DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
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 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, 11 and 20 recite the limitation "the digital twin" in lines 4-5, 8-9 and 6-7 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
For examination purposes, the claims are interpreted as the digital representation “including a digital twin for each of the plurality of machines.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 9, 11-12, 16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anonymous [Anon1], Method and System for Early Identification of Machine-Caused Factors Impacting worker Health Using Digital Twin Simulations1 in view of Anonymous [Anon2], Contextual Acoustics Tolerance Optimized for Workspace Hot Desk Assignment2.
Referring to claim 1, Anon1 teaches the method for managing noise comprising:
obtaining industrial environmental parameters, including a plurality of machines [pgs. 2-3].
creating a digital representation of the industrial environment, including a digital twin for each of the plurality of machines [pg. 3].
simulating operation of the industrial environment based on the digital representation [pgs. 3-4].
performing a sound analysis of the industrial environment based on the simulation [pg. 4].
based on a determination that a noise level identified by the sound analysis is expected to exceed a threshold level, identifying a maintenance recommendation for one of the plurality of machines based on the digital representation of the industrial environment [pgs. 2 and 4].
In summary, Anon1 teaches creating a representation of an industrial environment including machines located therein by analyzing the sound and vibration of the machines. The representation of the environment and machines are represented each using digital twins. Anon1 recognizes that as machines degrade, their decibel level increases which can pose a danger to worker health. In response to determining increased noise level of the machines are expected to reach harmful levels, proactive maintenance is recommended for those machines.
While Anon1 teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught that the industrial environmental parameters specifically include a layout of the industrial environment. Anon2 teaches that acoustics can be influenced by environmental factors and maps an environment which includes representation of factors that impact acoustics including noise sources, walls, surfaces, placement of items, wall coverings around the environment and the user’s relative location within the space [pgs. 2-3]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Anon2 into Anon1 because Anon2 indicates that noise level varies based on room layout and the workers location within that room. Therefore, one would understand that the same would apply to the industrial environment in Anon1 and would subsequently understand that the sound level imposed on a worker would be influenced based on the industrial environment layout and the workers position therein. Thus, the anticipated need to perform maintenance of a machine due to potential harm to a worker would be improved by better knowing the sound level experienced by the worker based on at least the layout of the industrial environment.
Referring to claim 2, Anon2 teaches using sensors to detect noise in the environment to continuously stream (i.e., in real time) sensor data for updating the digital twin of the environment [pg. 3].
Referring to claim 6, Anon1 teaches that proactive maintenance includes indicating parts of the machine to be replaced [pg. 4].
Referring to claim 9, Anon2 teaches factoring in “acoustic footprint tolerance” when determining where to place a worker [pg. 5]. This implies that noise levels at different locations are determined to identify which locations would be appropriate for the worker. While it is assumed that Anon2 is only determining noise inside the environment, Anon1 indicates that noise levels in an industrial environment can exceed “extremely high risk” levels of noise [pg. 1]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further determine noise levels outside of the industrial environment because sound at extreme decibels can be harmful at greater distances and it would provide further protection for workers in Anon1.
Referring to claims 11-12, 16, 19 and 20, these are rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove. Anon1 and Anon2 teach the method and therefore teach the system and program performing the same.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anon1 and Anon2 as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 9, 11-12, 16 and 19-20 above, and further in view of DeLuca et al [DeLuca] PGPUB 2021/0158174.
Referring to claim 3, while the Anon1-Anon2 combination teaches recommending maintenance on machines in response to noise reaching critical levels, it is not explicitly taught to update the digital twins for each machine based on maintenance records. DeLuca teaches updating a digital twin to include maintenance performed on an asset [0020, 0032]. It would have been obvious to include the teachings of DeLuca into the Anon1-Anon2 combination because doing so would allow the digital to “mimic the same state as the asset” which would better allow the digital twins in the Anon1-Anon2 combination to represent each of the plurality of machines more accurately.
Referring to claims 4-5, while Anon1 teaches including digital twins for the machines and recommending maintenance based on anticipated noise levels, it is not explicitly taught to include a model and type for each machine nor obtaining historical maintenance records for related machines (same make and model not in the environment) to simulate based on the historical maintenance records. Anon1 does imply a knowledge of how different sounds relate to the degradation of the machines and also has knowledge with respect to which maintenance procedures to employ in response [pgs. 2 and 4]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include identification of a model and type in the layout so that the digital twin of the industrial environment in the Anon1-Anon2 combination would know which machines exist in the space to identify their profiles with respect to noise patterns and which maintenance procedures to recommend. In other words, without prior knowledge of what machines are present in the space and historical maintenance records for related machines, it would likely be unclear how to analyze the sound and vibrations of those machines as well as the ability to recommend what maintenance is to be performed based on those sounds and vibrations since how would one know what maintenance procedures exist for an unknown machine?
Claim(s) 7-8 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anon1 and Anon2 as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 9, 11-12, 16 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Acoustical Surfaces [AS] Soundproofing Warehouses & Industrial Rooms – Making Heavy Machinery Quiet.
Referring to claims 7-8, while the Anon1-Anon2 combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to recommend modifying a layout or installing types of sound dampening materials. Rather, the recommendations provided by the Anon1-Anon2 combination relate to maintenance of the machines as indicated above. It should be noted that part of the intent of of Anon1 is to maintain reasonable sound levels for worker health [pg. 2]. AS teaches other ways for reducing noise level for the purpose of worker health which includes both constructing enclosures for machines and also installing types sound-dampening materials [pg. 4]. It would have been obvious to try including the teachings of AS into the Anon1-Anon2 combination because it would provide additional ways to reduce harmful noise levels to workers. Constructing enclosures and adding them to the floorplan around the machines is interpreted as modifying the layout of the industrial environment.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anon1 and Anon2 as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 9, 11-12, 16 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Moody et al [Moody] PGPUB 2020/0202626.
Referring to claim 10, while the Anon1-Anon2 combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to provide the ability to view the visual representation of the sound analysis using augmented reality. Moody teaches using augmented reality to view noise in an open space [Fig. 4, 0020]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Moody into the Anon1-Anon2 combination because it would provide a way to illustrate where audio problems exist in an area as taught by Moody. While Moody teaches visualizing audio captured by microphones (i.e., not based on a digital representation), the Anon1-Anon2 combination relies on a digital representation for performing a sound analysis as discussed above. Therefore, the Anon1-Anon2-Moody combination is interpreted as allowing a user to view the simulated sound analysis using an augmented reality display.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A CONNOLLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Thomas Lee can be reached at 571-272-3667. 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.
/MARK A CONNOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 12/19/25
1 Cited by applicant
2 Cited by applicant