CTNF 18/110,034 CTNF 98832 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Responsive to the communication dated 02/15/2023 Claims 1-15 are presented for examination Information Disclosure Statement The IDS dated 02/15/2023 and 02/05/2024 has been reviewed. See attached. Drawings The drawings dated 02/15/2023 have been reviewed. They are accepted. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Abstract The abstract dated 02/15/2023 has been reviewed. It has 149 words, and contains no legal phraseology. It is accepted. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “... a business system related to production including product manufacturing to cooperate with a digital twin for simulating the production …” As the use of the word “cooperate” here is somewhat awkward, to enhance readability and clarity it is suggested to amend this to instead read “… a business system related to production including product manufacturing to utilize a digital twin for simulating the production …” Similarly to claim 1, claim 8 recites “ … a business system related to production including product manufacturing to cooperate with a digital twin for simulating the production …” As the use of the word “cooperate” here is somewhat awkward, to enhance readability and clarity it is suggested to amend this to instead read “ … a business system related to production including product manufacturing to utilize a digital twin for simulating the production …” Claim 1 recites “…a change in manufacturing information related to the product manufacturing that the business system has;” The use of the phrase “related to the product manufacturing that the business system has;” is somewhat awkward and does not follow standard English writing procedure. To enhance readability and clarity it is suggested to amend this to instead read “…a change in manufacturing information related to the product manufacturing;” It should be noted that the earlier language of “… a business system related to production including product manufacturing …” does not specify that the business system actually includes the “product manufacturing”, rather that the business system is merely related to production, that production including product manufacturing.” With this in mind, it is recommended to amend the claims as suggested above to avoid any potential issues with antecedent basis introduced by asserting that the business system “has” the product manufacturing. Claim 8 recites “…a change in manufacturing information related to the product manufacturing that the business system has;” The use of the phrase “related to the product manufacturing that the business system has;” is somewhat awkward and does not follow standard English writing procedure. To enhance readability and clarity it is suggested to amend this to instead read “…a change in manufacturing information related to the product manufacturing;” It should be noted that the earlier language of “… a business system related to production including product manufacturing …” does not specify that the business system actually includes the “product manufacturing”, rather that the business system is merely related to production, that production including product manufacturing.” With this in mind, it is recommended to amend the claims as suggested above to avoid any potential issues with antecedent basis introduced by asserting that the business system “has” the product manufacturing. Claim 2 recites “…a change in bill of material (BOM) or bill of process (BOP), which is the manufacturing information of a system that performs product life management (PLM) in the business system…” No manufacturing information that is from a system that performs product life management (PLM) was previously introduced. If this limitation is intended to define that the manufacturing information introduced in the independent claim is a part of a system that performs product life management (PLM), the claim should be amended to more explicitly state this. Claim 9 recites “…a change in bill of material (BOM) or bill of process (BOP), which is the manufacturing information of a system that performs product life management (PLM) in the business system…” No manufacturing information that is from a system that performs product life management (PLM) was previously introduced. If this limitation is intended to define that the manufacturing information introduced in the independent claim is a part of a system that performs product life management (PLM), the claim should be amended to more explicitly state this. Claims 1 and 8 recite “… whether the change is absorbable in the master data …” It is suggested to amend the claims to instead read “… whether the change is absorbable in to the master data …” to enhance clarity and readability. Claims 5 and 12 recite “an increase in procedure…” It is clear from the specification that this “increase in procedure” is meant to refer to adding processes or process steps to the BOP (see [Par 55] of the specification as well as [Fig. 21].) As the language of “increase in procedure” does not make this intended meaning immediately apparent, it is suggested to amend the claims to more clearly reflect this meaning . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 2-7 and 9-14 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 2 and 9 recite the limitation "the result data acquired from a manufacturing execution system (MES) or a system that performs enterprise resources planning (ERP)” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While “result data” is recited in the independent claims, this result data is not described as being acquired from a manufacturing execution system (MES) or a system that performs enterprise resources planning (ERP), and it is therefore unclear if it is the result data recited in the independent claims that is being referred to or if this recitation is a new, separate element. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 (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.” a change detection step of detecting a change in manufacturing information related to the product manufacturing that the business system has; Detecting such a change is a mental process equivalent to observing a set of data and comparing it to a version of that same set of data observed previously to judge whether or not changes have been made. This is essentially equivalent to the process mentally performed when doing “spot the difference” puzzles popular with children. a determination step of determining whether the change is absorbable in the master data based on an existing record of the master data; Determining whether or not a change is absorbable is a mental process equivalent to judging whether or not the new data can be added to the existing data set. For example, if the existing data set is a table with 4 columns and requires each new row of data to have exactly 4 non-empty columns, a person could reasonably judge that a change represented by new row of data that is 10000 columns wide is not compatible with the existing data set. an update step of updating the master data or the model data based on the change according to a determination result of the determination step. Updating this data according to the determination step is a mental process equivalent to adding the change data to the master data or model data depending on whether or not it is determined to be compatible with the master data. Adding such data is merely the act of adding it to the respective data set, as by adding new rows to a data table written using a pen and paper. Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution? Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) has found mere data gathering and post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Data gathering: a data input step of converting result data related to the production acquired from the business system into the transaction data using the master data and inputting the transaction data into the digital twin; Acquiring data from a data source and inputting that data into a particular destination is merely the act of gathering that data into that destination, and therefore amounts to no more than mere data gathering. Mere Instructions to Apply (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that merely applying a judicial exception such as an abstract idea, as by performing it on a computer, does not integrate the claim into a practical solution. Mere Instructions to Apply: A digital twin cooperation method executed by a digital twin cooperation system that causes a business system related to production including product manufacturing to cooperate with a digital twin for simulating the production based on transaction data and model data, the digital twin cooperation system including master data of the digital twin, the method comprising:… Applying a computer to perform a generic simulation at a high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions to perform that simulation, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception. The claim only recites the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. that the production is “simulated” and the digital twin is “cooperated” with, without reciting how this simulation is actually accomplished. Further, the computer elements claimed are cited as merely generic tools to perform the operations. Additionally, specifying that the digital twin cooperation system includes the master data merely clarifies what data is stored in the system, and is therefore merely an extension of the mere instructions to apply. Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept? No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitations are Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity or Mere Instructions to Apply and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) has found mere data gathering and post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Data gathering: a data input step of converting result data related to the production acquired from the business system into the transaction data using the master data and inputting the transaction data into the digital twin; Acquiring data from a data source and inputting that data into a particular destination is merely the act of gathering that data into that destination, and therefore amounts to no more than mere data gathering. A claim element that amounts to merely gathering data is not indicative of integration into a practical solution nor evidence that the claim provides an inventive concept or significantly more, as exemplified by ((MPEP 2106.05)(g)(Mere Data Gathering) i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Mere Instructions to Apply (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that merely applying a judicial exception such as an abstract idea, as by performing it on a computer, does not integrate the claim into a practical solution. Mere Instructions to Apply: A digital twin cooperation method executed by a digital twin cooperation system that causes a business system related to production including product manufacturing to cooperate with a digital twin for simulating the production based on transaction data and model data, the digital twin cooperation system including master data of the digital twin, the method comprising:… Applying a computer to perform a generic simulation at a high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions to perform that simulation, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception. The claim only recites the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. that the production is “simulated” and the digital twin is “cooperated” with, without reciting how this simulation is actually accomplished. Further, the computer elements claimed are cited as merely generic tools to perform the operations. The courts have found that such mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application nor recitation of significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f) “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983”) Additionally, specifying that the digital twin cooperation system includes the master data merely clarifies what data is stored in the system, and is therefore merely an extension of the mere instructions to apply. Moreover, Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that 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. In light of this, the additional generic computer component elements of “ a digital twin cooperation system that causes a business system related to production including product manufacturing to cooperate with a digital twin for simulating the production based on transaction data and model data, the digital twin cooperation system including master data of the digital twin” are not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide evidence of an inventive concept. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the consideration of whether they constitute significantly more, and have been determined not to constitute such. The claim is ineligible . Claim 2 recites “wherein in the data input step, the result data acquired from a manufacturing execution system (MES) or a system that performs enterprise resources planning (ERP) in the business system is converted into the transaction data using the master data, and the transaction data is input into the digital twin, and in the change detection step, a change in bill of material (BOM) or bill of process (BOP), which is the manufacturing information of a system that performs product life management (PLM) in the business system, is detected.” Acquiring data from a data source and inputting that data into a particular destination is merely the act of gathering that data into that destination, and therefore amounts to no more than mere data gathering. Further, detecting a change in a data set is a mental process equivalent to observing the data and comparing it to a previously observed version of that same data to judge if there are any differences. This is essentially equivalent to the process mentally performed when doing “spot the difference” puzzles popular with children. Determining if this type of change happens in a particular element or elements merely consists of limiting the scope of comparison to the data relevant to that element/elements. Claim 3 recites “wherein in the determination step, whether the change is a change in supplier related to a predetermined process of the BOM is determined, and whether the changed supplier is present in the existing record of the master data is determined, and in the update step, the master data is not updated when the changed supplier is present in the existing record of the master data.” Detecting a change in a data set is a mental process equivalent to observing the data and comparing it to a previously observed version of that same data to judge if there are any differences. This is essentially equivalent to the process mentally performed when doing “spot the difference” puzzles popular with children. Determining if this type of change happens in a particular element or elements merely consists of limiting the scope of comparison to the data relevant to that element/elements. Determining whether or not proposed new data elements already exist in the existing data set is a mental process equivalent to observing the existing data set and judging whether data matching the proposed new data elements is present. Not updating the data set when the proposed new data elements already exist is merely the act of judging that no changes should be made. Claim 4 recites “further comprising: an alert generation step of generating, when the changed supplier is not present in the existing record of the master data, an alert prompting addition of a process to the model data according to the change in supplier; and an output step of outputting, via a user interface, the alert generated in the alert generation step.” Alerting a user in such a way is equivalent to telling a person that information is needed and requesting said information, which amounts to no more than certain methods of organizing human activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(II)(C) “An example of a claim reciting social activities is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 126 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The social activity at issue in Voter Verified was voting. The patentee claimed "[a] method for voting providing for self-verification of a ballot comprising the steps of" presenting an election ballot for voting, accepting input of the votes, storing the votes, printing out the votes, comparing the printed votes to votes stored in the computer, and determining whether the printed ballot is acceptable. 887 F.3d at 1384-85, 126 USPQ2d at 1503-04. The Federal Circuit found that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation", which is a "fundamental activity that forms the basis of our democracy" and has been performed by humans for hundreds of years. 887 F.3d at 1385-86, 126 USPQ2d at 1504-05. Another example of a claim reciting social activities is Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The social activity at issue was the social activity of "’providing information to a person without interfering with the person’s primary activity.’" 896 F.3d at 1344, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (citing Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 193 F. Supp.3d 1184, 1188 (W.D. 2014)). The patentee claimed an attention manager for acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content. 896 F.3d at 1339-40, 127 USPQ2d at 1555. The Federal Circuit concluded that "[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea," observing that the district court "pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention." 896 F.3d at 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d at 1559.”) Should it be found that generating the alert is not an example of certain methods of organizing human activity, it is also an example of mere instructions to apply. Applying a computer to generate a generic alert at a high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions to generate and present that alert, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception. The claim only recites the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. that the alert is “generated” and “output” without reciting how this alerting is actually accomplished. Further, actually obtaining this data using a generically recited user interface, without any specificity as to how the user interface is generated or how the data is collected using it, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. Claim 5 recites “wherein in the determination step, whether the change is an increase in procedure of the BOP is determined, and whether the increased procedure of the BOP is insertable into the existing record of the master data is determined, and in the update step, when the increased procedure of the BOP is insertable into the existing record of the master data, the increased procedure of the BOP is inserted into the master data, and when the increased procedure of the BOP is not insertable into a existing record of the master data, a new process ID is added to the model data according to the increase in procedure of the BOP.” Determining if new processes have been added to the BOP is a mental process equivalent to observing the BOP and comparing it to a version of that BOP observed earlier to judge whether or not a new process is listed therein. Determining whether or not a change is insertable is a mental process equivalent to judging whether or not the new data can be added to the existing data set. For example, if the existing data set is a table with 4 columns and requires each new row of data to have exactly 4 non-empty columns, a person could reasonably judge that a change represented by new row of data that is 10000 columns wide is not compatible with the existing data set. Based on this determination, deciding whether to insert the data into a first data set if it is compatible or a second dataset with a new ID if it is not compatible is merely equivalent to judging its compatibility as above and adding the data to the appropriate data set, as by writing the new data in a written table representing the relevant data set with a pen and paper. Claim 6 recites “wherein in the determination step, whether the change is a change in resource of the BOP is determined, and whether a table for managing the changed resource is present and described in the existing record of the master data is determined, and in the update step, when the table is described in the existing record of the master data, the existing record is copied, assigned with a new process ID, and inserted into the master data.” Determining if resources have been added to the BOP is a mental process equivalent to observing the BOP and comparing it to a version of that BOP observed earlier to judge whether or not the listing of resources has been modified. Determining whether or not a table associated with that resource is present in a master data set is a mental process equivalent to observing a set of tables in the master data set and determining if one matches the changed the resource. For example, if the changed resource is “petroleum,” this consists of reviewing the set of tables in the master data set to find a petroleum-related resource table. Copying this table and assigning a new process ID if it was found in the master data set is merely the process of duplicating the table within the master data set and giving the duplicate a new ID, as by writing out the duplicated table using a pencil and paper, indicating that it is part of the master data set. Claim 7 recites “an alert generation step of generating, when the table is not described in the existing record of the master data, an alert prompting generation of the table; and an output step of outputting, via a user interface, the alert generated in the alert generation step.” Alerting a user in such a way is equivalent to telling a person that information needs to be created and requesting said information be created, which amounts to no more than certain methods of organizing human activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(II)(C) “An example of a claim reciting social activities is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 126 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The social activity at issue in Voter Verified was voting. The patentee claimed "[a] method for voting providing for self-verification of a ballot comprising the steps of" presenting an election ballot for voting, accepting input of the votes, storing the votes, printing out the votes, comparing the printed votes to votes stored in the computer, and determining whether the printed ballot is acceptable. 887 F.3d at 1384-85, 126 USPQ2d at 1503-04. The Federal Circuit found that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation", which is a "fundamental activity that forms the basis of our democracy" and has been performed by humans for hundreds of years. 887 F.3d at 1385-86, 126 USPQ2d at 1504-05. Another example of a claim reciting social activities is Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The social activity at issue was the social activity of "’providing information to a person without interfering with the person’s primary activity.’" 896 F.3d at 1344, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (citing Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 193 F. Supp.3d 1184, 1188 (W.D. 2014)). The patentee claimed an attention manager for acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content. 896 F.3d at 1339-40, 127 USPQ2d at 1555. The Federal Circuit concluded that "[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea," observing that the district court "pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention." 896 F.3d at 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d at 1559.”) Should it be found that generating the alert is not an example of certain methods of organizing human activity, it is also an example of mere instructions to apply. Applying a computer to generate a generic alert at a high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions to generate and present that alert, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception. The claim only recites the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. that the alert is “generated” and “output” without reciting how this alerting is actually accomplished. Generating the table itself amounts to no more than writing out such a table, as with a pencil and paper, indicating that it is part of the master data set. Claims 8-14 The elements of claims 8-14 are substantially the same as those of claims 1-7. Therefore, the elements of claim 8-14 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1-7. Moreover, Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that 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. In light of this, the additional generic computer component elements of “ A digital twin cooperation system that causes a business system related to production including product manufacturing to cooperate with a digital twin for simulating the production based on transaction data and model data, the digital twin cooperation system comprising: a storage unit configured to store master data of the digital twin; … a data input unit … a change detection unit … an update unit” are not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide evidence of an inventive concept. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the consideration of whether they constitute significantly more, and have been determined not to constitute such. The claim is ineligible . Regarding claim 15 , the claim is directed to a “program” and fails to disclose physical “things”. The elements of the claim are construed as software (see paragraph 82 of Specification). Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations are not directed to any of the statutory categories (MPEP 2106.03). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. (1) Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella (US 20220036302 A1) in view of Kazama (US 20190346826 A1) Claim 1. Cella teaches A digital twin cooperation method executed by a digital twin cooperation system that causes a business system related to production including product manufacturing to cooperate with a digital twin for simulating the production based on transaction data and model data, ([Abstract] “a digital twin system that generates an environment digital twin of a logistics environment that incorporates the logistics system design recommendation, and one or more physical asset digital twins of physical assets. The digital twin system executes a simulation based on the logistics environment digital twin, the one or more physical asset digital twins.” [Par 1091] “In embodiments, the control tower may include or interface with an enterprise management platform (or “EMP”). In embodiments, an EMP may be configured to generate, integrate with, support, and/or or operate on one or more digital twins. In general, digital twins merge data from multiple data sources into a model and representation of the salient characteristics of things, assets, systems, devices, machines, components, equipment, facilities, individuals or other entities mentioned throughout this disclosure” [Par 442] “In example embodiments, a digital twin system may be configured to generate a variety of enterprise digital twins 1700 in connection with a value chain (e.g., specifically value chain network entities 652). For example, an enterprise that produces goods internationally (or at multiple facilities) may configure a set of digital twins 1700, such as supplier twins that depict the enterprise's supply chain, factory twins of the various production facilities, product twins that represent the products made by the enterprise, distribution twins that represent the enterprise's distribution chains, and other suitable twins.” [Par 1094] “In some embodiments, a digital twin may be updated with real-time data, such that the digital twin reflects the state of a thing or set of things in real-time. For example, a digital twin of an operating environment or facility (e.g., a factory, warehouse, campus, or the like) may depict the physical structure of the environment (e.g., walls, floors, ceilings, rooms and the like), as well as objects appearing in the environment (e.g., machines, products, employees, robots, and the like). Furthermore, depending on the manner in which this digital twin is configured, the digital twin of the operating facility may include things such as piping, conduits, wiring, foundations, and the like. In embodiments the digital twin may represent the information technology infrastructure of the facility, including wireless and fixed networking devices and systems and their operating capabilities and characteristics. In some implementations, the digital twin of the manufacturing environment may be updated with data received from sensors (e.g., IoT sensors deployed in or around a facility or equipment or machinery within the facility, wearable devices worn by workers within the facility, and other suitable data sources… For example, in the context of a manufacturing process, a digital twin of the process may depict the status and/or outcomes of different stages in the manufacturing pipeline. In some implementations, the EMP 80 may receive data from various sources (e.g., IoT sensors, data from smart equipment, computing devices, smart products, smart infrastructure, or the like) and may update the digital twin of the process to reflect the received data.” [Par 371] “In embodiments, the storage layer 624 may include one or more blockchains 1180, such as ones that store identity data, transaction data, historical interaction data, and the like," [Par 783-784] “The digital twin may predict the anticipated wear and failure of components of a system by reviewing historical and current operational data thereby reducing the risk of unplanned downtime and the need for scheduled maintenance. Instead of over-servicing or over-maintaining products to avoid costly downtime, repairs or replacement, any product performance issues predicted by the digital twin may be addressed in a proactive or just-in-time manner. The digital twins 1700 may collect events or state data about value chain entities 652 from the monitoring layer 614 and historical or other data from selected data sources of the data storage layer 624. Predictive analytics powered by artificial intelligence system 1160 dissect the data, search for correlations, and formulate predictions about maintenance need and remaining useful life of a set of value chain entities 652.”) the digital twin cooperation system including master data of the digital twin, the method comprising: ([Par 1147] “In embodiments, the digital twin I/O system 8104 receives data stream feeds received data streams received and/or collected on behalf on an enterprise and stores at least a portion of the streams into a data lake 8122 associated with the enterprise. In embodiments, the data that is streamed into the data lake 8122 may be structured and stored in one or more databases stored in the digital twin data stores 8124.” [Par 1119] “Initially, the digital twin system 8004 configures the data structures that support each type of enterprise digital twin, including any underlying data sources/databases (e.g., SQL databases, graph databases, relational databases, distributed databases, blockchains, distributed ledgers, data feeds, data streams, and the like) that store or produce data that is ingested by the respective enterprise digital twins.”) a data input step of converting result data related to the production acquired from the business system into the transaction data using the master data and inputting the transaction data into the digital twin; ([Par 371] “In embodiments, the storage layer 624 may include one or more blockchains 1180, such as ones that store identity data, transaction data, historical interaction data, and the like," [Par 783-784] “The digital twin may predict the anticipated wear and failure of components of a system by reviewing historical and current operational data thereby reducing the risk of unplanned downtime and the need for scheduled maintenance. Instead of over-servicing or over-maintaining products to avoid costly downtime, repairs or replacement, any product performance issues predicted by the digital twin may be addressed in a proactive or just-in-time manner. The digital twins 1700 may collect events or state data about value chain entities 652 from the monitoring layer 614 and historical or other data from selected data sources of the data storage layer 624. Predictive analytics powered by artificial intelligence system 1160 dissect the data, search for correlations, and formulate predictions about maintenance need and remaining useful life of a set of value chain entities 652.” [Par 795] “At 5202, a plurality of streams of machine related data from multiple data sources are received at the machine twin 1770. This includes machine specifications like mechanical properties, data from maintenance records, operating data collected from the sensors, historical data including failure data from multiple machines running at different times and under different operating conditions and so on. At 5205, the raw data is cleaned by removing any missing or noisy data, which may occur due to any technical problems in the machine at the time of collection of data. At 5208, one or more models are selected for training by machine twin 1770. The selection of model is based on the kind of data available at the machine twin 1770 and the desired outcome of the model.” [Par 1119] “Initially, the digital twin system 8004 configures the data structures that support each type of enterprise digital twin, including any underlying data sources/databases (e.g., SQL databases, graph databases, relational databases, distributed databases, blockchains, distributed ledgers, data feeds, data streams, and the like) that store or produce data that is ingested by the respective enterprise digital twins.” [Par 1147] “In embodiments, the digital twin I/O system 8104 receives data stream feeds received data streams received and/or collected on behalf on an enterprise and stores at least a portion of the streams into a data lake 8122 associated with the enterprise. In embodiments, the data that is streamed into the data lake 8122 may be structured and stored in one or more databases stored in the digital twin data stores 8124.”) a change detection step of detecting a change in manufacturing information related to the product manufacturing that the business system has; ([Par 441] “Each of these may have characteristics of digital twins described throughout this disclosure and the documents incorporated by reference herein, such as mirroring or reflecting changes in states of associated physical objects or other entities, providing capabilities for modeling behavior or interactions of associated physical objects or other entities, enabling simulations, providing indications of status, and many others.” [Par 1094] “For example, in the context of a manufacturing process, a digital twin of the process may depict the status and/or outcomes of different stages in the manufacturing pipeline. In some implementations, the EMP 80 may receive data from various sources (e.g., IoT sensors, data from smart equipment, computing devices, smart products, smart infrastructure, or the like) and may update the digital twin of the process to reflect the received data.”) a determination step of determining whether the change is absorbable in the master data based on an existing record of the master data; ([Par 1147] “In embodiments, the digital twin I/O system 8104 receives data stream feeds received data streams received and/or collected on behalf on an enterprise and stores at least a portion of the streams into a data lake 8122 associated with the enterprise. In embodiments, the data that is streamed into the data lake 8122 may be structured and stored in one or more databases stored in the digital twin data stores 8124.” [Par 1119] “Initially, the digital twin system 8004 configures the data structures that support each type of enterprise digital twin, including any underlying data sources/databases (e.g., SQL databases, graph databases, relational databases, distributed databases, blockchains, distributed ledgers, data feeds, data streams, and the like) that store or produce data that is ingested by the respective enterprise digital twins.”) and an update step of updating the master data or the model data based on the change ([Par 1094] “For example, in the context of a manufacturing process, a digital twin of the process may depict the status and/or outcomes of different stages in the manufacturing pipeline. In some implementations, the EMP 80 may receive data from various sources (e.g., IoT sensors, data from smart equipment, computing devices, smart products, smart infrastructure, or the like) and may update the digital twin of the process to reflect the received data.”) according to a determination result ([Par 1122] “…presented with performance specifications and capability information for an item and various possible replacements, including, for example, compatibility information that indicates the extent to which various possible replacements are compatible with other items represented in the digital twin (including physical/mechanical compatibility, data compatibility, software compatibility, and many other forms of technology compatibility)…”) of the determination step. Cella does not explicitly teach a determination step of determining whether the change is absorbable in the system based on an existing record; and a determination result of the determination step. Kazama teaches a determination step of determining whether the change is absorbable in the system based on an existing record; and a determination result of the determination step. ([Abstract] “A design supporting apparatus includes an acquisition unit that acquires information regarding a design change, and an output unit that outputs information indicating that the design change is able to be coped with in a case where the design change is able to be coped with through replacement of a tool or a component with respect to a facility in the current manufacturing line, and outputs information indicating that the design change is not able to be coped with in a case where the design change is not able to be coped with even through replacement of the tool or the component with respect to the facility in the current manufacturing line.” [Par 32] “The manufacturing simulator 300 is a processing apparatus which simulates manufacturing of a product on the basis of a design drawing of the product. The manufacturing simulator 300 simulates a manufacturing line required for manufacturing of the product, facilities required in the manufacturing line, or the like on the basis of the design drawing of the product. In a case where a location (design change location) on which a design change is to be performed and a facility related to the design change are acquired, the manufacturing simulator 300 determines whether or not a product after the design change can be manufactured by the facility.” [Fig. 4]) Kazama is analogous art because it is within the field of manufacturing and production management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine it with Cella before the effective filing date. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to better determine how manufacturing design changes fit into existing systems and whether or not the changes are compatible with the existing systems. As noted by Kazama, certain changes to a manufacturing design, such as certain changes to aspects of a design, may not be compatible with the existing infrastructure and therefore may require a full rebuilt of the manufacturing system. ([Par 7] “in a case where design of a product is finished, a manufacturing line for manufacturing the product is built, and manufacturing of the product is started. The design of the product for which the manufacturing line is built may be changed. In this case, the product of which the design is changed may be manufactured in the built manufacturing line (the current manufacturing line). Thus, it is necessary to understand whether or not a design change to be performed is within a copable range without rebuilding the manufacturing line before the design change is completed.”) Logically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this kind of full rebuild is a costly and time-consuming process. To this end, Kazama presents a method for automatically determining if a change to a manufacturing design is compatible with the existing infrastructure. ([Abstract] “A design supporting apparatus includes an acquisition unit that acquires information regarding a design change, and an output unit that outputs information indicating that the design change is able to be coped with in a case where the design change is able to be coped with through replacement of a tool or a component with respect to a facility in the current manufacturing line, and outputs information indicating that the design change is not able to be coped with in a case where the design change is not able to be coped with even through replacement of the tool or the component with respect to the facility in the current manufacturing line.”) Overall, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combining the ability to determine whether or not a certain change would require a costly rebuild of the entire manufacturing system, as described in Kazama, with the digital twin manufacturing/enterprise management system of Cella would allow designers and engineers to avoid such changes and seek alternatives that may be compatible with existing infrastructure, ultimately allowing the system as a whole to be operated in a much more time- and cost-efficient manner. Claim 2. Cella teaches wherein in the data input step, the result data acquired from a manufacturing execution system (MES) or a system that performs enterprise resources planning (ERP) in the business system is converted into the transaction data using the master data, and the transaction data is input into the digital twin, and ([Par 1146] “ In embodiments, the digital twin I/O system 8104 is configured to obtain data from a set of data sources (e.g., users, sensor systems, internal and/or external databases, software platforms (e.g., CRMs, ERPs, CRMs, workflow management system), surveys, customers, and the like)…. In embodiments, the digital twin I/O system 8104 may subscribe to or otherwise automatically receive data streams (e.g., publicly available data streams, such as RSS feeds, news streams, event streams, log streams, sensor system streams, and the like) on behalf of an enterprise. Additionally or alternatively, the digital twin system I/O system 8104 may periodically query and/or receive data from a connected data source 8020, such as … enterprise resource management systems” [Par 1091] “ In embodiments, the control tower may include or interface with an enterprise management platform (or “EMP”). In embodiments, an EMP may be configured to generate, integrate with, support, and/or or operate on one or more digital twins. In general, digital twins merge data from multiple data sources into a model and representation of the salient characteristics of things, assets, systems, devices, machines, components, equipment, facilities, individuals or other entities mentioned throughout this disclosure or in the documents incorporated herein by reference, such as, without limitation: machines and their components (e.g., delivery vehicles, forklifts, conveyors, loading machines, cranes, lifts, haulers, trucks, loading machines, unloading machines, packing machines, picking machines, and many others, including robotic systems (e.g., physical robots, collaborative robots, “cobots”” [Par 1147] “In embodiments, the digital twin I/O system 8104 receives data stream feeds received data streams received and/or collected on behalf on an enterprise and stores at least a portion of the streams into a data lake 8122 associated with the enterprise. In embodiments, the data that is streamed into the data lake 8122 may be structured and stored in one or more databases stored in the digital twin data stores 8124.”) in the change detection step, a change in bill of material (BOM) or bill of process (BOP), which is the manufacturing information of a system that performs product life management (PLM) in the business system, is detected. (([Par 441] “Each of these may have characteristics of digital twins described throughout this disclosure and the documents incorporated by reference herein, such as mirroring or reflecting changes in states of associated physical objects or other entities, providing capabilities for modeling behavior or interactions of associated physical objects or other entities, enabling simulations, providing indications of status, and many others.” [Par 1094] “For example, in the context of a manufacturing process, a digital twin of the process may depict the status and/or outcomes of different stages in the manufacturing pipeline. In some implementations, the EMP 80 may receive data from various sources (e.g., IoT sensors, data from smart equipment, computing devices, smart products, smart infrastructure, or the like) and may update the digital twin of the process to reflect the received data.” [Par 91] “… processing data that is available in any of a plurality of data sources including processes, bill of materials, weather, traffic, design specification, customer complaint logs, customer reviews, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System, Customer Relationship Management (CRM) System, Customer Experience Management (CEM) System, Service Lifecycle Management (SLM) System, Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) System.” [Par 439] “. An environment for development of a digital twin 1700 may include a set of interfaces for developers in which a developer may configure an artificial intelligence system 1160 to take inputs from selected data sources of the data storage layer 624 and events or other data from the monitoring systems layer 614 and supply them for inclusion in a digital twin 1700. A digital twin 1700 development environment may be configured to take outputs and outcomes from various applications 630.”) Claims 8-9. The elements of claims 8-9 are substantially the same as those of claims 1-2. Therefore, the elements of claims 8-9 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 1-2. Further, Cella makes obvious the additional elements of “a storage unit configured to store master data of the digital twin; a data input unit … a change detection unit … an update unit” ([Par 1576] “The methods and systems described herein may be deployed in part or in whole through a machine that executes computer software, program codes, and/or instructions on a processor. The present disclosure may be implemented as a method on the machine, as a system or apparatus as part of or in relation to the machine, or as a computer program product embodied in a computer readable medium executing on one or more of the machines. In embodiments, the processor may be part of a server, cloud server, client, network infrastructure, mobile computing platform, stationary computing platform, or other computing platforms…. The processor, or any machine utilizing one, may include non-transitory memory that stores methods, codes, instructions and programs as described herein and elsewhere. The processor may access a non-transitory storage medium through an interface that may store methods, codes, and instructions as described herein and elsewhere. The storage medium associated with the processor for storing methods, programs, codes, program instructions or other type of instructions capable of being executed by the computing or processing device may include but may not be limited to one or more of a CD-ROM, DVD, memory, hard disk, flash drive, RAM, ROM, cache, network-attached storage, server-based storage, and the like.”). Claim 15. Cella teaches A digital twin cooperation program for causing a computer to function as the digital twin cooperation system according to claim 8. ([Abstract] “a digital twin system that generates an environment digital twin of a logistics environment that incorporates the logistics system design recommendation, and one or more physical asset digital twins of physical assets. The digital twin system executes a simulation based on the logistics environment digital twin, the one or more physical asset digital twins.” [Par 1091] “In embodiments, the control tower may include or interface with an enterprise management platform (or “EMP”). In embodiments, an EMP may be configured to generate, integrate with, support, and/or or operate on one or more digital twins. In general, digital twins merge data from multiple data sources into a model and representation of the salient characteristics of things, assets, systems, devices, machines, components, equipment, facilities, individuals or other entities mentioned throughout this disclosure” [Par 442] “In example embodiments, a digital twin system may be configured to generate a variety of enterprise digital twins 1700 in connection with a value chain (e.g., specifically value chain network entities 652). For example, an enterprise that produces goods internationally (or at multiple facilities) may configure a set of digital twins 1700, such as supplier twins that depict the enterprise's supply chain, factory twins of the various production facilities, product twins that represent the products made by the enterprise, distribution twins that represent the enterprise's distribution chains, and other suitable twins.” [Par 1576] “The methods and systems described herein may be deployed in part or in whole through a machine that executes computer software, program codes, and/or instructions on a processor. The present disclosure may be implemented as a method on the machine, as a system or apparatus as part of or in relation to the machine, or as a computer program product embodied in a computer readable medium executing on one or more of the machines. In embodiments, the processor may be part of a server, cloud server, client, network infrastructure, mobile computing platform, stationary computing platform, or other computing platforms…. The processor, or any machine utilizing one, may include non-transitory memory that stores methods, codes, instructions and programs as described herein and elsewhere. The processor may access a non-transitory storage medium through an interface that may store methods, codes, and instructions as described herein and elsewhere. The storage medium associated with the processor for storing methods, programs, codes, program instructions or other type of instructions capable of being executed by the computing or processing device may include but may not be limited to one or more of a CD-ROM, DVD, memory, hard disk, flash drive, RAM, ROM, cache, network-attached storage, server-based storage, and the like.”). (2) Claims 3-4 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella (US 20220036302 A1) in view of Kazama (US 20190346826 A1) in further view of Only update rows that changed? Try using EXISTS and EXCEPT (hereinafter Baldwin ) in further view of Glanville (US 20140344179 A1) Claim 3. Cella teaches wherein in the determination step, ([Par 441] “Each of these may have characteristics of digital twins described throughout this disclosure and the documents incorporated by reference herein, such as mirroring or reflecting changes in states of associated physical objects or other entities, providing capabilities for modeling behavior or interactions of associated physical objects or other entities, enabling simulations, providing indications of status, and many others.” [Par 1094] “For example, in the context of a manufacturing process, a digital twin of the process may depict the status and/or outcomes of different stages in the manufacturing pipeline. In some implementations, the EMP 80 may receive data from various sources (e.g., IoT sensors, data from smart equipment, computing devices, smart products, smart infrastructure, or the like) and may update the digital twin of the process to reflect the received data.”) whether the change is a change in supplier related to a predetermined process of the BOM ([Par 351] “In an example embodiment, a supplier may be bankrupt, or a determination is made that the supplier is bankrupt, and then the VCNP 604 may automatically trigger a substitute smart contract to be sent to a secondary supplier with altered terms. There may be management of different aspects of the supply chain.” [Par 91] “… processing data that is available in any of a plurality of data sources including processes, bill of materials, weather, traffic, design specification, customer complaint logs, customer reviews, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System, Customer Relationship Management (CRM) System, Customer Experience Management (CEM) System, Service Lifecycle Management (SLM) System, Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) System.” [Par 439] “. An environment for development of a digital twin 1700 may include a set of interfaces for developers in which a developer may configure an artificial intelligence system 1160 to take inputs from selected data sources of the data storage layer 624 and events or other data from the monitoring systems layer 614 and supply them for inclusion in a digital twin 1700. A digital twin 1700 development environment may be configured to take outputs and outcomes from various applications 630.”) is determined, and whether the changed supplier ([Par 351] “In an example embodiment, a supplier may be bankrupt, or a determination is made that the supplier is bankrupt, and then the VCNP 604 may automatically trigger a substitute smart contract to be sent to a secondary supplier with altered terms. There may be management of different aspects of the supply chain.”) is present in the existing record of the master data ([Par 1147] “In embodiments, the digital twin I/O system 8104 receives data stream feeds received data streams received and/or collected on behalf on an enterprise and stores at least a portion of the streams into a data lake 8122 associated with the enterprise. In embodiments, the data that is streamed into the data lake 8122 may be structured and stored in one or more databases stored in the digital twin data stores 8124.”) is determined, and in the update step, the master data ([Par 1147] “In embodiments, the digital twin I/O system 8104 receives data stream feeds received data streams received and/or collected on behalf on an enterprise and stores at least a portion of the streams into a data lake 8122 associated with the enterprise. In embodiments, the data that is streamed into the data lake 8122 may be structured and stored in one or more databases stored in the digital twin data stores 8124.”) is not updated when the changed supplier ([Par 351] “In an example embodiment, a supplier may be bankrupt, or a determination is made that the supplier is bankrupt, and then the VCNP 604 may automatically trigger a substitute smart contract to be sent to a secondary supplier with altered terms. There may be management of different aspects of the supply chain.”) is present in the existing record of the master data. ([Par 1147] “In embodiments, the digital twin I/O system 8104 receives data stream feeds received data streams received and/or collected on behalf on an enterprise and stores at least a portion of the streams into a data lake 8122 associated with the enterprise. In embodiments, the data that is streamed into the data lake 8122 may be structured and stored in one or more databases stored in the digital twin data stores 8124.”) The combination of Cella and Kazama does not explicitly teach whether the change is a change of supplier data is determined, and whether the changed data is present in the database is determined, and in the update step, the database is not updated when the changed data is present in the database already. Baldwin teaches whether the change is a change of supplier data is determined , and whether the changed data is present in the database is determined, and in the update step, the database is not updated when the changed data is present in the database already. ([Page 1 Par 1 – Page 2 Par 2] “Only update rows that changed? Try using EXISTS and EXCEPT … This is one of my favorite SQL tricks. Maybe you’re building an ETL process, like loading a file, or need to compare two tables? How would you write that update? One of the daunting parts of writing updates, especially with a large number of columns, is figuring out which records actually changed, and only updating those records. … This is where my favorite trick comes in; Using the EXISTS operator and the EXCEPT set operator to identify changed rows.” [Page 5] “ UPDATE c SET c.FirstName = u.FirstName, c.MiddleName = u.MiddleName, c.LastName = u.LastName, c.DateOfBirth = u.DateOfBirth FROM #Customer c JOIN #Updates u ON u.CustomerID = c.CustomerID WHERE EXISTS ( SELECT c.FirstName, c.MiddleName, c.LastName, c.DateOfBirth EXCEPT SELECT u.FirstName, u.MiddleName, u.LastName, u.DateOfBirth ); [Examiner’s note: the above code block checks what data already exists in the database before updating and skips updating elements that already have identical data to what would be written in the update]) Baldwin is analogous art because it is within the field of database management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine it with Cella and Kazama before the effective filing date. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order better, more efficiently update data. As noted by Baldwin, traditional methods of updating databases, particularly in high-performance contexts, can result in unnecessary data writes. ([Page 1 Par 3-4] “Maybe you’re building an ETL process, like loading a file, or need to compare two tables? How would you write that update? One of the daunting parts of writing updates, especially with a large number of columns, is figuring out which records actually changed, and only updating those records”) To this end, Baldwin presents a method for updating databases that skips unchanged data, leading to a more efficient update overall ([Page 2 Par 2] “This is where my favorite trick comes in; Using the EXISTS operator and the EXCEPT set operator to identify changed rows.” [Page 5] “ UPDATE c SET c.FirstName = u.FirstName, c.MiddleName = u.MiddleName, c.LastName = u.LastName, c.DateOfBirth = u.DateOfBirth FROM #Customer c JOIN #Updates u ON u.CustomerID = c.CustomerID WHERE EXISTS ( SELECT c.FirstName, c.MiddleName, c.LastName, c.DateOfBirth EXCEPT SELECT u.FirstName, u.MiddleName, u.LastName, u.DateOfBirth ); [Examiner’s note: the above code block checks what data already exists before updating and skips updating elements that already have identical data to what would be written in the update] [Page 6 Par 1-2] “What about performance? If you were to compare query plans between the first method and the EXISTS/EXCEPT method, it appears the latter will generate a slightly more complicated execution plan. However, I have found that despite this, the EXISTS/EXCEPT method almost always performs better, even with very large workloads. Not only do I consistently see it run faster, but it also requires significantly less reads on the dependent tables.”) Overall, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combining Baldwin with Cella and Kazama would result in a significantly more efficient database system that avoids unnecessary data reads/writes. The combination of Cella, Kazama, and Baldwin does not explicitly teach whether the change is a change of a certain type is determined Glanville makes obvious whether the change is a change of supplier data is determined ([Par 75] “As indicated by block 414, consequent to the notification, it may be determined whether the supplier updates the supplier's profile. In the case of a determination that the supplier has not updated the supplier's profile, the flow may transition to block 418. In the case of a determination that the supplier updates the supplier's profile, the flow may transition to block 416” [Abstract] “ A trigger event corresponding to a requested change in a supplier relationship status for a prospective supplier may be recognized.”) Glanville is analogous art because it is within the field of supply chain and production management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine it with Cella, Kazama, and Baldwin before the effective filing date. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to more efficiently manage the sourcing of materials for the manufacturing process. As noted by Glanville, organizing the acquisition of parts and materials from suppliers can be an extremely time consuming process and result in missing data. ([Par 2] “There is significant time spent by companies gathering all the required information from new suppliers needed for doing business. The extensive supplier data that companies require before any contracts or orders can be initiated oftentimes is extensive and may include information about locations, contacts, diversity classifications, preferred payment methods, bank account information, tax identifications, etc. Conventional procurement approaches do not adequately address collaboration between buyer and supplier for capturing all the supplier's organization information at the point of initiating a business relationship to conduct commerce. For example, conventional approaches to sourcing, procurement, or supplier management may rely on manual intervention by users to collect missing supplier data.”) One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this issue of missing data in particular would still be relevant even to other systems that automate aspects of supplier management, such as described in Cella . To this end, Glanville presents a method for automatically managing suppliers in a manner specialized for dealing with potentially missing data, cutting the need for manual intervention and ultimately streamlining the entire procurement process ([Par 31] “Certain embodiments may provide for supplier management process automation that facilitates the collection of company profile information from an external party (e.g., a prospective supplier). Company profile information may be collected into an application that, for example, may be employed by a buying organization. Collection processes can be system-initiated based on a sourcing award event or can be initiated by manually promoting the prospective supplier. Certain embodiments may provide for automatically initiating a workflow to a prospective supplier to collect all required company profile information after being awarded business from a competitive bid process. Certain embodiments may provide process automation for getting suppliers "ready" for transaction processing. With such embodiments, manual intervention by users to collect missing supplier data after an award event need not be necessary.” [Par 7] “The supplier relationship management system may include one or more network interfaces configured to provide access to a network. One or more processors may be coupled to the one or more network interfaces to execute instructions to perform one or more of the following. A trigger event corresponding to a requested change in a supplier relationship status for a prospective supplier may be recognized. Responsive to the trigger event, a supplier profile corresponding to the prospective supplier may be processed to identify missing profile information. A workflow may be launched to collect the missing profile information from the prospective supplier. The missing profile information may be collected from the prospective supplier. Responsive to an approval of changes to the supplier profile based on the missing profile information, a spend authorization workflow may be launched to promote the supplier relationship status”) Overall, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that combining Glanville with Cella, Kazama, and Baldwin would result in a more streamlined manufacturing management system that allowed for easier, less error-susceptible management of suppliers. Claim 4. Cella teaches further comprising: an alert generation step of generating, ([Par 1320] “user notifications are enabled. In embodiments, notifications within the digital twin are controlled by the grain of the data selected and the required perspective. For example, a CTO level view requires notifications of various technology changes and technology market forces, the CTO digital twin is constantly being overlaid with these notifications that are structurally associated with the relevant part of the digital environment abstract or concrete”) when the changed supplier ([Par 351] “In an example embodiment, a supplier may be bankrupt, or a determination is made that the supplier is bankrupt, and then the VCNP 604 may automatically trigger a substitute smart contract to be sent to a secondary supplier with altered terms. There may be management of different aspects of the supply chain.”) is not present in the existing record of the master data, ([Par 1147] “In embodiments, the digital twin I/O system 8104 receives data stream feeds received data streams received and/or collected on behalf on an enterprise and stores at least a portion of the streams into a data lake 8122 associated with the enterprise. In embodiments, the data that is streamed into the data lake 8122 may be structured and stored in one or more databases stored in the digital twin data stores 8124.”) an alert ([Par 1320] “user notifications are enabled. In embodiments, notifications within the digital twin are controlled by the grain of the data selected and the required perspective. For example, a CTO level view requires notifications of various technology changes and technology market forces, the CTO digital twin is constantly being overlaid with these notifications that are structurally associated with the relevant part of the digital environment abstract or concrete”) prompting addition of a process to the model data ([Par 1094] “For example, in the context of a manufacturing process, a digital twin of the process may depict the status and/or outcomes of different stages in the manufacturing pipeline. In some implementations, the EMP 80 may receive data from various sources (e.g., IoT sensors, data from smart equipment, computing devices, smart products, smart infrastructure, or the like) and may update the digital twin of the process to reflect the received data.” [Par 729] “The simulation using warehousing twins 1712 of the movement of products, personnel, and material handling equipment may enable warehouse managers to test and evaluate the potential impact of layout changes or the introduction of new equipment and new processes.”) according to the change in supplier; ([Par 351] “In an example embodiment, a supplier may be bankrupt, or a determination is made that the supplier is bankrupt, and then the VCNP 604 may automatically trigger a substitute smart contract to be sent to a secondary supplier with altered terms. There may be management of different aspects of the supply chain.”) and an output step of outputting, via a user interface, the alert generated in the alert generation step. ([Par 1320] “user notifications are enabled. In embodiments, notifications within the digital twin are controlled by the grain of the data selected and the required perspective. For example, a CTO level view requires notifications of various technology changes and technology market forces, the CTO digital twin is constantly being overlaid with these notifications that are structurally associated with the relevant part of the digital environment abstract or concrete”) Glanville teaches when changed data is not present in the existing record, prompting an addition of data of according to the changed data ([Par 7] “A trigger event corresponding to a requested change in a supplier relationship status for a prospective supplier may be recognized. Responsive to the trigger event, a supplier profile corresponding to the prospective supplier may be processed to identify missing profile information. A workflow may be launched to collect the missing profile information from the prospective supplier. The missing profile information may be collected from the prospective supplier. Responsive to an approval of changes to the supplier profile based on the missing profile information, a spend authorization workflow may be launched to promote the supplier relationship status.”) Claims 10-11. The elements of claims 10-11 are substantially the same as those of claims 3-4. Therefore, the elements of claims 10-11 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 3-4. Further, Cella makes obvious the additional elements of claim 8, as depended upon by claims 10-11. “a storage unit configured to store master data of the digital twin; a data input unit … a change detection unit … an update unit” ([Par 1576] “The methods and systems described herein may be deployed in part or in whole through a machine that executes computer software, program codes, and/or instructions on a processor. The present disclosure may be implemented as a method on the machine, as a system or apparatus as part of or in relation to the machine, or as a computer program product embodied in a computer readable medium executing on one or more of the machines. In embodiments, the processor may be part of a server, cloud server, client, network infrastructure, mobile computing platform, stationary computing platform, or other computing platforms…. The processor, or any machine utilizing one, may include non-transitory memory that stores methods, codes, instructions and programs as described herein and elsewhere. The processor may access a non-transitory storage medium through an interface that may store methods, codes, and instructions as described herein and elsewhere. The storage medium associated with the processor for storing methods, programs, codes, program instructions or other type of instructions capable of being executed by the computing or processing device may include but may not be limited to one or more of a CD-ROM, DVD, memory, hard disk, flash drive, RAM, ROM, cache, network-attached storage, server-based storage, and the like.”). Allowable Subject Matter Additionally, Claims 5-7 and 12-14 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 in a way that overcomes the previously outlined rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 5-7 and 12-14 are objected to and would be allowed under 35 U.S.C. 103 over prior art. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art representative of the claims, in particular the specific bill of process change processing steps being followed by the specific master data manipulation steps was not found. Particularly, for claims 5 and 12, no prior art describing detection of whether or not a new procedure step was added to a bill of procedure, whether the new step is compatible with the system and can be inserted into the master data, and based on this detection deciding to either insert the step data into a first data set (the master data) or add a new process ID into a second data set (the model data) could be found. For claims 6 and 12, no prior art could be found that describes determining if a resource was changed in a bill of process, whether a table describing the changed resource already exists, and, if the table already exists, duplicating it and assigning the duplicate a new process ID. Overall, prior art that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found reasonable to combine that teaches the different very particular update procedures being used in the very specific scenarios described could not be found. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Mirabito whose telephone number is (703)756-1494. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 am - 6:30 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, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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. /M.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2187 /EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 2 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 3 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 4 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 5 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 6 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 7 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 8 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 9 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 10 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 11 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 12 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 13 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 14 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 15 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 16 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 17 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 18 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 19 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 20 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 21 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 22 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 23 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 24 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 25 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 26 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 27 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 28 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 29 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 30 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 31 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 32 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 33 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 34 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 35 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 36 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 37 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 38 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 39 Art Unit: 2187 Application/Control Number: 18/110,034 Page 40 Art Unit: 2187
Prosecution Insights