25 fail to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claims 22, 24, and 25 are ineligible.
Claims 23 and 26
wherein the updated predictions include a smaller expected quantity of resources, such that the digital twin host disables sensors associated with a portion of an operational area expected to remain inactive, or a smaller expected quantity of outputs, such that the digital twin host disables sensors associated with a facility predicted to remain idle.
These do not positively recite that the disabling of the sensors is caused by the updated predictions. For example, the broadest reasonable reading of the claims include that the disabling of the sensors is indicative of and not caused by the updated predictions. Accordingly, in their broadest senses, these alternative limitations merely recite elements of the determinations themselves, rather than causal actions taken. This means these limitations are elements of the evaluations of the updated predictions, making the limitations elements of the abstract idea.
Claims 23 and 26 fail to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claims 23 and 26 are ineligible.
Claims Allowable Over Art
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-13, and 16-26 are allowable over the prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The limitation(s) of the claim include,
[…]
selecting, by the one or more processors, a model, from the plurality of possible models, based on a context associated with a current state of the digital twin and a context associated with the first event and the one or more probable second events,
wherein the one or more processors selects the model from the plurality of possible models based on contextual operating conditions, such that
when the digital twin operates during a peak operational period or processes an order that meets a predefined threshold, the one or more processors selects a model optimized for accuracy, and
when the digital twin operates outside a peak operational period or processes an order below the threshold, the one or more processors selects a model optimized for conserving power and processing resources;
updating, by the one or more processors, the prediction associated with the digital twin based on the selected model, the first input associated with the first event, and the second input associated with the one or more probable second events;
transmitting, by the one or more processors, the updated predictions as updated instructions to the one or more sensors for adaptive monitoring in an industrial environment; and […]
in combination with the remaining limitations.
The closest prior art references of record are Thiruvenkatanthan, Straat, Bulut, Eazzette, and Hendricks. Thiruvenkatanthan teaches selection of different workflow models based on related factors detected by sensors. It further teaches that this can be done dynamically based on different sets of sensor data inputs over time. Straat teaches specific elements of supervised learning, such as determining errors and costs for training a model, that were not explicitly taught in Thiruvenkatanthan. Eazzette teaches dynamic control of sensors in an environment represented by a digital twin to limit power use under certain conditions. Hendricks teaches dynamic control of sensors based on whether a human is present in the environment represented by the digital twin. Bulut teaches generating extra synthetic sensor data for a digital twin based on insufficiency of the actual available sensor data.
The references alone or in combination do not disclose the limitations including the determination of probable events from a detection of an event and refraining from processing the first event for a period until a second event is detected regarding on of the probable events, and then determining an appropriate model based on a knowledge graph and the events for updating a prediction of the digital twin, the appropriate model responsive to operational needs for the sensors, and communicating the updated prediction to sensors to affect the operations of the sensors, without the use of impermissible hindsight. Therefore, claims 1, 5-7, 9-13, and 16-26 as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(From Prior Office Action)
US 2023/0367992 A1 to Chakravarthy et al. (Teaches using knowledge graphs with machine learning models)
US 2021/0271877 A1 to Tran et al. (Teaches using ontological knowledge databases akin to knowledge graphs for training and inference with machine learning models)
US 2022/0075515 A1 to Floren et al. (Teaches machine learning techniques using ontologies akin to knowledge graphs for training and inference with machine learning models)
US 2023/0394198 A1 to Mukherjee et al. (Teaches machine learning techniques using ontologies akin to knowledge graphs for training and inference with machine learning models in a digital twin environment)
US 2023/0161934 A1 to Ganesan et al. (Teaches machine learning techniques using ontologies akin to knowledge graphs for training and inference with machine learning models)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY MICHAEL WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:00-7:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2188 /RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights