DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication responsive to application filed on 12/28/2022.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/28/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 16-20 directly or indirectly depend on independent claim 15. Claim 15 is a product claim but the dependent claims are method claims which are different statutory categories. Therefore, the dependent claims should be amended as “The computer program product”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (Does this claim fall within at least one statutory category?):
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method.
Claims 8-14 are directed to a system.
Claims 15-20 are directed to a product.
Therefore, claims 1-20 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1: ((a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites an abstract idea: and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groups of abstract ideas enumerates in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)):
Claim 1:
A computer implemented method, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, an entity data having one or more data components associated with an entity [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering];
analyzing the entity data [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)];
identifying, responsive to analyzing the entity data, one or more restricted data components and one or more unrestricted data components from the one or more data components [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)];
generating at least one federated digital twin of the entity using the one or more restricted data components [insignificant post solution, data output];
generating a non-federated digital twin of the entity using the one or more unrestricted data components [insignificant post solution, data output]; and
aggregating the at least one federated digital twin and the non-federated digital twin to form a hybrid digital twin [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
Step 2A, Prong 2 (1. Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and 2. Evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application): The claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites additional element of “receiving”, “processor”, and “generating”. The additional element of “receiving” is insignificant pre-solution (i.e. data gathering). The additional element of “processor” recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). In addition, the additional element of “generating” is insignificant post solution, data output. Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No): As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of “receiving” is insignificant pre-solutions (i.e. data gathering). At most the additional element is not found to including anything more than data gathering or mere data output. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g), example (iv) - Obtaining information about transactions. Further, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of “processor” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional elements of “generating” in insignificant post-solutions (i.e. mere data output). At most the additional element is not found to including anything more than mere data output. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g), example (iii)- presenting offers to potential customers.
As per claim 2, the claim falls into “insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering”.
As per claim 3, the claim falls into “mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)”.
As per claim 4, the claim falls into “mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)”.
As per claim 5, the claim falls into “mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)”.
As per claim 6, the claim falls into “mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)”.
As per claim 7, the claim falls into “mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)”.
As per claim 8, independent claim 8 recites limitations analogous in scope to those of independent claim 1, and as such are similar rejected. Further, claim 8 recites additional elements of “a processor” and “a memory”. The components recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional elements of “a processor” and “a memory” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As per Claims 9-20, claims 9-20 recite limitations analogous in scope to those of claims 1-7, and as such are similar rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the cited prior art references of record fully anticipate or render obvious the independent claims in particular limitation of: “generating at least one federated digital twin of the entity using the one or more restricted data components; generating a non-federated digital twin of the entity using the one or more unrestricted data components; and aggregating the at least one federated digital twin and the non-federated digital twin to form a hybrid digital twin” as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-8571. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:30 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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571 272 3676. 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.
KIBROM K. GEBRESILASSIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189 02/21/2026