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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This office action is in response to the original filing of 09/23/2022. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the limitations " updating, by the global digital twin of the first device, a model based on the task assignment ", “update a model based on the task assignment”. However, the claims do not previously introduce or positively recite a “model.” As presently drafted, it is unclear what “model” is being updated, how the model was generated or obtained, or to what antecedent basis the term refers.
Because no model is earlier recited in the claim and renders the scope of the claims unclear. It is therefore ambiguous how one would update a model that has not been previously defined or introduced in the claim. The following steps of “receiving …model update….” and “update the model …based on the model update” are also unclear what “model” is being updated.
Applicant is required to amend the claim to clarify the identity and role of the “model” being updated.
The dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also rejected under the same rationale.
Claims will be addressed “as best understood” by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention, when the claims are taken as a whole, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims: For claim 1, the claim recites a method / device /medium, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: Claim 1, in part, recites
“generating, by the global digital twin of the first device, a task assignment; updating, by the global digital twin of the first device, a model based on the task assignment…; updating, by the global digital twin of the first device, the model based on the model update.” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, generating a task covers someone mentally writing down a task.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements:
“providing, by a global digital twin of a first device, a communication mode assignment, of a communication mode, to a local digital twin of a second device…” “providing, by the global digital twin of the first device, the task assignment to the local digital twin” and “receiving, by the global digital twin of the first device and from the local digital twin, a model update associated with the local digital twin” amount to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“providing, by a global digital twin of a first device, a communication mode assignment, of a communication mode, to a local digital twin of a second device…” “providing, by the global digital twin of the first device, the task assignment to the local digital twin” and “receiving, by the global digital twin of the first device and from the local digital twin, a model update associated with the local digital twin” amount to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, the claims do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
2A – Prong 1: Claim 8 / 15, in part, recite
“generate a task assignment based on constraints and a knowledge base”; “update a model based on the task assignment”; “update the model based on the model update”; ”update a global metadata repository based on the metadata update.” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, generating a task covers someone mentally writing down a task.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 8/15 recite the additional elements:
provide, by a global digital twin of the first device, a communication mode assignment, of a communication mode, to a local digital twin of a second device…” “provide the task assignment to the local digital twin”” receive, from the local digital twin, a model update associated with the local digital twin” “receive a metadata update associated with metadata generated by the local digital twin” amount to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to” “one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a first device” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, see e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
provide, by a global digital twin of the first device, a communication mode assignment, of a communication mode, to a local digital twin of a second device…” “provide the task assignment to the local digital twin”” receive, from the local digital twin, a model update associated with the local digital twin” “receive a metadata update associated with metadata generated by the local digital twin” amount to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to” “one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a first device” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, see e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, the claims do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2 recites further comprising: “receiving a metadata update associated with metadata generated by the local digital twin” amounts to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)); and “updating a global metadata repository based on the metadata update”
Claim 3 recites “further comprising: receiving a state update associated with a state of the local digital twin; and updating a local twin repository based on the state update” amounts to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 4 recites further comprising: “assigning a task to the local digital twin based on characteristics of the task, a type of data associated with the task, and past task executions by the local digital twin. amounts to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 5 recites “further comprising: regulating execution of application processes between the global digital twin and the local digital twin; determining a learning mechanism and a local communication mode of the local digital twin; and determining the communication mode assignment based on the local communication mode of the local digital twin under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Claim 6 recites “further comprising: regulating a data flow between the global digital twin and the local digital twin based on policies” amounts to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 7 recites “wherein the global digital twin is provided in a public cloud infrastructure and the local digital twin is provided in an edge server or an end device amounts to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 9 recites further configured to: divide a learning task into learning subtasks; determine assignments for the learning subtasks based on computation and communication costs associated with the learning subtasks; and assign each of the learning subtasks to each of a plurality of local digital twins, associated with a plurality of devices, based on the assignments, under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Claim 10 recites wherein the plurality of local digital twins are configured to coordinate execution of the learning subtasks to reduce computational overload amounts to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 11 recites further configured to: determine a data quality and a data collection rate associated with data communicated with the local digital twin; process the data quality and the data collection rate, with a Q-learning based model, to determine an optimized policy for data quality management; and update the data collection rate based on the optimized policy, under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Claim 12 recites further configured to: provide provisioning data to another local digital twin associated with a third device; receive, from the local digital twin of the second device, data and an operating state of the third device based on providing the provisioning data; generate another task assignment, for the other local digital twin, based on the data and the operating state; and provide the other task assignment to the other local digital twin amounts to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 13 recites further configured to: receive an update associated with the local digital twin of the second device; and execute the update for the global digital twin of the first device amounts to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 14 recites further configured to: provide an update, associated with the global digital twin, to the local digital twin to permit the local digital twin to execute the update for the local digital twin, under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Claims 16-20 are similar in scope as claims 4-6, 9 and 11, respectively; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luan et al “The Paradigm of Digital Twin Communications” (May 2021).
Claim 1. Luan discloses a method, comprising:
providing, by a global digital twin of a first device, a communication mode assignment, of a communication mode, to a local digital twin of a second device, wherein the communication mode assignment is to cause the local digital twin to communicate with the global digital twin via the communication mode (Section II b,d, fig. 2, Section IV A);
generating, by the global digital twin of the first device, a task assignment (Section IV B, Section V C);
providing, by the global digital twin of the first device, the task assignment to the local digital twin (Section IV B);
updating, by the global digital twin of the first device, a model based on the task assignment (Section V C, Section III Synchronization);
receiving, by the global digital twin of the first device and from the local digital twin, a model update associated with the local digital twin (Section V C); and
updating, by the global digital twin of the first device, the model based on the model update (Section V C) [DR is updating the model(s) according to the provided answers].
Claim 3. Luan discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a state update associated with a state of the local digital twin; and updating a local twin repository based on the state update (..the PE works in the real-world environment for practical task executions. The DR keeps real-time communications with their PE to learn PE’s status. With such information, the DR works on the cloud as a collaborating peer to the PE to exploit the cloud resource to help the PE on finishing its tasks) (Introduction para. 3 and Section II b).
Claim 4. Luan discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: assigning a task to the local digital twin based on characteristics of the task, a type of data associated with the task, and past task executions by the local digital twin (Section V C, Section III) [wherein different models hold tasks that were performed in the past].
Claim 5. Luan discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: regulating execution of application processes between the global digital twin and the local digital twin (Section III); determining a learning mechanism and a local communication mode of the local digital twin; and determining the communication mode assignment based on the local communication mode of the local digital twin (Section IV A. Model of Communications).
Claim 6. Luan discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: regulating a data flow between the global digital twin and the local digital twin based on policies (…to maintain the privacy of DT system, computing and analysis applications are required to only contain a bidirectional intra-twin communication link to transmit data and information with simulation platform, while the simulation platform has the permission to determine whether to exchange data with external devices according to the task requirements.) (Section IV C).
Claim 7. Luan discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the global digital twin is provided in a public cloud infrastructure and the local digital twin is provided in an edge server or an end device (fig. 3).
Claims 16-18 are similar in scope as claims 4-6; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 2, 8, 11-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luan et al “The Paradigm of Digital Twin Communications” (May 2021) in view of Cella et al. (US 2022/0035341).
Claim 2. Luan discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving an update associated with data generated by the local digital twin (Section V C); and updating a global repository based on the update (Section V C) but fail to explicitly discloses metadata of the digital twin.
However, CELLA discloses digital twin metadata update ([1161]). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the feature of CELLA in Luan. One would have been motivated to allow global digital twin not only to obtain data, but to convert the data into insights and to translate the insights into well-informed decisions and timely execution of efficient operations.
Claim 8. Luan discloses a first device, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (figs. 1-2), configured to:
provide, by a global digital twin of the first device, a communication mode assignment, of a communication mode, to a local digital twin of a second device, wherein the communication mode assignment is to cause the local digital twin to communicate with the global digital twin via the communication mode (Section II b,d, fig. 2, Section IV A);
generate a task assignment based on constraints and a knowledge base (Section IV B);
provide the task assignment to the local digital twin (Section IV B);
update a model based on the task assignment (Section V C, Section III Synchronization);
receive, from the local digital twin, a model update associated with the local digital twin (Section V C); update the model based on the model update (Section V C) [DR is updating the model(s) according to the provided answers];
receive a metadata update associated with data generated by the local digital twin (Section V C); and update a global repository based on the update (Section V C) but fail to explicitly discloses metadata of the digital twin.
However, CELLA discloses digital twin metadata update ([1161]). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the feature of CELLA in Luan. One would have been motivated to allow global digital twin not only to obtain data, but to convert the data into insights and to translate the insights into well-informed decisions and timely execution of efficient operations.
Claim 11. Luan CELLA disclose the first device of claim 8, Luan further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine a data quality and a data collection rate associated with data communicated with the local digital twin (With the predictable clock behaviors, the synchronization-related timestamp exchange is significantly reduced, and a high quality data exchange network with high clock accuracy and low communication resource consumption can be derived.)(Section IV A,B, Section V A); process the data quality and the data collection rate, to determine an optimized policy for data quality management (Section V, para 3); Cella further discloses with a Q-learning based model and update the data collection rate based on the optimized policy ([0788]). One would have been motivated to allow global digital twin not only to obtain data, but to convert the data into insights and to translate the insights into well-informed decisions and timely execution of efficient operations.
Claim 12. Luan and CELLA disclose the first device of claim 8, Luan further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
provide provisioning data to another local digital twin associated with a third device (fig. 3);
receive, from the local digital twin of the second device, data and an operating state of the third device based on providing the provisioning data (..the PE works in the real-world environment for practical task executions. The DR keeps real-time communications with their PE to learn PE’s status. With such information, the DR works on the cloud as a collaborating peer to the PE to exploit the cloud resource to help the PE on finishing its tasks) (Introduction para. 3 and Section II b; fig. 2);
generate another task assignment, for the other local digital twin, based on the data and the operating state (Section IV B, Section V C); and provide the other task assignment to the other local digital twin (Section IV B, Section V C).
Claim 13. Luan and CELLA disclose the first device of claim 8, Luan further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive an update associated with the local digital twin of the second device (Section V C) [DR is updating the model(s) according to the provided answers]; and execute the update for the global digital twin of the first device (Section V C).
Claim 14. Luan and CELLA disclose the first device of claim 8, Luan further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: provide an update, associated with the global digital twin, to the local digital twin to permit the local digital twin to execute the update for the local digital twin (Section V C) [DR is updating the model(s) according to the provided answers].
Claims 15 and 20 are similar in scope as claims 8 and 11; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
8. Claim(s) 9-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luan et al “The Paradigm of Digital Twin Communications”(May 2021) in view of Cella et al. (US 2022/0035341) and further in view of Ji et al. (US 2021/0319281).
Claim 9. Luan and CELLA disclose the first device of claim 8, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: divide a learning task into learning subtasks; determine assignments for the learning subtasks based on computation and communication costs associated with the learning subtasks; and assign each of the learning subtasks to each of a plurality of local digital twins, associated with a plurality of devices, based on the assignments.
However, Ji discloses divide a learning task into learning subtasks (…the AI module 110 divides the computation task into different subtasks, and assigns the subtasks to different client devices 106) ([0064]); determine assignments for the learning subtasks based on computation and communication costs associated with the learning subtasks (..the AI module 110 divides the computation task into a set of subtasks based on available device resources. For instance, consider that the AI module 110 determines processing resources (e.g., processor bandwidth, memory bandwidth, processing speed, and so forth) for each of the available client devices, and by aggregating (e.g., summing) the processing resources for each client device, estimates total available processing resources for the set of client devices) ([0064]); and assign each of the learning subtasks to each of a plurality of local digital twins, associated with a plurality of devices, based on the assignments (The AI module 110 can then generate subtasks by estimating a total processing resource usage that will be utilized the perform the computation task, correlating the estimated processing usage to estimated available processing resources of the client devices 106, and assigning subtasks to individual client devices 106 based on their respective estimated processing usage) ([0064], [0070]). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the feature of Ji in Luan. One would have been motivated to do so to mitigate both performance and security challenges.
Claim 10. Luan CELLA and Ji disclose the first device of claim 9, Ji further discloses wherein the plurality of local digital twins are configured to coordinate execution of the learning subtasks to reduce computational overload ([0033]). One would have been motivated to do so to mitigate both performance and security challenges.
Claim 19 is similar in scope as of claim 9; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Phenuel S. Salomon whose telephone number is (571) 270-1699. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (Alternate Friday Off) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Usmaan Saeed can be reached on (571) 272-4046. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-3800.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHENUEL S SALOMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2146