DETAILED ACTION
Claims 10-16 are presented for examination.
Claims 1-9 and 17-20 are withdrawn.
This office action is in response to the election submitted on 12-MAY-2026.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an artificial intelligence (“AI”) engine that is configured to” in claim 10. The specification provides structure in [0098] as “AI engine 125 itself includes processor 603, memory 605, and ML algorithms 607”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 10, 12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 10 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill) “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, Judgments, and opinions.”
Further, the MPEP recites “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) “Mathematical Relationships A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. For example, pressure (p) can be described as the ratio between the magnitude of the normal force (F) and area of the surface on contact (A), or it can be set forth in the form of an equation such as p = F/A.”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) “Mathematical Formulas or Equations A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma).”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) “Mathematical Calculations A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”
capture first state information from the primary computer system using the physical-virtual connection;
Examples of “state information” are found in paragraph [0072] of the specification. The non-inclusive list of examples are different metrics of a system. The “capture” of this information is not specified other than it may include a sensor. A person can reasonably observe the “state information” representing the performance metrics on the “primary computer system”. The “physical-virtual connection” can reasonably be interpreted as observing the current performance metrics.
construct a first digital twin of the primary computer system based on the first state information;
As discussed in paragraph [0034], the “digital twin” may be interpreted as a virtual representation. The “state information” incorporated into a “digital twin” can be a judgement of how the measured metric affects the virtual model or abstraction of the “computer system”.
determine a threshold fidelity level for the first digital twin;
As described in paragraph [0056], the “fidelity level” may decrease based on the computing task. The determination of the “threshold fidelity level” can reasonably be based on the opinion of a person of ordinary skill in the art based on experience from observing these computing tasks.
determine a target time when the first digital twin will fall below the threshold fidelity level; and
The “target time” is associated with the “threshold fidelity level” and is associated with constructing the “second digital twin” as described in paragraph [0067]. Determining the “target time” can be done based on an opinion of observing the system, similarly to how the “threshold fidelity level” is also determined.
before the target time, construct a second digital twin based on second state information captured using the physical-virtual connection;
The “second digital twin” is another abstraction based on the observation of the “second state information” and can reasonably be a judgment of the affected observed parameters.
wherein the second digital twin will fall below the threshold fidelity level after the target time.
The evaluation of the “threshold fidelity level” and the “target time” is a comparison which can reasonably be done in the mind.
Therefore, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception has found simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
a primary computer system;
a physical-virtual connection; and
an artificial intelligence (“AI”) engine that is configured to:
The “physical-virtual connection” is described in paragraph [0034] as “P-V connection may link a primary computer system to an AI engine”. The “physical-virtual connection” is a software and interpreted as a general purposed computer.
The “AI engine” is described in paragraph [0098] as “AI engine 125 itself includes processor 603, memory 605, and ML algorithms 607.” The processor and memory are interpreted as a general-purpose computer.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitation is a general-purpose computer and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration.
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 12 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
the first digital twin based on capturing state information from the primary computer system at a first twinning rate; and
the second digital twin based on capturing state information from the primary computer system at a second twinning rate.
As described in paragraph [0058], “The twinning rate may refer to how often sensors capture state information from components of the primary computer system.” The “capturing” can be done by observation of the current “state information” on the “computer system”. The “twinning rate” can reasonably be interpreted as someone observing the “computer system” at one time and then several minutes later observing the “computer system”. This can be done on a regular interval. The “second twinning rate” is observing the “second state information” at a different interval.
Therefore, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
No.
No additional elements are recited, however, the additional elements from claim 10, from claim 12 depends, contains the additional general-purpose computer elements and are inherited per dependency.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitation is a general-purpose computer and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration.
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 15 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
wherein the first state information comprises performance metrics associated with operation of hardware and software components of the primary computer system.
Paragraph [0059] describes “performance metrics may indicate how often data or other components change within the primary computer system.” The “performance metric” is observed as the performance of the “computer system” when the metric is captured.
Therefore, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
No.
No additional elements are recited, however, the additional elements from claim 10, from claim 15 depends, contains the additional general-purpose computer elements and are inherited per dependency.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitation is a general-purpose computer and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration.
The claim is ineligible.
Claim 16 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
a plurality of edge sensors that measure the performance metrics and wherein the performance metrics comprise: memory utilization, central processing unit (CPU) utilization, CPU heat level, disk swap, processing speed, and transmission latency.
The “performance metrics” are observed as part of the “computer system”. The “central processing unit (CPU) utilization” is displayed by the “computer system” and observed.
Therefore, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
No.
No additional elements are recited, however, the additional elements from claim 15, from claim 16 depends, contains the additional general-purpose computer elements and are inherited per dependency.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitation is a general-purpose computer and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration.
The claim is ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Independent claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Dependent claims 12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and would be allowable if written to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and incorporate claim 10 from which they depend.
Claims 11, 13, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kontaxoglou et al., “Towards a Digital Twin Enabled Multi-Fidelity Framework for Small Satellites” [2021] teaches a “digital twin” (Figure 1). The “fidelity level” is a multi-fidelity model with high-fidelity models (HFM) and low-fidelity models (LFM) (Pg. 212 right col 1st paragraph). The LFM and HFM are the first model and second model. The references also teaches machine learning (pg. 214 right col last paragraph).
Karnath et al., US 2022/0397888 A1 teaches a “second digital twin” with a “fidelity level” [0045] and a “first digital twin” for modeling behavior of a physics-based model [0037]. The references also discussed training and machine-learning [0053].
Schmidt et al., US 11,868,122 B2 teaches the “digital twin” and determining the required “fidelity level” (Col 5 lines 11-35).
Sturlaugson et al., US 2024/0086595 A1 teaches “digital twins” and “high fidelity models” [0040-0041]. The references teaches a surrogate model with machine learning hyper parameters (Fig. 8).
Fernández-Godino et al., Review of multi-fidelity models [12 Jun 2017] teaches the reduction of the “fidelity level” from high-fidelity to low-fidelity (Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Claims 10, 12, and 15-16 are rejected.
Claims 11, 13, and 14 are objected to.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN E JOHANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-3PM.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 5712723652. 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.
/JOHN E JOHANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights