DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-19 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 14, line 2 includes the typo “wherein the path information obtained from”. Examiner interprets as “wherein the path information is obtained from" for examination purposes.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 9 and 14-19 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the second time interval" in line(s) 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While there is “a second time interval" in another dependent claim, there is no "a second time interval" anteceding this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the first time interval" in line(s) 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While there is “a first time interval" in another dependent claim, there is no "a first time interval" anteceding this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the path information" in line(s) 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no "path information" anteceding this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 15, the same deficiency applies.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the optimized path" in line(s) 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While there is “an optimized path" in another dependent claim, there is no "an optimized path" anteceding this limitation in the claim.
As to claim(s) 17, 18, the same deficiency applies.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the traffic modelling" in line(s) 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no "traffic modelling" anteceding this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections -35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Independent claim 1, Step 1: a system (system = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes)
Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One: claim recites:
for each mobile element, determine, in response to an occurrence of a triggering condition, a position of the mobile element
The limitations are substantially drawn to mental concepts. The limitations, as drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Information and/or data also fall within the realm of abstract ideas because information and data are intangible. See Electric Power Group1 (Electric Power hereinafter): “Information… is an intangible”. As to these limitations, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation "can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper". These activities can be characterized as entailing a user analyzing (observations, evaluations) and deciding/determining (judgments), i.e., processing information and/or data, that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes, then it falls within the "(c) Mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong two: The claim recites the additional elements: a digital twin datastore and one or more processors; wherein the digital twin datastore stores a transportation-system digital twin including real-world-element digital twins embedded therein; they are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications.
As to the limitations “for representing attributes in a transportation system digital twin", they are no more than intended use.
As to the limitations “wherein the transportation system digital twin corresponds to a transportation system; wherein each real-world-element digital twin provides a digital twin of a respective real-world element that is disposed within the transportation system; wherein the real-world-element digital twins include mobile-element digital twins; wherein each mobile-element digital twin provides a digital twin of a respective mobile element within the real-world elements… and update, in response to determining the position of the mobile element, the mobile-element digital twin corresponding to the mobile element to reflect the position of the mobile element", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they invoke computers merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 1, Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, claim 1 recites the additional elements: a digital twin datastore and one or more processors; wherein the digital twin datastore stores a transportation-system digital twin including real-world-element digital twins embedded therein, they are interpreted as drawn to a generic computer. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of a computer to implement the abstract idea of a mathematical or mental algorithm has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. The implementation on a computing system is described in the specification (underline emphasis added):
"[753]… A processor may be any kind of computational or processing device capable of executing program instructions, codes, binary instructions and the like".
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the limitations “for representing attributes in a transportation system digital twin" are no more than intended use, because no actual representation of attributes is ever performed in the body of the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims, Prong One: The claim limitations further the mental concepts of their independent claims. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above).
As to the limitations "4… wherein the triggering condition is an expiration of a dynamically determined time interval", "5… wherein the dynamically determined time interval is increased in response to determining a single mobile element within the transportation system", "6… wherein the dynamically determined time interval is increased in response to determining an occurrence of a predetermined period of reduced environmental activity", "7… wherein the dynamically determined time interval is decreased in response to determining abnormal activity within the transportation system", "8… wherein the dynamically determined time interval is a first time interval, and the dynamically determined time interval is decreased to a second time interval in response to determining movement of the mobile element", "9… wherein the dynamically determined time interval is increased from the second time interval to the first time interval in response to determining nonmovement of the mobile element for at least a third time interval", "10… wherein the triggering condition is expiration of a time interval", "12… wherein the triggering condition is proximity of the mobile element to another of the mobile elements", "13… wherein the triggering condition is based on density of movable elements within the transportation system", as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation "can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper". These activities can be characterized as entailing a user analyzing (observations, evaluations) and deciding/determining (judgments), i.e., processing information and/or data, that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
As to the limitations "11… wherein the time interval is calculated based on a probability that the mobile element has moved", "15… calculating, using the plurality of sensors within the transportation system, an optimized path for the mobile element", and "17… wherein the optimized path minimizes interactions between mobile elements and humans within the transportation system", these extra elements are substantially drawn to mathematical concepts: mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, and calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers abstract ideas, then it falls within groupings of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes).
Dependent claims, Step 2A, Prong two:
The claims recite “14… wherein the path information obtained from a navigation module of the mobile element”, "15… obtain the path information including detecting… movement of the mobile element, obtaining a destination for the mobile element", and "16… wherein the optimized path includes using path information for other mobile elements within the real-world elements", these limitations describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. Data gathering, including when limited to particular content does not change its character as information, is also within the realm of abstract ideas. Data gathering has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. See Electric Power.
As to the limitations “15… using a plurality of sensors within the transportation system", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because the limitations invoke other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
As to the limitations "15… instructing the mobile element to navigate the optimized path", they are insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting.
As to the limitations "19… wherein the traffic modeling includes use of a particle traffic model, a trigger-response mobile-element-following traffic model, a macroscopic traffic model, a microscopic traffic model, a submicroscopic traffic model, a mesoscopic traffic model, or a combination thereof", these limitations represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they recite only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. these claim limitations fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Dependent claims, Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, claims recite data gathering, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the limitations identified as data outputting are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome are just “apply it” limitations, because these claim limitations fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above). Examiner notes that "wherein the traffic modeling includes use of" is not elaborated.
The claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hartmut, (Hartmut hereinafter), International Pub. No. WO2018203886, taken in view of T. Ambra and C. Macharis, (Ambra hereinafter), “Agent-Based Digital Twins (ABM-Dt) In Synchromodal Transport and Logistics: the Fusion of Virtual and Pysical Spaces”.
As to claim 1, Hartmut discloses a system… comprising: a digital twin datastore and one or more processors (see "[0030]… the digital twin is created and stored locally on the train car's controller"); wherein the digital twin datastore stores a transportation-system digital twin including real-world-element digital twins embedded therein; wherein the transportation system digital twin corresponds to a transportation system (see "[0023] The right hand section of FIG. 1 , labeled "Digital Twins" shows how the train system can be modeled… Digital twins provide a layer of abstraction over a digital twin that allows interactions with real world devices"); wherein each real-world-element digital twin provides a digital twin of a respective real-world element that is disposed within the transportation system (see "[0026]… the use of digital twins is dynamic in nature and digital twins may be created and destroyed as a particular process executes and things change in the physical world… the relationships are maintained in a registry that specifies the types, properties, and interrelationships of the digital twins. This registry may be a database or other collection of data"); wherein the real-world-element digital twins include mobile-element digital twins; wherein each mobile-element digital twin provides a digital twin of a respective mobile element within the real-world elements (see "[0023]… the train is represented as a digital twin that is an aggregate of car digital twins. This allows the complexity of basic function requests to be greatly reduced through abstraction"); and wherein the one or more processors are configured to, for each mobile element, determine, in response to an occurrence of a triggering condition, a position of the mobile element, and update, in response to determining the position of the mobile element, the mobile-element digital twin corresponding to the mobile element to reflect the position of the mobile element (see '[0025]… HMI code for addressing all robots can be simplified to a single function call… a function call "GetAllRobots()" that returns a list of the digital twins for each robot in the physical plant. Then, the ShowPositionQ function call iterates over each robot digital twin in the list and issues a ShowPositionQ request. Note that this abstraction allows new robots to be added to the plant without additional recording of the HM1. For example, the "Physical Assets" section shows a new robot (labeled "3") added to the plant. In this case, the underlying registry of the plant (discussed below) will be updated accordingly such that when the "GetAllRobotsO" is next executed, it will return the new robot in the list').
Hartmut does not disclose, but Ambra discloses for representing attributes in a transportation system digital twin (see “Algorithm 1… output: aid,ac,as,ad,aeta ϵ P ” in page 166; “Figure 4: Illustration of
Hartmut and Ambra are analogous art because they are related to digital twinning.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ambra with Hartmut, because Ambra discloses that his "paper reviews the digital twin concept and its current applications in order to understand what it is, but also what it can become. Since simulation technology forms the backbone of the Digital Twin, a Digital Twin Environment (DTE) is needed where digital twins (digital instances) exist and test their performances. As the digital instances need to posses a certain level of self-awareness and decentralized routing and solution discovery, agents from the agent-based modelling (ABM) and multi-agent based systems (MAS) are considered for such purpose. The DTE herein is represented as a digital map by using Geographic Information System (GIS) with a great level of detail that will facilitate accurate navigation, route finding, and spatial awareness of agents" (see page 160, 1st paragraph), and as a result, Ambra reports that "simulation-based solutions are useful for failure prediction, developing systems, new designs and optimization of various system processes. The digital twin concept presents an imperative step to fuse virtual models with physical environments and their processes. More data availability and accessibility can improve synchromodal models and planning tools in order to provide more flexibility, higher speed, reliability and transparent overview of ongoing freight transport processes; these are the aspects that hinder most shippers from using intermodal services" (see page 168, 1st paragraph).
As to claim 3, Hartmut discloses wherein the mobile elements are vehicles within the transportation system (see "[0023] The right hand section of FIG. 1 , labeled "Digital Twins" shows how the train system can be modeled").
As to claim 4, Ambra discloses wherein the triggering condition is an expiration of a dynamically determined time interval (see "digital virtual environment exists in parallel with the real system and updates itself through sensors based on specific intervals and/or events" in page 164, last paragraph)
As to claim 5, Ambra discloses wherein the dynamically determined time interval is increased in response to determining a single mobile element within the transportation system (see "Algorithm 1… 3 Establish refresh event every minute to update parameter values" in page 166).
As to claim 6, Ambra discloses wherein the dynamically determined time interval is increased in response to determining an occurrence of a predetermined period of reduced environmental activity (see "dynamic features have been tested in SYMBIT’s digital GIS environment… where triggering events and firing rules induce reconfiguration and re-routing protocols of assets to assess modal shift and resilience to disruptions" in page 166, next to last paragraph).
As to claim 7, Ambra discloses wherein the dynamically determined time interval is decreased in response to determining abnormal activity within the transportation system (see "stochastic insertion of extra service points, their impact on LSPs’ lead-times and load-factors, and dynamically changing speed parameters by means of geo-fences, have been tested" in page 166, next to last paragraph).
As to claim 8, Ambra discloses wherein the dynamically determined time interval is a first time interval, and the dynamically determined time interval is decreased to a second time interval in response to determining movement of the mobile element (see "GIS provides the real-time simulator with detailed and realistic routing for moving agents and geo-locations of stationary agents. Agents are used for depicting assets and their movement as well as how they are supposed to operate. The DEM element is process-centric and forms the main fibre of time via discrete time steps which are small enough to mimic real-time dynamics" in page 163, 1st paragraph).
As to claim 9, Ambra discloses wherein the dynamically determined time interval is increased from the second time interval to the first time interval in response to determining nonmovement of the mobile element for at least a third time interval (see "GIS provides the real-time simulator with detailed and realistic routing for moving agents and geo-locations of stationary agents. Agents are used for depicting assets and their movement as well as how they are supposed to operate. The DEM element is process-centric and forms the main fibre of time via discrete time steps which are small enough to mimic real-time dynamics" in page 163, 1st paragraph).
As to claim 10, Ambra discloses wherein the triggering condition is expiration of a time interval (see "dynamic features have been tested in SYMBIT’s digital GIS environment… where triggering events and firing rules induce reconfiguration and re-routing protocols of assets to assess modal shift and resilience to disruptions" in page 166, next to last paragraph).
As to claim 11, Ambra discloses wherein the time interval is calculated based on a probability (see "based on a probability" as "evaluate most probable implications", "DT relates to a living dynamic simulation environment that mimics the real physical system by continuously updating its virtual environment in order to provide support to certain tasks and evaluate most probable implications. In fact, the digital virtual environment exists in parallel with the real system and updates itself through sensors based on specific intervals and/or events. The DTs are digital instances (A) of the physical objects represented by agents. The DTs exist in a Digital Twin Environment (DTE) depicted by the environment of SYMBIT. The Physical Twins (P) represent assets such as barges, truck, trains, vans… that may send and intercept messages via sensors and receivers. These assets will be then converted into agents within the SYMBIT environment. As far as physical twins are concerned, p ϵ P posses various parameters (pid; pc; ps; pd; peta…) where pid is the identification number of the physical asset, pc are the asset’s coordinates (latitude/longitude), ps its current speed, pd its destination and peta is the estimated time of arrival… The parameters determine the state of each p which means an update function renews the parameter values of p. The update function δ (eq 1) takes the last known state St-1 of p and updates its state, hence all its parameters, by an input from a real-time data feed" in page 164, last paragraph to page 165, 1st paragraph) that the mobile element has moved (see "GIS provides the real-time simulator with detailed and realistic routing for moving agents and geo-locations of stationary agents. Agents are used for depicting assets and their movement as well as how they are supposed to operate. The DEM element is process-centric and forms the main fibre of time via discrete time steps which are small enough to mimic real-time dynamics" in page 163, 1st paragraph).
As to claim 12, Hartmut discloses wherein the triggering condition is proximity of the mobile element to another of the mobile elements (see "(1) Sensor detects new car… (2) Generate digital twin based on ontology data" in Fig. 3A).
As to claim 13, Ambra discloses wherein the triggering condition is based on density of movable elements within the transportation system (see "density of movable elements" as "Physical Twins (P) represent assets such as barges, truck, trains, van… pc are the asset’s coordinates (latitude/longitude), ps its current speed, pd its destination and peta is the estimated time of arrival", "DT relates to a living dynamic simulation environment that mimics the real physical system by continuously updating its virtual environment in order to provide support to certain tasks and evaluate most probable implications. In fact, the digital virtual environment exists in parallel with the real system and updates itself through sensors based on specific intervals and/or events. The DTs are digital instances (A) of the physical objects represented by agents. The DTs exist in a Digital Twin Environment (DTE) depicted by the environment of SYMBIT. The Physical Twins (P) represent assets such as barges, truck, trains, vans… that may send and intercept messages via sensors and receivers. These assets will be then converted into agents within the SYMBIT environment. As far as physical twins are concerned, p ϵ P posses various parameters (pid; pc; ps; pd; peta…) where pid is the identification number of the physical asset, pc are the asset’s coordinates (latitude/longitude), ps its current speed, pd its destination and peta is the estimated time of arrival… The parameters determine the state of each p which means an update function renews the parameter values of p. The update function δ (eq 1) takes the last known state St-1 of p and updates its state, hence all its parameters, by an input from a real-time data feed" in page 164, last paragraph to page 165, 1st paragraph).
As to claim 14, Ambra discloses wherein the path information obtained from a navigation module of the mobile element (see "The DTs are digital instances (A) of the physical objects represented by agents. The DTs exist in a Digital Twin Environment (DTE) depicted by the environment of SYMBIT. The Physical Twins (P) represent assets such as barges, truck, trains, vans… that may send and intercept messages via sensors and receivers" in page 164, last paragraph).
As to claim 15, Ambra discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to obtain the path information including detecting, using a plurality of sensors within the transportation system, movement of the mobile element, obtaining a destination for the mobile element, calculating, using the plurality of sensors within the transportation system, an optimized path for the mobile element, and instructing the mobile element to navigate the optimized path (see "The DTs are digital instances (A) of the physical objects represented by agents. The DTs exist in a Digital Twin Environment (DTE) depicted by the environment of SYMBIT. The Physical Twins (P) represent assets such as barges, truck, trains, vans… that may send and intercept messages via sensors and receivers. These assets will be then converted into agents within the SYMBIT environment. As far as physical twins are concerned, p ϵ P posses various parameters (pid; pc; ps; pd; peta…) where pid is the identification number of the physical asset, pc are the asset’s coordinates (latitude/longitude), ps its current speed, pd its destination and peta is the estimated time of arrival… The parameters determine the state of each p which means an update function renews the parameter values of p. The update function δ (eq 1) takes the last known state St-1 of p and updates its state, hence all its parameters, by an input from a real-time data feed" in page 164, last paragraph to page 165, 1st paragraph).
As to claim 16, Ambra discloses wherein the optimized path includes using path information for other mobile elements within the real-world elements (see "The DTs are digital instances (A) of the physical objects represented by agents. The DTs exist in a Digital Twin Environment (DTE) depicted by the environment of SYMBIT. The Physical Twins (P) represent assets such as barges, truck, trains, vans… that may send and intercept messages via sensors and receivers. These assets will be then converted into agents within the SYMBIT environment. As far as physical twins are concerned, p ϵ P posses various parameters (pid; pc; ps; pd; peta…) where pid is the identification number of the physical asset, pc are the asset’s coordinates (latitude/longitude), ps its current speed, pd its destination and peta is the estimated time of arrival… The parameters determine the state of each p which means an update function renews the parameter values of p. The update function δ (eq 1) takes the last known state St-1 of p and updates its state, hence all its parameters, by an input from a real-time data feed" in page 164, last paragraph to page 165, 1st paragraph).
As to claim 17, Ambra discloses wherein the optimized path minimizes interactions between mobile elements and humans within the transportation system (see "digital twins (with data and information exchange flows both ways between the physical and virtual system). A DT is thus not a mere detached virtual representation of a physical twin, but rather a living organisms that interacts with its physical twin via sensors and receivers connected through the Internet of things (IoT) or ICT" in page 161, next to last paragraph; "DT relates to a living dynamic simulation environment that mimics the real physical system by continuously updating its virtual environment in order to provide support to certain tasks and evaluate most probable implications. In fact, the digital virtual environment exists in parallel with the real system and updates itself through sensors based on specific intervals and/or events" in page 164, last paragraph).
As to claim 18, Hartmut discloses wherein the mobile elements include autonomous vehicles and non-autonomous vehicles (see "[0025] The general concept shown in FIG. 1 can be extended to other applications. For example, FIG. 2 shows a conceptual view 200 of an alternative system where the physical assets are mobile robots"), and Ambra discloses the optimized path reduces interactions of the autonomous vehicles with the non-autonomous vehicles (see "Synchromodality/Synchromodal transport is to support real-time optimal integration of different transport modes and infrastructure… Synchromodal transport/Synchromodality presents an extension of intermodal transport by including real-time re-routing of loading units over the network to cope with disturbances and/or customer requirements" in page 159, 1st & 2nd paragraphs).
As to claim 19, Ambra discloses wherein the traffic modeling includes use of a particle traffic model, a trigger-response mobile-element-following traffic model (see "Synchromodality/Synchromodal transport is to support real-time optimal integration of different transport modes and infrastructure… Synchromodal transport/Synchromodality presents an extension of intermodal transport by including real-time re-routing of loading units over the network to cope with disturbances and/or customer requirements" in page 159, 1st & 2nd paragraphs), a macroscopic traffic model, a microscopic traffic model, a submicroscopic traffic model, a mesoscopic traffic model, or a combination thereof.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hartmut taken in view of Ambra as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Youngchoon Park, (Park hereinafter), U.S. Patent 12400035.
As to claim 2, Hartmut and Ambra do not disclose, but Park discloses wherein the mobile elements are workers within the transportation system (see 'create a virtual representation (e.g., "digital twins" or "shadow records") of each object entity (e.g., person, room, building subsystem, device, and the like) in the building within Cloud building management platform' in col. 36, line 67 to col. 37, line 3).
Hartmut, Ambra, and Park are analogous art because they are related to digital twinning.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Park with Hartmut and Ambra, because Park discloses "an enterprise integration layer 510, an automated measurement and validation (AM&V) layer 512, a demand response (DR) layer 514, a fault detection and diagnostics (FDD) layer 516, an integrated control layer 518, and a building subsystem integration later 520. Layers 510-520 can be configured to receive inputs from building subsystems 528 and other data sources, determine improved and/or optimal control actions for building subsystems 528 based on the inputs, generate control signals based on the improved and/or optimal control actions, and provide the generated control signals to building subsystems 528" (see col. 21, lines 40-50), and as a result, Park reports that "Integrated control layer 518 can be configured to enhance the effectiveness of demand response layer 514 by enabling building subsystems 528 and their respective control loops to be controlled in coordination with demand response layer 514. This configuration may advantageously reduce disruptive demand response behavior relative to conventional systems" (see col. 23, lines 30-37).
Conclusion
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN CARLOS OCHOA whose telephone number is (571)272-2625. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays 9:30AM - 7:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/JUAN C OCHOA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
1 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 Fed. Cir. 2016