DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/15/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 - 20 have been presented for examination. Claims 1 – 4, 11 and 15 – 19 are currently amended.
The instant office action relies on Lund et al. (US 2013/0333855) and Talkhestani et al. “An architecture of an Intelligent Digital Twin in a Cyber-Physical Production System” which are cited on the IDS.
Response to Objection to the Claims
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the claim objection. Therefore, it is withdrawn.
Response to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant’s amendments overcome the 112(b) rejection. Therefore, it is withdrawn.
Response to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. However, the Office does not consider them to be persuasive.
Applicant argues: “However, Applicant submits that the above recitations of amended independent claims and 17 cannot 1, 11, reasonably be construed as a mental process. For example, "updat[ing] the digital representation and the one or more additional digital representations based on the one or more service packages, wherein the one or more service packages comprise one or more sets of code implementable by the digital representation and the one or more additional digital representations to simulate updated operations of the asset and the one or more additional updated operations of the one or more additional assets," ''perform[ing] one or more simulations of the one or more service packages via the updated digital representation and the one or more updated additional digital representations," and “determine[ing] a compatibility of a risk assessment associated with the one or more service packages being compatible with respect to a plurality of operations of the plurality of assets based on performing the one or more simulations," as recited by amended independent claim 1, cannot practically be performed by the human mind.” (italic emphasis in original) (bold emphasis added)
Applicant argues that the “determine a compatibility” and “updat[ing]” and “perform[ing]” cannot be practically performed in the mind (see emphasis above). Examiner notes that the “determine a compatibility” covers an analytical processes recited at a high-level of generality in combination with performing simulations via digital representations which does not preclude performing a mental process by observing simulation results from one or more digital representations. Further, the “updat[ing]” and “perform[ing]” are analyzed at Step 2A, Prong II (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101).
Applicant argues: “Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 1, 11, and 17 are directed to ensure effective operation of a plurality of assets, as well as resolving events associated with assets of the plurality of assets …
As shown above, the recitations provide a practical application of evaluating the one or more service packages and ensuring that the plurality of assets will operate effectively with the implementation of the one or more service packages. Indeed, by updating the digital representation and the one or more additional digital representations based on the one or more service packages and determining the compatibility of a risk assessment associated with the one or more service packages being compatible with respect to the plurality of operations of the plurality of assets based on the performance of one or more simulations via the updated digital representation and the one or more updated additional digital representations, the present embodiments ensure the effectiveness of the plurality of assets to overcome the event and the one or more additional events. In this manner, the recitations of the claims are integrated into a practical application of evaluating one or more service packages used to resolve an event and one or more additional events and ensuring a plurality of assets to perform effectively with the one or more service packages implemented” (emphasis added)
Applicant argues that the practical application substantially involves “evaluating” and “ensuring” which appear to map to the recited “determine a computability of a risk assessment associated with the one or more service packages being compatible”. Although the “determine” is explicitly recited as being “based on performing the one or more simulations”, the performance of the simulation itself in combination with the digital representation is wholly generic (see the instant application Paragraph 114 and Figure 9 the simulator and simulation system are part of a industrial network without any further disclosed structure “the Digital Twins 174 uniquely assigned to respective assets 154 to analyze collected asset-related data, to conduct simulations using a simulator of the simulation system 170 coordinated with the Digital Twins 174”). Therefore, the problem being overcome (i.e., “evaluating the one or more service packages and ensuring that the plurality of assets will operate effectively” covers mental processes based on the performance of simulations which covers a person mentally reviewing simulation results (i.e., observations and evaluations).
Applicant argues: “Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that the recited features of amended independent claims 1 and 11 add specific limitations to the claim that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field. Amended independent claim 1 recites, inter alia … [claim language] …
Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 1, 11, and 17 recite meaningful elements that include significantly more than merely mental activity. As noted above, the amended independent claims are directed to determining the compatibility of a risk assessment of the one or more service packages with respect to a plurality of operations of the plurality of assets prior to applying the one or more service packages to a subset of the plurality of assets. Thus, the efficiency of the plurality of assets is preserved with respect to implementing the one or more service packages. The claims do not merely recite general elements conventionally arranged and/or that consider one conventional condition” (emphasis added)
Applicant presents a conclusory arguments that the various additional elements are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity (see emphasis above). Applicant further argues that claims1 (and similarly claim 11 and 17) recite elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea since the claim is “directed to determining the compatibility of a risk assessment” whereby “the efficiency of the plurality of assets is preserved with respect to implementing the one or more service packages”. Examiner notes that the implementing of the service package is not positively recited. Further, merely implementing a previously determined service package would amount to reciting the words “apply it”.
Response to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, and they are persuasive. However, a new 103 rejection is included in view of Talkhestani (see Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103).
Applicant argues: “At most, Deutsch teaches "determining an operational event that has occurred with respect to the asset ... [and] identifying previous operational events that have occurred and that are related to the determined operational event." Deutsch, paragraphs 106 and 107 (emphasis added). Nothing in Deutsch teaches identifying one or more additional assets associated with an asset based on an asset hierarchy, identifying one or more additional events associated with the one or more additional assets, wherein the event associated with the asset and the one or more additional events occurred within a threshold amount of time, as generally recited by amended independent claim 1.” (emphasis added)
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, the “identifying” is taught by a combination of Deutsch and Talkhestani (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103).
Applicant argues: “Nothing in Deutsch teaches one or more service packages configured to resolve a set of events, wherein the one or more service packages comprise one or more sets of code implementable by the digital representation and the one or more additional digital representations to simulate updated operations of the asset and the one or more additional assets, as generally recited by amended independent claim 1. Additionally, nothing in Lund teaches updating a digital representation and one or more additional digital representations based on the one or more service packages to simulate updated operations of an asset and one or more additional updated operations of one or more additional assets, as generally recited by amended independent claim 1.” (italic emphasis in original)
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, Deutsch in view of Lund is relied upon to teach “retrieve one or more service packages associated with the set of events from the code repository, wherein the one or more service packages are configured to resolve the set of events; update the digital representation and the one or more additional digital representations based on the one or more service packages, wherein the one or more service packages comprise one or more sets of code implementable by the digital representation and the one or more additional digital representations to simulate updated operations of the asset and one or more additional updated operations of the one or more additional assets”. Lund explicitly teaches using digital twin(s) to model obtained recommendations with regard to parameter settings (see Paragraph 58 digital twin is iteratively updated based on different settings “Equipment performance for different settings can be simulated using the digital twin module 54, and lifecycle assessment repeated for new set of operating conditions. This process is repeated until desired performance can be achieved while still operating equipment under safe conditions.”, and Figure 7 specific parameter settings are recommended (service package)
PNG
media_image1.png
271
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
Applicant argues: “However, nothing in Lund teaches determining a compatibility of a risk assessment associated with one or more service packages being compatible with respect to a plurality of operations of a plurality of assets, wherein the one or more service packages are incompatible with the plurality of operations when at least one of the plurality of assets stops operating or loses connectivity according to one or more simulations, as generally recited by amended independent claim 1.” (emphasis added)
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, the “determining a compatibility of risk assessment” is taught by a combination of Lund and Johnson (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103).
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 a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a manufacture) non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to: identify one or more additional assets of the plurality of assets associated with the asset based on an asset hierarchy of the industrial automation system in response to receiving the indication of the event; identify one or more additional events associated with one or more additional operations of the one or more additional assets based on the one or more additional digital representations, wherein the event occurred at a first time and the one or more additional events occurred at a second time, wherein the first time and the second time are within a threshold amount of time, and wherein the one or more additional events are indicative of one or more additional operating parameters of the one or more additional operations of the one or more additional assets exceeding one or more additional operating thresholds; determine a compatibility of a risk assessment associated with the one or more service packages being compatible with respect to a plurality of operations of the plurality of assets based on performing the one or more simulations, wherein the one or more service packages are incompatible with the plurality of operations when at least one of the plurality of assets stops operating or loses connectivity according to the one or more simulation. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “identify” and “determine” amounts to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality, and requiring nothing more than observations, judgements, or evaluations which are reasonably performed in the mind. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: receive an indication of an event associated with operations of an asset of a plurality of assets of an industrial automation system from a digital representation of a plurality of digital representations corresponding to the plurality of assets stored in a code repository, wherein the event is indicative of an operating parameter of the operations of the asset exceeding an operating threshold; access one or more additional digital representations associated with the one or more additional assets; send a first request for asset data associated with the event to a control system associated with the asset and one or more second requests for one or more additional asset datasets associated with the one or more additional events to one or more additional control systems associated with the one or more additional assets; receive the asset data from the control system and the one or more additional asset datasets from the one or more additional control systems; query one or more databases to identify a set of events detected prior to receiving the indication of the event based on the asset data and the one or more additional asset datasets, wherein the set of events comprise information associated with the event and the one or more additional events; retrieve one or more service packages associated with the set of events from the code repository, wherein the one or more service packages are configured to resolve the set of events; update the digital representation and the one or more additional digital representations based on the one or more service packages, wherein the one or more service packages comprise one or more sets of code implementable by the digital representation and the one or more additional digital representations to simulate the updated operations of the asset and one or more additional updated operations of the one or more additional assets; perform one or more simulations of the one or more service packages via the updated digital representation and the one or more updated additional digital representations; generate a notification configured to present a visualization indicative of information related to the compatibility of the risk assessment via a display. The “receive” and “access” and “send” and “query” and “retrieve” amount to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the data is gathered, and since the remaining steps merely utilize the obtained data in a generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “send” and “generate a notification” amount to insignificant data outputting since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the data is outputted. The ”update” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it generically recites modifying a digital representation based on the results of the previously recited “identify” in combination with insignificant data gathering “send” and “receive” and “query”. Looking to the specification, there is no disclosed algorithm for performing the update, and there is no specific form to realize the digital twin, such that the “update” covers no more than generic digital twins updated in a generic manner. The ”perform” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it generically recites performing a simulation further based on the results of the previously recited “identify” and “update”. Looking to the specification, a simulator and simulation system are part of an industrial network without any further disclosed structure (see the instant application Paragraph 114 and Figure 9 “the Digital Twins 174 uniquely assigned to respective assets 154 to analyze collected asset-related data, to conduct simulations using a simulator of the simulation system 170 coordinated with the Digital Twins 174”). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “receive” and “access” and “send” and “query” and “retrieve” and “generate a notification” comprise well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since they are generic with regard to how the data is obtained or sent which reasonably includes any electronic means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). The ”update” and “perform” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it covers no more than generic digital twins updated and or used for simulations in a generic manner. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the data-gathering steps necessarily occur before the data-outputting steps, and require no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 - 10 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): In claim 4 identifying one or more asset performance changes associated with the one or more simulations, wherein the one or more asset performance changes comprise at least one of the plurality of assets stopping operation or losing connectivity; In claim 6 generating a solution package based on the anomaly and the one or more additional anomalies, wherein the solution package comprises one or more solutions to solve one or more issues associated with the anomaly and the one or more additional anomalies; determining whether the one or more solutions solve the one or more issues based on the one or more simulations; In claim 8 assessing one or more cybersecurity risks based on the one or more additional simulations; In claim 10 determine one or more asset performance changes associated with the hierarchy change based on the one or more simulations. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “identifying” and “determining” and “assessing” and “determine” amounts to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality, and requiring nothing more than observations, judgements, or evaluations which are reasonably performed in the mind. The “generating a solution package” covers any solution that can solve a generic anomaly which requires no more than judgements and evaluations reasonably created in the mind. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: In claim 2 wherein the digital representation comprises simulation code specific to operating, maintaining, or diagnosing the asset; In claim 3 wherein the one or more service packages comprises an update to the simulation code; In claim 4 generating the notification based on the one or more asset performance changes; In claim 5 wherein the event comprises an anomaly associated with the asset; In claim 6 performing the one or more simulations based on the solution package via the digital representation; in response to determining that the one or more solutions solve the one or more issues; In claim 7 wherein the event comprises a cybersecurity alert associated with the asset; In claim 8 accessing one or more log files associated with the cybersecurity alert; performing one or more additional simulations based on the one or more log files via the digital representation; generating one or more cybersecurity threat alerts as one or more actionable items based on assessment results, wherein the notification comprises the one or more cybersecurity threat alerts; In claim 9 wherein the event comprises a hierarchy change associated with a hierarchy of the plurality of assets. For example, the “digital representation comprises simulation code” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it further limits the parent claim “receive” by reciting what the digital representation comprises prior to being accessed, and without changing the manner in which they are accessed (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “one or more service packages comprises” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it further limits the parent claim “retrieve” without changing the manner in which they are retrieved. The “generating the notification” amounts to insignificant data outputting since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the data is outputted. The “event comprises” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it further limits the parent claim “receive” without changing the manner in which they are received. The “performing the one or more simulations” and “performing one or more additional simulations” amounts to insignificant data gathering since output from said simulations are merely utilized by the “identifying” and “determining” and “assessing” in a generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “accessing” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the data is gathered, and since it is merely further used for the “performing simulations” which also amounts to insignificant data gathering. The “generating one or more cybersecurity threat alerts” amounts to insignificant data outputting since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the data is outputted, and merely recites a high-level categorization of the alert (i.e. “cybersecurity” and part of a notification). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “digital representation comprises simulation code” comprise well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is analogous to creating a digital representation from a physical asset of an industrial automation system (see MPEP 2106.05(d) “v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document”). The “one or more service packages comprises” and “generating the notification” and “event comprises” and “accessing” and “generating one or more cybersecurity threat alerts” comprises well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it is recited at a high-level of generality and reasonably includes any electronic means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). The “performing the one or more simulations” and “performing one or more additional simulations” comprises well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it requires no more than generic computer hardware using any suitable modeling/simulation methods (see the instant application Paragraph 149 “In one embodiment, the simulation system 170 may perform emulations by utilizing a cloud computing system included in the simulation system 170, one or more cloud computing systems outside the simulation system 170, or combinations thereof. The emulations may include data and/or model-based simulations, machine learning, other suitable modeling/simulation methods. The simulation system 170 may use the retrieved relevant asset data from the Digital Twin 17 4 as an input.”). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the data-gathering steps necessarily occur before the data-outputting steps, and require no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 11 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a process) method, comprising the same steps as claim 1. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea for the same reasons as in claim 1.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: that the steps are via a processor; all the same additional elements of claim 1. The “via a processor” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea for the same reasons as in claim 1, and as discussed above.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “processor” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons and as discussed in claim 1, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 12 - 16 recite(s)at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): In claim 16 generating one or more notifications, alerts, recommendations, solutions, actionable items, or a combination thereof based on performing the one or more simulations via the updated digital representation and the one or more additional updated digital representations. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “generating one or more” covers generating recommendations or items which requires no more than judgements and evaluations reasonably created in the mind. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: In claim 12 generating, via the processor, the digital representation using model code associated with a first hierarchy comprising hierarchical levels of the code repository; In claim 13 generating, via the processor, the model code based on reference code converted from asset code associated with a second hierarchy comprising hierarchical levels of the plurality of assets; In claim 14 wherein the reference code is converted from asset code based on a mapping between the second hierarchy and the first hierarchy; In claim 16 performing, via the processor, simulations based on the data associated with the event via the digital representation; adding, via the processor, the one or more notifications, alerts, recommendations, solutions, actionable items, or the combination thereof to the service package; In claim 15 wherein the event and the one or more additional events comprise an update on code specific to operating, maintaining, or diagnosing the asset and the one or more additional assets, a hierarchy change associated with a hierarchy of the plurality of assets, an anomaly associated with the asset and the one or more additional assets, a cybersecurity alert associated with the asset and the one or more additional assets, or any combination thereof; and In claim 16 that the generating is via the processor; adding, via the processor, the one or more notifications, alerts, recommendations, solutions, actionable items, or the combination thereof to the one or more service packages. The “generating one or more” is “via a processor” is recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “generating, via the processor, the digital representation” and “generating, via the processor, the model code” and “reference code is converted from” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it further limits the parent claim “accessing” by reciting how the digital representation were created prior to being accessed, and without changing the manner in which they are accessed beyond being in combination generic computer hardware (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “performing, via the processor, simulations” amounts to insignificant data gathering since output from said simulations are merely utilized by the “generating one or more” in a generic manner, said simulations being implemented in combination with generic computer hardware (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The ”event and the one or more additional events comprise” amount to insignificant data gathering since it further limits the parent claim “receive” without changing the manner in which they are received. The “adding, via the processor” amounts to insignificant data outputting since it further limits the parent claim “sending” to include specific elements, and without changing the manner in which the service package is sent beyond being in combination with generic computer hardware (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “via the processor” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The “generating, via the processor, the digital representation” and “generating, via the processor, the model code” and “reference code is converted from” comprise well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is analogous to creating a digital representation from a physical asset of an industrial automation system (see MPEP 2106.05(d) “v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document”). The “performing, via the processor, simulations” comprises well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it requires no more than generic computer hardware using any suitable modeling/simulation methods (see the instant application Paragraph 149 “In one embodiment, the simulation system 170 may perform emulations by utilizing a cloud computing system included in the simulation system 170, one or more cloud computing systems outside the simulation system 170, or combinations thereof. The emulations may include data and/or model-based simulations, machine learning, other suitable modeling/simulation methods. The simulation system 170 may use the retrieved relevant asset data from the Digital Twin 17 4 as an input.”). The ”adding, via the processor, the one or more” comprises well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it further limits the parent claim “sending” to include specific elements, however, without changing the generality with which the data is sent which reasonably includes any electronic means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the data-gathering steps necessarily occur before the data-outputting steps, and require no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 17 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a machine) system, configured to perform the same steps as claim 1. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea for the same reasons as in claim 1.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: that the system comprising a storage component comprising a plurality of digital representations assigned to a plurality of assets of an industrial automation system and configured to operate, maintain, or diagnose the plurality of assets; and a computing component configured to perform a plurality of simulations based on a plurality of asset data received from the plurality of assets via the plurality of digital representations; and one or more processors configured to perform the steps of claim 1; all the same additional elements of claim 1. The “storage component” and “computing component” and “processors” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea for the same reasons as in claim 1, and as discussed above.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “storage component” and “computing component” and “processors” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons and as discussed in claim 1, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 18 – 20 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): In claim 18 generate metadata indicative of a context associated with the event and one or more additional metadata indicative of one or more additional contexts associated with the one or more additional events; and In claim 19 wherein the metadata and the one or more additional metadata comprises information associated with components of the asset and the one or more additional assets, hierarchical levels of the plurality of assets, or combination thereof within the industrial automation system. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “generate” and “metadata and the one or more additional metadata comprises” requires no more than judgement and evaluations to generate desired data which is reasonably performed in the mind. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: In claim 18 comprising an additional computing device configured to: receive the indication of the event and the one or more additional events from one or more data sources; transmit the indication of the event, the one or more additional events, the metadata, and the one or more additional metadata to the one or more processors; In claim 20 wherein: the plurality of digital representations is generated using model code associated with a first hierarchy comprising hierarchical levels of the storage component; and the model code is generated based on reference code converted from asset code associated with a second hierarchy comprising hierarchical levels of the plurality of assets based on a mapping between the second hierarchy and the first hierarchy. The “additional computing device” covers structure that is invoked at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)) (see Claim Interpretation for the structure associated with “edge computing device”). The “receive” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the data is gathered, and since the remaining steps merely utilize the obtained data in a generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “transmit” amounts to insignificant data outputting since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the data is outputted. The “digital representations are generated using” and “model code is generated based on” amount to insignificant data gathering since it further limits the parent claim “access” by reciting how the digital representation were created prior to being accessed, and without changing the manner in which they are accessed (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “additional computing device” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The “receive” and “transmit” comprise well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since they are generic with regard to how the data is received or transmitted which reasonably includes any electronic means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). The “digital representations are generated using” and “model code is generated based on” comprise well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it is analogous to creating a digital representation from a physical asset of an industrial automation system (see MPEP 2106.05(d) “v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document”). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the data-gathering steps (including the generating of the digital representations) necessarily occur before the data-outputting steps, and require no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 7, 9 – 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch et al. (US 2019/0138970) (henceforth “Deutsch (970)”) in view of Lund et al. (US 2016/0333855) (henceforth “Lund (855)”), and further in view of
Johnson et al. (US 2017/0323274) (henceforth “Johnson (274)”), and further in view of Talkhestani et al. “An architecture of an Intelligent Digital Twin in a Cyber-Physical Production System” (henceforth “Talkhestani”). Deutsch (970) and Lund (855) and Johnson (274) and Talkhestani are analogous art because they solve the same problem of desirably interacting with a digital representation of a physical system, and because they are in the same field of analyzing a physical system using its digital representation.
With regard to claim 1, Deutsch (970) teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to: (Paragraph 126 “Any such resulting program, having computer-readable code, may be embodied or provided within one or more non-transitory computer readable media, thereby making a computer program product)”
receive an indication indicative of an event associated with operations of an asset of a plurality of assets of an industrial automation system (Abstract “determining an operational event that has occurred with respect to the asset based on the execution of the digital twin, identifying previous operational events that have occurred and that are related to the determined operational event, generating context for the determined operational event based on the previous operational events, and outputting information for display about the generated context of the determined operational event to a display device.”, and Paragraph 1 – 2 there are multiple industrial assets which are controlled (industrial automation system) “without limitation, industrial manufacturing equipment on a production line … Low-level software and hardware-based controllers have long been used to drive machine and equipment assets. “)
from a digital representation of a plurality of digital representations corresponding to the plurality of assets stored in a code repository (Paragraph 79 “Prior to deployment as a twin runtime instance, twin templates are designed and stored externally. The twin builder 532 is an application which provides the means to create new twin templates, browse a marketplace of existing twin templates and acquire and customize them, and ultimately load such twin templates as instances within the runtime environment.”, and Paragraph 89 “Twin templates are designed graph constructs which are intended to provide or encapsulate various capabilities. For example, the template may have a pragmatic entity structure.”)
wherein the event is indicative of an operating parameter of the operations of the asset exceeding an operating threshold (Figure 4 component exceeds a temperature threshold
PNG
media_image2.png
63
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)
identify one or more additional assets of the plurality of assets associated with the asset based on an asset hierarchy of the industrial automation system in response to receiving the indication of the event; (Figure 4
PNG
media_image3.png
204
727
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
access one or more additional digital representations associated with the one or more additional assets (Paragraph 18 and Figure 4 output data from digital twins is collected “FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating context that may be output from a digital twin in accordance with an example embodiment.”)
identify one or more additional events associated with one or more additional operations of the one or more additional assets (Figure 4 context comprises events for different assets from the one with the warning
PNG
media_image4.png
515
815
media_image4.png
Greyscale
)
based on the one or more additional digital representations, (Figure 2 and 3 contextual digital twin stores all the maintenance records (based on additional digital representations))
wherein the event occurred at a first time and the one or more additional events occurred at a second time, (Figure 2 and 3 events have associated events times (event occurred at first/second time)
PNG
media_image5.png
95
123
media_image5.png
Greyscale
)
wherein the one or more additional events are indicative of one or more additional operating parameters of the one or more additional operations of the one or more additional assets exceeding one or more additional operating thresholds; (Figure 4 position of sensor exceeding a position threshold, and temperature exceeding a temperature threshold (exceeding additional operating thresholds))
query one or more databases to identify a set of events detected prior to receiving the indication of the event, wherein the set of events comprise information associated with the event and the one or more additional events; (Figure 2 and 4 context is from past events (detected prior) as stored in a digital twin (a database) for that same type of asset (based on the asset data))
retrieve one or more service packages associated with the set of events from the code repository, wherein the one or more service packages are configured to resolve the set of events; (Figure 4 parameter changes are associated with the prior events related to a digital twin, with a response that addressed the event (resolve the set of events)
PNG
media_image4.png
515
815
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, and Paragraph 76 digital twin artifacts are stored (from the code repository))
a suggested course of action based on the one or more service packages (Paragraph 75 suggested course of action is based on other similar events and their responses (based on the service packages) “As another example, the suggested course of action may also suggest a specific operator, machine, equipment, etc. to be used to perform the suggested course of action based on the other previous similar events.”)
Deutsch (970) does not appear to explicitly disclose: send a first request for asset data associated with the event to a control system associated with the asset and one or more second requests for additional asset datasets associated with the one or more additional events to one or more additional control systems associated with the one or more additional assets; receive the asset data from the control system and the one or more additional asset datasets from the one or more additional control systems; that the query one or more database to identify a set of events is based on asset data and one or more additional asset datasets; update the digital representation and the one or more additional digital representations based on the one or more service packages, wherein the one or more service packages comprise one or more sets of code implementable by the digital representation and the one or more additional digital representations to simulate updated operations of the asset and one or more additional updated operations of the one or more additional assets; perform one or more simulations of the one or more service packages via the updated digital representation and the one or more updated additional digital representations;
However, Lund (855) teaches:
send a first request for asset data associated with the event to a control system associated with the asset and one or more second requests for additional asset datasets associated with the one or more additional events to one or more additional control systems associated with the one or more additional assets; (Paragraph 68 data can be requested using calls or via queues (send requests to control system) “More specifically, the data collected from onsite devices can be streamed at different data rates and resolution (e.g. via the analytics engine 47) to data ingestion services running in the cloud. This data transmission can be accomplished via multiple means including but not limited to web service calls, message queues,”, and Paragraph 31 and 36 each device can have their own controller connected to sensors providing signals (second request to additional control systems) “The wind turbine 10 may also include a wind turbine controller 26 centralized within the nacelle 16.”)
receive the asset data from the control system and the one or more additional asset datasets from the one or more additional control systems; (Paragraph 63 data is collected from numerous assets “Referring still to FIGS. 4 and 8, the anomaly detection module 41 may be a system that collects wind farm and fleet data from numerous (e.g. hundreds) of turbine sensors and key SCADA control parameters.”)
query one or more databases to identify a set of events detected prior to an event based on the asset data and the one or more additional asset datasets (Paragraph 68 and Figure 8B the collected data can comprise event data related to models of assets (based on the asset data) “The data that is collected can range from operational data like tag data, event data or data from extraneous sources like meteorological data”)
update a digital representation and one or more additional digital representations based on one or more service packages, (Paragraph 58 digital twin is iteratively updated “Equipment performance for different settings can be simulated using the digital twin module 54, and lifecycle assessment repeated for new set of operating conditions. This process is repeated until desired performance can be achieved while still operating equipment under safe conditions.”, and Figure 7 specific parameter settings are recommended (service package)
PNG
media_image1.png
271
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
wherein the one or more service packages comprise one or more sets of code implementable by the digital representation and the one or more additional digital representations to simulate updated operations of the asset and one or more additional updated operations of the one or more additional assets; perform one or more simulations of the one or more service packages via the updated digital representation and the one or more updated additional digital representations (Figure 7 parameter settings are obtained and simulated in combination with a digital twin)
determine a compatibility of an assessment associated with the one or more service packages being compatible with respect to a plurality of operations of the plurality of assets based on performing the one or more simulations, (Paragraph 61 changes to operating parameters are desirably applied (determine a compatibility) to a digital twin for simulation “In addition, the digital twin module 54, the operations optimization module 39, and the lifecycle assessment (i.e. continuously collecting and updating the digital models) are used in conjunction with each other in a closed loop system, to tweak different parameters, simulate operation of the digital farm 30 under changed conditions and observing behavior. Once desired performance is achieved by tweaking operating parameters and set points and validated using the digital twin module 54,”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the contextual digital twin of an asset disclosed by Deutsch (970) with the digital twin simulation and optimization system disclosed by Lund (855). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize a physical asset (Lund (855) Paragraph 6).
Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855) does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the first time and the second time are within a threshold amount of time; that the determine a compatibility of an assessment is a risk assessment; wherein the one or more service packages are incompatible with the plurality of operations when at least one of the plurality of assets stops operating or loses connectivity according to the one or more simulations; generate a notification configured to present a visualization indicative of information related to the compatibility via a display.
However, Johnson (274) teaches:
a first time and a second time are within a threshold amount of time (Paragraph 172 only the most recent events are analyzed as being representative for further analysis predictions “Part of this examination includes data cleaning, as well as identifying a suitable time period which seems representative of the airline's most recent flight patterns.”)
determine a compatibility of a risk assessment associated with one or more service packages being compatible with respect to a plurality of operations of a plurality of assets based on performing one or more simulations (Figure 8B risk-based optimization is performed using a digital twin “Risk-based automated optimization of maintenance scheduling”, and Figure 8C the digital twin can be used to perform simulations)
wherein one or more service packages are incompatible with the plurality of operations when at least one of the plurality of assets stops operating or loses connectivity according to the one or more simulations; (Paragraph 146 and 152 and 187 simulation module is used to model components that will drive a plane to visit the shop, where a plane that is in the shop is not operating (assets stop operating) “Modules in the system simulation include the following: … The mixed mode aggregator module competes the different damage models that exist to identify which component will drive a shop visit (and when).”)
generate a notification configured to present a visualization indicative of information related to the compatibility of the risk assessment via a display (Abstract “The recommendation is presented in a user interface for use in optimizing the operation of the industrial assets or automatically changing operating setpoints pertaining to the industrial as sets.”, and Paragraph 88 user interface comprises a display “the graph of FIG. 1F, including the digital twins 141 and 142, may be presented in a user interface such that a customer may experiment with what-if scenarios pertaining to engine assignment, operations, and maintenance schedules, including cost and efficiency calculations.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the digital twin simulation and optimization system disclosed by Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855) with the digital twin simulation and optimization system disclosed by Johnson (274). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize a physical asset (Johnson (274) Abstract).
Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274) does not appear to explicitly disclose: that the identify one or more additional assets associated with the asset in response to receiving the indication of the event is based on an asset hierarchy of the industrial automation system.
However, Talkhestani teaches:
identify one or more additional assets of a plurality of assets associated with an asset based on an asset hierarchy of an industrial automation system in response to receiving an indication of an event; (Talkhestani Page 770, Left the assets are mapped and referenced using a hierarchical representation (identify based on an asset hierarchy) “An example of this approach is realized by Automation Markup Language (AutomationML). AutomationML is a data format based on the eXtensible Markup Language, XML. In AutomationML, the asset models are mapped with CAEX as top level format, which consists of relations, interfaces and references between all assets in the system topology”, and Page 777, Left process changes trigger updates to related assets (in response to receiving an indication of an event) “Changes within the process chain trigger subscriptions so that the meta data is updated permanently”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the digital twin simulation and optimization system disclosed by Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274) with the asset hierarchical description for asset model mapping disclosed by Talkhestani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to desirably keep a digital twin up to do (Talkhestani Page 777, Left).
With regard to claim 11, it recites the same steps as in claim 1, which is taught by Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274), and further in view of Talkhestani. Claim 11 further recites that the steps are via a processor.
Deutsch (970) teaches: performing the steps via a processor (Paragraph 117 and Figure 19 computing system includes a processor)
With regard to claim 17, it recites the same steps as in claim 1, which is taught by Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274), and further in view of Talkhestani. Claim 17 further recites a storage component comprising a plurality of digital representations assigned to a plurality of assets of an industrial automation system and configured to operate, maintain, or diagnose the plurality of assets; a computing component configured to perform simulations based on asset data received from the plurality of assets via the plurality of digital representations; one or more processors configured to.
Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855) teaches:
a storage component comprising a plurality of digital representations assigned to a plurality of assets of an industrial automation system and configured to operate, maintain, or diagnose the plurality of assets; and (Deutsch (970) Paragraph 79 “Prior to deployment as a twin runtime instance, twin templates are designed and stored externally. The twin builder 532 is an application which provides the means to create new twin templates, browse a marketplace of existing twin templates and acquire and customize them, and ultimately load such twin templates as instances within the runtime environment.”, and Paragraph 89 “Twin templates are designed graph constructs which are intended to provide or encapsulate various capabilities. For example, the template may have a pragmatic entity structure.”)
a computing component configured to perform a plurality of simulations based on a plurality of asset data received from the plurality of assets via the plurality of digital representations; and (Lund (855) Figure 7 status from digital models (asset data via the digital representation) is ultimately modeled (perform simulations)
PNG
media_image6.png
486
733
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, and Paragraph 84 each turbine can have its own specific digital twin “the GUI 88 leverages a digital twin representation of a wind turbine 202 (e.g., a plurality of digital counterparts of a plurality of turbines located in the wind farm 200)”)
one or more processors configured to: (Lund (855) Paragraph 31 and Figure 2 a controller comprising a processor, memory and computer-readable instructions that can be executed)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the contextual digital twin of an asset disclosed by Deutsch (970) with the digital twin simulation and optimization system disclosed by Lund (855). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize a physical asset (Lund (855) Paragraph 6).
With regard to claim 2, Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274), and further in view of Talkhestani teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the digital representation comprises simulation code specific to operating, maintaining, or diagnosing the asset. (Lund (855) Figure 7 the digital twin code is specifically for modeling recommendations and then generating commands that implement one or more recommendations)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the contextual digital twin of an asset disclosed by Deutsch (970) with the digital twin simulation and optimization system disclosed by Lund (855). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize a physical asset (Lund (855) Paragraph 6).
With regard to claim 3, Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274), and further in view of Talkhestani teaches all the elements of the parent claim 2, and further teaches:
wherein one or more service packages comprise an update to the simulation code (Talkheestani Page 776, Right all relevant change are detected (an event) “continuous surveillance of changes in the address space is realized using subscriptions. Thus, all condition changes of the components and machine status being relevant as context information for the operation data can be detected and annotated as meta data.”, and Page 766, Right reconfiguration circumstances are taken into account (analyzing an indication of an event), and the newest version can be used upon review “This allows the old version to be called up any time at the request of an engineer, taking into account the circumstances during engineering or reconfiguration, and to switch to the current version”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the digital twin simulation and optimization system disclosed by Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274) with the digital twin versioning in a repository disclosed by Talkhestani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to desirably use a code version (Talkhestani Page 776, Right).
With regard to claim 4, Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274), and further in view of Talkhestani teaches all the elements of the parent claim 3, and further teaches:
identifying one or more asset performance changes associated with one or more simulations; and (Talkhestani Page 763, Right various scenarios are analyzed using machine learning algorithms to generate various results “The Intelligent Digital Twin can therefore implement machine learning algorithms on available models and data of the Digital Twin to optimize operation as well as continuously test what-if-scenarios”)
wherein the one or more asset performance changes comprise at least one of the plurality of assets stopping operation or losing connectivity (Johnson (274) Paragraph 146 and 152 and 187 simulation module is used to model components that will drive a plane to visit the shop, where a plane that is in the shop is not operating (assets stop operating) “Modules in the system simulation include the following: … The mixed mode aggregator module competes the different damage models that exist to identify which component will drive a shop visit (and when).”)
generating the notification based on the one or more asset performance changes. (Talkhestani Page 768, Right the simulations are specifically for making recommendations “For example, the services of an Intelligent Digital Twin can be used within a what-if simulation in communication with other Digital Twins to make the best decision for reconfigurating a system based on new requirements and available resources”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the digital twin simulation and optimization system disclosed by Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274) with the digital twin versioning in a repository disclosed by Talkhestani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to desirably use a code version (Talkhestani Page 776, Right).
With regard to claim 5, Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274), and further in view of Talkhestani teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the event comprises an anomaly associated with the asset and the one or more additional events comprise one or more additional anomalies associated with the one or more additional assets. (Deutsch (970) Figure 4 context can be for other assets having issues)
With regard to claim 6, Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274), and further in view of Talkhestani teaches all the elements of the parent claim 5, and further teaches analyze the event and the one or more additional events to determine the compatibility of the one or more service packages with respect to the plurality of operations by:
generating a solution package based on the anomaly and the one or more additional anomalies, wherein the solution package comprises one or more solutions to solve one or more issues associated with the anomaly and the one or more additional anomalies; (Deutsch (970) Figure 4 a suggested course of action is provided based on similar anomalies)
performing the one or more simulations based on the solution package via the digital representation; (Lund (855) Paragraph 61 desired parameters values can be simulated using the digital twin “In addition, the digital twin module 54, the operations optimization module 39, and the lifecycle assessment (i.e. continuously collecting and updating the digital models) are used in conjunction with each other in a closed loop system, to tweak different parameters, simulate operation of the digital farm 30 under changed conditions and observing behavior. Once desired performance is achieved by tweaking operating parameters and set points and validated using the digital twin module 54,”)
determining whether the one or more solutions solve the one or more issues based on the one or more simulations (Johnson (274) Abstract suboptimal control of assets is reduced (solve the one or more issues based on simulation) “The digital twins are analyzed with respect to simulated operating performances to determine an optimized control of operations of the industrial assets”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the contextual digital twin of an asset disclosed by Deutsch (970) with the digital twin simulation and optimization system disclosed by Lund (855). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize a physical asset (Lund (855) Paragraph 6).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the digital twin simulation and optimization system disclosed by Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855) with the digital twin simulation and optimization system disclosed by Johnson (274). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize a physical asset (Johnson (274) Abstract).
With regard to claim 7, Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274), and further in view of Talkhestani teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the event comprises a cybersecurity alert associated with the asset. (Lund (855) Paragraph 53 unauthorized changes in a cyber-attack are detected “The watchdog may be a daemon process or method that monitors (e.g., constantly or intermittently) values of configuration parameters on the SCADA system 32 and alerts support personnel when it detects unauthorized changes. This may provide added security against cyber-attacks.”)
With regard to claim 9, Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274), and further in view of Talkhestani teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the event comprises a hierarchy change associated with a hierarchy of the plurality of assets. (Talkhestani Page 770, Left the asset model is represented as a hierarchical representation (a hierarchy of the plurality of assets)“An example of this approach is realized by Automation Markup Language (AutomationML). AutomationML is a data format based on the eXtensible Markup Language, XML. In AutomationML, the asset models are mapped with CAEX as top level format, which consists of relations, interfaces and references between all assets in the system topology.”, and Page 777, Left topology changes (a hierarchy change) trigger subscriptions (an event) which enables incorporation of the change into the digital twin (data associated with the event) “Changes within the process chain trigger subscriptions so that the meta data is updated permanently. Thus, changes in the topology of each machine or status change of components such as sensors can be detected and incorporated in the semantic description of the operation data. This information is available within the Digital Twin and can be requested in real-time”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the digital twin simulation and optimization system disclosed by Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274) with the digital twin subscription to updates disclosed by Talkhestani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to desirably keep a digital twin up to do (Talkhestani Page 777, Left).
With regard to claim 10, Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274), and further in view of Talkhestani teaches all the elements of the parent claim 9, and further teaches:
determine one or more asset performance changes associated with the hierarchy change based on the one or more simulations (Talkhestani Page 763, Right various scenarios are analyzed using machine learning algorithms to generate various results “The Intelligent Digital Twin can therefore implement machine learning algorithms on available models and data of the Digital Twin to optimize operation as well as continuously test what-if-scenarios”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the digital twin simulation and optimization system disclosed by Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274) with the digital twin versioning in a repository disclosed by Talkhestani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to desirably use a code version (Talkhestani Page 776, Right).
With regard to claim 12, Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274), and further in view of Talkhestani teaches all the elements of the parent claim 11, and further teaches:
generating, via the processor, the digital representation using model code associated with a first hierarchy comprising hierarchical levels of the code repository. (Talkhestani Page 770, Left asset models represented using CAEX architecture (asset code associated with a second hierarchy) is mapped to an AutomationML format (model code associated with a first hierarchy), where each asset model has its own conversion portion in the overall AutomationML formation (model code based on reference code converted from asset code) “This mechanism can be achieved by specifying a neutral data format for exchanging domain-specific models between vendor-different tools in a standard. An example of this approach is realized by Automation Markup Language (AutomationML). AutomationML is a data format based on the eXtensible Markup Language, XML. In AutomationML, the asset models are mapped with CAEX as top level format, which consists of relations, interfaces and references between all assets in the system topology … an asset can be connected by OPC-UA to the CAEX architecture”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the digital twin simulation and optimization system disclosed by Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274) with the digital twin versioning in a repository disclosed by Talkhestani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to desirably use a code version (Talkhestani Page 776, Right).
With regard to claim 13, Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274), and further in view of Talkhestani teaches all the elements of the parent claim 12, and further teaches:
generating, via the processor, the model code based on reference code converted from asset code associated with a second hierarchy comprising hierarchical levels of the plurality of assets. (Talkhestani Page 770, Left asset models represented using CAEX architecture (asset code associated with a second hierarchy) is mapped to an AutomationML format (model code associated with a first hierarchy), where each asset model has its own conversion portion in the overall AutomationML formation (model code based on reference code converted from asset code) “This mechanism can be achieved by specifying a neutral data format for exchanging domain-specific models between vendor-different tools in a standard. An example of this approach is realized by Automation Markup Language (AutomationML). AutomationML is a data format based on the eXtensible Markup Language, XML. In AutomationML, the asset models are mapped with CAEX as top level format, which consists of relations, interfaces and references between all assets in the system topology … an asset can be connected by OPC-UA to the CAEX architecture”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the digital twin simulation and optimization system disclosed by Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274) with the digital twin versioning in a repository disclosed by Talkhestani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to desirably use a code version (Talkhestani Page 776, Right).
With regard to claim 14, Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274), and further in view of Talkhestani teaches all the elements of the parent claim 13, and further teaches:
wherein the reference code is converted from asset code based on a mapping between the second hierarchy and the first hierarchy. (Talkhestani Page 770, Left asset models represented using CAEX architecture (asset code associated with a second hierarchy) is mapped to an AutomationML format (model code associated with a first hierarchy), where each asset model has its own conversion portion in the overall AutomationML formation (model code based on reference code converted from asset code) “This mechanism can be achieved by specifying a neutral data format for exchanging domain-specific models between vendor-different tools in a standard. An example of this approach is realized by Automation Markup Language (AutomationML). AutomationML is a data format based on the eXtensible Markup Language, XML. In AutomationML, the asset models are mapped with CAEX as top level format, which consists of relations, interfaces and references between all assets in the system topology … an asset can be connected by OPC-UA to the CAEX architecture”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the digital twin simulation and optimization system disclosed by Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274) with the digital twin versioning in a repository disclosed by Talkhestani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to desirably use a code version (Talkhestani Page 776, Right).
With regard to claim 15, Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274), and further in view of Talkhestani teaches all the elements of the parent claim 11, and further teaches:
wherein the data associated with the event comprises an update on code specific to operating, maintaining, or diagnosing the asset and the one or more additional assets, a hierarchy change associated with a hierarchy of the plurality of assets, an anomaly associated with the asset and the one or more additional assets, a cybersecurity alert associated with the asset and the one or more additional assets, or any combination thereof. (Lund (855) Paragraph 63 detected anomalies are preferentially reviewed “Further, the anomaly detection module 41 is configured to run a plurality (e.g. several hundreds) of rules (e.g., unique rules) and/or algorithms, e.g. 24 hours a day to detect and/or prioritize anomalies in wind turbine operations and to identify the proper course of corrective action”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the contextual digital twin of an asset disclosed by Deutsch (970) with the digital twin simulation and optimization system disclosed by Lund (855). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize a physical asset (Lund (855) Paragraph 6).
With regard to claim 16, Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274), and further in view of Talkhestani teaches all the elements of the parent claim 11, and further teaches:
performing, via the processor, simulations based on the data associated with the event via the digital representation; generating, via the processor, one or more notifications, alerts, recommendations, solutions, actionable items, or a combination thereof based performing the one or more simulations via the updated digital representation and the one or more additional updated digital representations; and adding, via the processor, the one or more notifications, alerts, recommendations, solutions, actionable items, or the combination thereof to the one or more service package. (Lund (855) Paragraph 62 and Figure 7 current status is analyzed, recommendations generated, then modeled, and finally implemented “For example, as shown, the market performance module 40 may be a software solution (e.g., software application) configured to provide recommendations to operators of power generating equipment about when to bring units online for economic gain while operating equipment under favorable environmental conditions”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the contextual digital twin of an asset disclosed by Deutsch (970) with the digital twin simulation and optimization system disclosed by Lund (855). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize a physical asset (Lund (855) Paragraph 6).
With regard to claim 20, Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274), and further in view of Talkhestani teaches all the elements of the parent claim 17, and further teaches: the plurality of digital representations are generated using model code associated with a first hierarchy comprising hierarchical levels of the storage component; and the model code is generated based on reference code converted from asset code associated with a second hierarchy comprising hierarchical levels of the plurality of assets based on a mapping between the second hierarchy and the first hierarchy. (Talkhestani Page 770, Left asset models represented using CAEX architecture (asset code associated with a second hierarchy) is mapped to an AutomationML format (model code associated with a first hierarchy), where each asset model has its own conversion portion in the overall AutomationML formation (model code based on reference code converted from asset code) “This mechanism can be achieved by specifying a neutral data format for exchanging domain-specific models between vendor-different tools in a standard. An example of this approach is realized by Automation Markup Language (AutomationML). AutomationML is a data format based on the eXtensible Markup Language, XML. In AutomationML, the asset models are mapped with CAEX as top level format, which consists of relations, interfaces and references between all assets in the system topology … an asset can be connected by OPC-UA to the CAEX architecture”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the digital twin simulation and optimization system disclosed by Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274) with the digital twin versioning in a repository disclosed by Talkhestani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to desirably use a code version (Talkhestani Page 776, Right).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274), and further in view of Talkhestani, and further in view of Nagaraja et al. (US 2023/0098418) (henceforth “Nagaraja (418)”). Deutsch (970) and Lund (855) and Johnson (274) and Talkhestani and Nagaraja (418) are analogous art because they solve the same problem of desirably interacting with a digital representation of a physical system, and because they are in the same field of analyzing a physical system using its digital representation.
With regard to claim 8, Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274), and further in view of Talkhestani teaches all the elements of the parent claim 7, and does not appear to explicitly disclose: determine a service package by: accessing one or more log files associated with the cybersecurity alert; performing one or more additional simulations based on the one or more log files via the digital representation; assessing one or more cybersecurity risks based on the one or more additional simulations; generating one or more cybersecurity threat alerts based on assessment results, wherein the notification comprises the one or more cybersecurity threat alerts.
However, Nagaraja (418) teaches:
determine a service package by: accessing one or more log files associated with the cybersecurity alert; (Paragraph 54 and 60 log files from an unauthorized access is analyzed “The data driven model MO is capable of interpreting the environmental data ED and the operational data OD within the wind farm IT infrastructure 1 as well as loads of specific network components in order to differentiate what additional traffic and/or load of specific first network components is caused by a component or a user or a sensor or by an unauthorized access from a cybercriminal.”)
performing one or more simulations based on the one or more log files via a digital representation (Paragraph 65 modeled normal user behavior is compared to the potential cyberattack behavior “With a behavior model BMW, MU implemented in the trained data driven model MO, each operation of the attacker is analyzed against predicted behavior against current prevailing operating conditions in the wind farm”)
assessing one or more cybersecurity risks based on the one or more simulations; (Paragraph 53 a user is prompted to investigate the unauthorized access “The user interface UIF provides information for a human operator for further investigation of the captured operational data.”)
generating one or more cybersecurity threat alerts based on assessment results, wherein the notification comprises the one or more cybersecurity threat alerts. (Paragraph 53 specific actions can be taken based on an indication (cybersecurity threat alerts) “The indication about an unauthorized access may also result in counter measures such as a shutdown of the router 140 and/or a wind turbine 11, 12, 13.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the digital twin simulation and optimization system disclosed by Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274), and further in view of Talkhestani with the unauthorized access response by create a digital representation of a user disclosed by Nagaraja (418). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order proactively take countermeasures during a suspected cyberattack (Nagaraja (418) Paragraph 53).
Claims 18 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch(970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274), and further in view of Talkhestani, and further in view of Unnikrishnan et al. (US 2022/0067626) with all citations to the provisional application 63/072560 (henceforth “63072560”). Deutsch (970) and Lund (855) and Johnson (274) and Talkhestani and 63072560 are analogous art because they solve the same problem of desirably interacting with a digital representation of a physical system, and because they are in the same field of analyzing a physical system using its digital representation.
With regard to claim 18, Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274), and further in view of Talkhestani teaches all the elements of the parent claim 17, and further teaches:
an additional computing device configured to: receive the indication of the event and the one or more additional events from one or more data sources; (Lund (855) Paragraph 48 data is desirably obtained closer to the source using an edge gateway “Further, since the edge gateway and its counterpart in the cloud act as a unified system, they also share updated analytic engines, rules and models to effectively identify anomalies earlier and closer to the source.”)
Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274), and further in view of Talkhestani does not appear to explicitly disclose: generate metadata indicative a context associated with the event and one or more additional metadata indicative of one or more additional contexts associated with the one or more additional events; and transmit the indication of the event, the one or more additional events, the metadata, and the one or more additional metadata to the one or more processors.
However, 63072560 teaches:
generate metadata indicative of a context associated with an event and one or more additional metadata indicative of one or more additional contexts associated with one or more additional events; and (63072560 Paragraph 41 schema is generated for IoT sensor data on a platform “The models also describe the schema (e.g., describe what the data is), and therefore the models are self-validating. For example, in one or more embodiments, the model describes the type of sensors mounted on any given asset ( e.g., edge device 16la-16ln) and the type of data that is being sensed by each sensor … Accordingly, the IoT platform 125 is an extensible, model-driven end-to-end stack including: two-way model sync and secure data exchange between the edge 115 and the cloud 105, metadata driven data processing”)
transmit indication of the event, the one or more additional events, the metadata, and the one or more additional metadata to the one or more processors. (63072560 Figure 1 edge devices transmit data to the cloud
PNG
media_image7.png
578
853
media_image7.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the digital twin simulation and optimization system disclosed by Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274), and further in view of Talkhestani with the model schema for sensor data and edge gateway connection to cloud disclosed by 63072560. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enhance data processing (63072560 Paragraph 41).
With regard to claim 19, Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274), and further in view of Talkhestani, and further in view of 63072560 teaches all the elements of the parent claim 18, and further teaches:
wherein the metadata and the one or more additional metadata comprise information associated with components of the asset and the one or more additional assets, hierarchical levels of the plurality of assets, or combination thereof within the industrial automation system. (63072560 Paragraph 41 schema is generated for IoT sensor data having different sensor types, and Paragraph 42 the asset have multiple monitored components “For example, an asset template of a pump includes modeling the pump having inlet and outlet pressures, speed, flow, etc.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the digital twin simulation and optimization ystem disclosed by Deutsch (970) in view of Lund (855), and further in view of Johnson (274) with the model schema for sensor data and edge gateway connection to cloud disclosed by 63072560. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enhance data processing (63072560 Paragraph 41).
Examiner General Comments
With regard to the prior art rejection(s), any cited portion of the relied upon reference(s), either to specific areas or as direct language, is intended to be interpreted in the context of the reference(s) as a whole, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent and spirit of compact prosecution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bassi et al. (US 2023/0156030) teaches asset discovery in an industrial network and an action engine.
Martin et al. (US 2018/0299849) teaches using intelligent agents to balance operational constraints in hierarchical smart asset control.
Mukkamala et al. (US 2017/0192414) teaches retrieving a simulation model for an industrial machine and identifying parameters for updating based on the simulation.
Alexakos et al. “Production process adaptation to IoT triggered manufacturing resource failure events” teaches evaluated failure events using a multi-agent system.
Becue et al. “A New Concept of Digital Twin Supporting Optimization and Resilience of Factories of the Future” teaches modeling and simulation of a factory using a digital twin for optimization.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8988. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am to 6pm.
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.
/ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER/ExaminerArt Unit 2187
/ANDRE PIERRE LOUIS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187 March 20, 2026