DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Office Action is in response to claims filed 06/15/2026.
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/15/2026 has been entered.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, an abstract idea, and it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-5 and 8 are directed to an information processing device and falls within the statutory class of machine. Claim 6 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium and falls within the statutory class of articles of manufacture. Claim 7 is directed to an information processing method and falls within the statutory class of process. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 6, and 7: The limitation “wherein, on acceptance of an instruction from the application to read/write requested information, the virtual device determines, based on a type of the requested information, whether the requested information resides in the physical device or does not reside in the physical device but is stored in association with the physical device” is considered a mental process involving steps of observing, evaluation, and forming a judgement. Determining whether information resides in a physical device or not based on a type of requested information involves observing the type of requested information and forming a determination or judgement. It is understood that these limitations are to be performed within a computer environment, however, it can also entirely be performed in the mind.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 6, and 7 recite a judicial exception. Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 6, and 7: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 6, and 7 recites the following additional elements – “function as a virtual device that is provided one-to-one with a physical device and that mediates transmission and reception of information between an application and the physical device” and “in response to determining that the requested information does not reside in the physical device, the virtual device connects to a storage area determined in advance for content of the requested information and reads/writes the requested information.” These limitations are considered insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering, data transmission, and data storage (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Additionally, claim 1 recites “an information processing device comprising: a processor configured to.” The limitation “a processor” is considered a generic computing component used as a means to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Additionally, claim 6 recites “a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process for information processing.” This limitation is also considered a generic computing component used as a means to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception in a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquiries set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 6, and 7 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 6, and 7: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements only amount to insignificant extra-solution activity and means to apply an exception. When reevaluating these additional elements, alone or in combination with other claim limitations, no inventive concept that amounts to significantly more was found. When reevaluating the insignificant extra-solution activities for an inventive concept that is significantly more, the claims do not add an inventive concept that is other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) lists that “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” and “Storing and retrieving information in memory” is a well understood, routine, and conventional computer function. Mediating transmission and reception of information is receiving and transmitting data over a network. Connecting to a storage area to read and write information is storing and retrieving information in memory.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis with in the provided framework, claims 1, 6, and 7 do not recite eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 2, it recites “wherein the virtual device duplicates and retains information of the physical device with timing determined in advance with the physical device.” This limitation is considered insignificant extra-solution activity of data transmission (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). It does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, so the claim fails Step 2A Prong 2. When reevaluating the insignificant extra-solution activities for an inventive concept that is significantly more, the claims do not add an inventive concept that is other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) lists that “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” and “Storing and retrieving information in memory” is a well understood, routine, and conventional computer function. Therefore, the claim fails Step 2B. Therefore claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With regard to claim 3, it recites “wherein the storage area determined in advance is one of a duplicate storage area that is provided in the virtual device and that duplicates and retains the information of the physical device, an extended storage area that is provided in the virtual device separately from the duplicate storage area, and an external storage area that is provided outside the virtual device.” This limitation is considered field of use/technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) because it limits the kind of storage areas in the technological environment. It does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, so the claim fails Step 2A Prong 2. When reevaluating the field of use/technological environment, alone or in combination with other claim limitations, no inventive concept that amounts to significantly more was found. Therefore, the claim fails Step 2B. Therefore claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With regard to claim 4, it recites “wherein the processor is configured to connect to the duplicate storage area and read/write the requested information in a case where the content of the requested information is information of a type managed by the virtual device” and “connects to the extended storage area or the external storage area and reads/writes the requested information in a case where the content of the information is information of a type managed by a device other than the virtual device.” These limitations are an insignificant extra-solution activity of data storage (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). It does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, so the claims fail Step 2A Prong 2. When reevaluating the insignificant extra-solution activities for an inventive concept that is significantly more, the claims do not add an inventive concept that is other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) lists that “Storing and retrieving information in memory” is a well understood, routine, and conventional computer function. Therefore claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With regard to claim 5, it recites “an information processing system comprising: the information processing device according to claim 1” and “a communication terminal in which the application is installed.” These limitations are considered field of use/technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) because it limits what is included in the computing environment. It does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, so the claim fails Step 2A Prong 2. When reevaluating the field of use/technological environment, alone or in combination with other claim limitations, no inventive concept that amounts to significantly more was found. Therefore, the claim fails Step 2B. Therefore claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With regard to claim 8, it recites “wherein the type of the requested information that resides in the physical device includes a toner level and a paper level, and the virtual device determines that the requested information resides in the physical device if the type is the toner level or the paper level.” This limitation is considered field of use/technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) because it limits the type of information that is requested. It does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, so the claim fails Step 2A Prong 2. When reevaluating the field of use/technological environment, alone or in combination with other claim limitations, no inventive concept that amounts to significantly more was found. Therefore, the claim fails Step 2B. Therefore claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berarducci et al. Pub. No. US 20150153982 A1 (hereafter Berarducci) in view of Malakuti et al. Pub. No. US 20210405629 A1 (hereafter Malakuti).
With regard to claim 1, Berarducci teaches an information processing device comprising: a processor configured to (¶ [0057] states “the apparatus 200 may include a processor 202”):
function as a virtual device that is provided one-to-one with a physical device and that mediates transmission and reception of information between an application and the physical device (¶ [0057] states “The management server 102 may be embodied by a computing system, such as the apparatus 200 shown in FIG. 2.” ¶ [0075] states “The device management server 300 may comprise one or more virtual device models 310. The virtual device modules 310 may serve as a representation of the status of the device as known to a device management infrastructure. For example, each device in communication with the device management server 300 may have an object representation in a memory or database.” ¶ [0076] states “the virtual device models 310 may be accessed by one or more internal applications 312 to provide information to the internal applications and to allow the internal applications 312 to interact with the devices 304 … Example internal applications may include a device "dashboard" that is visible in a web browser interface to display data associated with the virtual device model.” Examiner’s Note: based on ¶ [0057], the device management server 300 in FIG. 3 has the processor 202 of apparatus 200 in FIG. 2. The device management server 300 can include a plurality of virtual devices that are each mapped one-to-one with physical devices. Internal applications are understood to be applications directly related to the device management server. The exemplary dashboard interacts with the device via the virtual device model),
wherein, on acceptance of an instruction from the application to read/write requested information, the virtual device determines, based on a type of the requested information, whether the requested information resides in the physical device or does not reside in the physical device but is stored in association with the physical device (¶ [0116] states “FIG. 10 depicts an example illustration of a visualization of a device virtual model … The device virtual model may include a variety of types of information about the device, including the configuration of the device, readings from one or more sensors coupled to the device, and/or an activity log associated with the device … a non-read only device could have interface controls to configure various aspects of the device, such as but not limited to device power management settings, device network settings, device troubleshooting tools, or the like.” ¶ [0076] states “a device "dashboard" that is visible in a web browser interface to display data associated with the virtual device model.” Examiner’s Note: the device sensor information and device activity log are examples of information that is read. The power management settings and device network settings are examples of information that is written. The power management settings and device network settings are the information that are associated with the physical device. The device dashboard is an example of an application that can read and write information)
Berarducci does not explicitly teach determining if information resides in a physical device.
However, in an analogous art, Malakuti teaches wherein, on acceptance of an instruction from the application to read/write requested information, the virtual device determines, based on a type of the requested information, whether the requested information resides in the physical device or does not reside in the physical device but is stored in association with the physical device (¶ [0021] states “a computer system is proposed for interoperable data exchange between a plurality of information systems via a digital representation service associated with a digital representation of the physical device.” ¶ [0027] states “The digital representation service further includes a semantic relations library storing semantic relations between model element types from data models of different information sources.” ¶ [0047] states “It is to be noted that the device itself is also considered to be an information system in this context.” ¶ [0033] states “Once the mapping is generated, it is straight forward for the manager module to retrieve the requested data from the respective information sources via the corresponding model providers by executing data access to the requested data in accordance with the mapping and providing the requested data to requesting information consumer (i.e., executing the data exchange between at least two information sources).” ¶ [0063] states “a production system hosted in an external cloud EC1 may provide data models DTP related to the production of the device.” ¶ [0063] additionally states “The semantic relations between model element types of the various data models DT including DTE, DTI, DTO, DTP, and DTM in the semantic relations library of DTS1 allow to generate mappings between instances of the model elements when a request for data of any of the connected information systems is received by DTS1.” See FIG. 4 for definitions of DTE, DTI, DTO, DTP, and DTM.” ¶ [0063] provides an example. Examiner’s Note: the digital representation service associated with a digital representation of the physical device (digital twin) is the virtual device. It can determine whether a type of information resides on the physical device or another information source by using the mapping information and the semantic relations between model element types. The data models of information sources besides the physical device are the types of information that are stored in association with the physical device),
in response to determining that the requested information does not reside in the physical device, the virtual device connects to a storage area determined in advance for content of the requested information and reads/writes the requested information (¶ [0034] states “the digital representation service of a device automatically establishes connections to the requested data of the information sources in an interoperable manner even when the information sources have different formats.” ¶ [0063] states “For example, a production system hosted in an external cloud EC1 may provide data models DTP related to the production of the device. A database DB1 may provide data models DTI related to the installation of said device. An engineering tool ET1 may provide data models DTE to DT in relation to the engineering phase of the device. And a maintenance application MA1 may provide data models DTM in relation to the maintenance phase of the device D1” and “the semantic relations between model element types of the various data models DT including DTE, DTI, DTO, DTP, and DTM in the semantic relations library of DTS1 allow to generate mappings between instances of the model elements when a request for data of any of the connected information systems is received by DTS1.” ¶ [0063] provides an example stating “For example, the maintenance application MA1 may request operational data from D1 and data from its engineering phase. For this purpose a mapping is generated between the respective data models DTM, DTO and DTE. Based on this mapping, MA1 can now retrieve the operation data of D1 which may be either already stored by DT in cases where the device D1 pushes its data to the digital twin, or the data may be retrieved from the device D1 because DTS1 knows how to access the requested data via the generated mapping. Similarly, requested data [from] the engineering tool ET1 can be accessed by DTS1 via the corresponding mapping.” Examiner’s Note: if the requested data is related to production of the device, installation of the device, engineering phase of the device, or maintenance phase of the device, then the semantic relations between model elements indicates to the virtual device which data model to use to access the requested data from the respective information source).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the digital twin and semantic relations between model elements of Malakuti with the virtual device providing information to applications of Berarducci. As a result, when an internal application reads/writes information, the virtual device of Berarducci and the digital representation service of Malakuti fulfills the request using the data models and semantic relationship mappings of Malakuti. If the requested data is at the physical device, a connection to the physical device is formed. If the requested data type is at a different location, such as the database DB1 that stores data models related to the installation of the device, the other information source is connected to. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to improve the interoperability of data between multiple information systems (¶ [0045] states “Typically, the data models of the various information systems differ from each other so that data exchange of data related to the device is not possible between such information systems without error prone manual interaction by a user. The computer system 100 overcomes this technical problem with the following features”).
With regard to claim 2, Berarducci and Malakuti teach the information processing device according to claim 1. Berarducci additionally teaches wherein the virtual device duplicates and retains information of the physical device with timing determined in advance with the physical device (¶ [0075] states “The device management server 300 may comprise one or more virtual device models 310. The virtual device modules 310 may serve as a representation of the status of the device as known to a device management infrastructure. For example, each device in communication with the device management server 300 may have an object representation in a memory or database.” ¶ [0080] states “The connection management module 314 may, for example, configure the manner and frequency of device state reporting and polling, control routing of device state throughout the device management infrastructure, and the like … Therefore, the virtual device model may be configured to reduce a reporting interval in certain circumstances, such as if a device is operating from battery power or is otherwise bandwidth constrained.” Examiner’s Note: the device state reporting and polling is the duplication and retention of information of the physical device. The information is stored in the memory or database holding the virtual device. The example of reducing reporting interval shows that intervals are used. The intervals of reporting represent the “timing determined in advance”).
With regard to claim 5, Berarducci and Malakuti teach an information processing system comprising: the information processing device according to claim 1. Berarducci additionally teaches and a communication terminal in which the application is installed (¶ [0037] states “Example edge devices may include, but are not limited to, network-enabled printers capable of communicating via the device management infrastructure in the device-agnostic format, laptops, desktops, smartphones, or tablet computers executing an application or driver to communicate.” ¶ [0041] states “a mobile phone may function as an edge device … and an interface (e.g., by providing a user with web browser access to a web-based device state dashboard hosted by the device management infrastructure or by running a native application).” Examiner’s Note: the edge devices executing the native application or driver implies that the application or driver is installed on the device).
With regard to claim 6, Berarducci teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process for information processing, the process comprising (¶ [0130] states “These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer-readable storage device that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer-readable storage device produce an article of manufacture including computer-readable instructions for implementing the function discussed herein”):
functioning as a virtual device that is provided one-to-one with a physical device and that mediates transmission and reception of information between an application and the physical device (¶ [0057] states “The management server 102 may be embodied by a computing system, such as the apparatus 200 shown in FIG. 2.” ¶ [0075] states “The device management server 300 may comprise one or more virtual device models 310. The virtual device modules 310 may serve as a representation of the status of the device as known to a device management infrastructure. For example, each device in communication with the device management server 300 may have an object representation in a memory or database.” ¶ [0076] states “the virtual device models 310 may be accessed by one or more internal applications 312 to provide information to the internal applications and to allow the internal applications 312 to interact with the devices 304 … Example internal applications may include a device "dashboard" that is visible in a web browser interface to display data associated with the virtual device model.” Examiner’s Note: based on ¶ [0057], the device management server 300 in FIG. 3 has the processor 202 of apparatus 200 in FIG. 2. The device management server 300 can include a plurality of virtual devices that are each mapped one-to-one with physical devices. Internal applications are understood to be applications directly related to the device management server. The exemplary dashboard interacts with the device via the virtual device model),
wherein, on acceptance of an instruction from the application to read/write requested information, the virtual device determines, based on a type of the requested information, whether the requested information resides in the physical device or does not reside in the physical device but is stored in association with the physical device (¶ [0116] states “FIG. 10 depicts an example illustration of a visualization of a device virtual model … The device virtual model may include a variety of types of information about the device, including the configuration of the device, readings from one or more sensors coupled to the device, and/or an activity log associated with the device … a non-read only device could have interface controls to configure various aspects of the device, such as but not limited to device power management settings, device network settings, device troubleshooting tools, or the like.” ¶ [0076] states “a device "dashboard" that is visible in a web browser interface to display data associated with the virtual device model.” Examiner’s Note: the device sensor information and device activity log are examples of information that is read. The power management settings and device network settings are examples of information that is written. The power management settings and device network settings are the information that are associated with the physical device. The device dashboard is an example of an application that can read and write information)
Berarducci does not explicitly teach determining if information resides in a physical device.
However, in an analogous art, Malakuti teaches wherein, on acceptance of an instruction from the application to read/write requested information, the virtual device determines, based on a type of the requested information, whether the requested information resides in the physical device or does not reside in the physical device but is stored in association with the physical device (¶ [0021] states “a computer system is proposed for interoperable data exchange between a plurality of information systems via a digital representation service associated with a digital representation of the physical device.” ¶ [0027] states “The digital representation service further includes a semantic relations library storing semantic relations between model element types from data models of different information sources.” ¶ [0047] states “It is to be noted that the device itself is also considered to be an information system in this context.” ¶ [0033] states “Once the mapping is generated, it is straight forward for the manager module to retrieve the requested data from the respective information sources via the corresponding model providers by executing data access to the requested data in accordance with the mapping and providing the requested data to requesting information consumer (i.e., executing the data exchange between at least two information sources).” ¶ [0063] states “a production system hosted in an external cloud EC1 may provide data models DTP related to the production of the device.” ¶ [0063] additionally states “The semantic relations between model element types of the various data models DT including DTE, DTI, DTO, DTP, and DTM in the semantic relations library of DTS1 allow to generate mappings between instances of the model elements when a request for data of any of the connected information systems is received by DTS1.” See FIG. 4 for definitions of DTE, DTI, DTO, DTP, and DTM.” ¶ [0063] provides an example. Examiner’s Note: the digital representation service associated with a digital representation of the physical device (digital twin) is the virtual device. It can determine whether a type of information resides on the physical device or another information source by using the mapping information and the semantic relations between model element types. The data models of information sources besides the physical device are the types of information that are stored in association with the physical device),
in response to determining that the requested information does not reside in the physical device, the virtual device connects to a storage area determined in advance for content of the requested information and reads/writes the requested information (¶ [0034] states “the digital representation service of a device automatically establishes connections to the requested data of the information sources in an interoperable manner even when the information sources have different formats.” ¶ [0063] states “For example, a production system hosted in an external cloud EC1 may provide data models DTP related to the production of the device. A database DB1 may provide data models DTI related to the installation of said device. An engineering tool ET1 may provide data models DTE to DT in relation to the engineering phase of the device. And a maintenance application MA1 may provide data models DTM in relation to the maintenance phase of the device D1” and “the semantic relations between model element types of the various data models DT including DTE, DTI, DTO, DTP, and DTM in the semantic relations library of DTS1 allow to generate mappings between instances of the model elements when a request for data of any of the connected information systems is received by DTS1.” ¶ [0063] provides an example stating “For example, the maintenance application MA1 may request operational data from D1 and data from its engineering phase. For this purpose a mapping is generated between the respective data models DTM, DTO and DTE. Based on this mapping, MA1 can now retrieve the operation data of D1 which may be either already stored by DT in cases where the device D1 pushes its data to the digital twin, or the data may be retrieved from the device D1 because DTS1 knows how to access the requested data via the generated mapping. Similarly, requested data [from] the engineering tool ET1 can be accessed by DTS1 via the corresponding mapping.” Examiner’s Note: if the requested data is related to production of the device, installation of the device, engineering phase of the device, or maintenance phase of the device, then the semantic relations between model elements indicates to the virtual device which data model to use to access the requested data from the respective information source).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the digital twin and semantic relations between model elements of Malakuti with the virtual device providing information to applications of Berarducci. As a result, when an internal application reads/writes information, the virtual device of Berarducci and the digital representation service of Malakuti fulfills the request using the data models and semantic relationship mappings of Malakuti. If the requested data is at the physical device, a connection to the physical device is formed. If the requested data type is at a different location, such as the database DB1 that stores data models related to the installation of the device, the other information source is connected to. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to improve the interoperability of data between multiple information systems (¶ [0045] states “Typically, the data models of the various information systems differ from each other so that data exchange of data related to the device is not possible between such information systems without error prone manual interaction by a user. The computer system 100 overcomes this technical problem with the following features”).
With regard to claim 7, Berarducci teaches an information processing method for a computer to execute a process, the process comprising (¶ [0007] states “Embodiments may also include a method for managing access to a plurality of devices. The method may include receiving device information from at least one device, generating, using the device information”):
functioning as a virtual device that is provided one-to-one with a physical device and that mediates transmission and reception of information between an application and the physical device (¶ [0057] states “The management server 102 may be embodied by a computing system, such as the apparatus 200 shown in FIG. 2.” ¶ [0075] states “The device management server 300 may comprise one or more virtual device models 310. The virtual device modules 310 may serve as a representation of the status of the device as known to a device management infrastructure. For example, each device in communication with the device management server 300 may have an object representation in a memory or database.” ¶ [0076] states “the virtual device models 310 may be accessed by one or more internal applications 312 to provide information to the internal applications and to allow the internal applications 312 to interact with the devices 304 … Example internal applications may include a device "dashboard" that is visible in a web browser interface to display data associated with the virtual device model.” Examiner’s Note: based on ¶ [0057], the device management server 300 in FIG. 3 has the processor 202 of apparatus 200 in FIG. 2. The device management server 300 can include a plurality of virtual devices that are each mapped one-to-one with physical devices. Internal applications are understood to be applications directly related to the device management server. The exemplary dashboard interacts with the device via the virtual device model),
wherein, on acceptance of an instruction from the application to read/write requested information, the virtual device determines, based on a type of the requested information, whether the requested information resides in the physical device or does not reside in the physical device but is stored in association with the physical device (¶ [0116] states “FIG. 10 depicts an example illustration of a visualization of a device virtual model … The device virtual model may include a variety of types of information about the device, including the configuration of the device, readings from one or more sensors coupled to the device, and/or an activity log associated with the device … a non-read only device could have interface controls to configure various aspects of the device, such as but not limited to device power management settings, device network settings, device troubleshooting tools, or the like.” ¶ [0076] states “a device "dashboard" that is visible in a web browser interface to display data associated with the virtual device model.” Examiner’s Note: the device sensor information and device activity log are examples of information that is read. The power management settings and device network settings are examples of information that is written. The power management settings and device network settings are the information that are associated with the physical device. The device dashboard is an example of an application that can read and write information)
Berarducci does not explicitly teach determining if information resides in a physical device.
However, in an analogous art, Malakuti teaches wherein, on acceptance of an instruction from the application to read/write requested information, the virtual device determines, based on a type of the requested information, whether the requested information resides in the physical device or does not reside in the physical device but is stored in association with the physical device (¶ [0021] states “a computer system is proposed for interoperable data exchange between a plurality of information systems via a digital representation service associated with a digital representation of the physical device.” ¶ [0027] states “The digital representation service further includes a semantic relations library storing semantic relations between model element types from data models of different information sources.” ¶ [0047] states “It is to be noted that the device itself is also considered to be an information system in this context.” ¶ [0033] states “Once the mapping is generated, it is straight forward for the manager module to retrieve the requested data from the respective information sources via the corresponding model providers by executing data access to the requested data in accordance with the mapping and providing the requested data to requesting information consumer (i.e., executing the data exchange between at least two information sources).” ¶ [0063] states “a production system hosted in an external cloud EC1 may provide data models DTP related to the production of the device.” ¶ [0063] additionally states “The semantic relations between model element types of the various data models DT including DTE, DTI, DTO, DTP, and DTM in the semantic relations library of DTS1 allow to generate mappings between instances of the model elements when a request for data of any of the connected information systems is received by DTS1.” See FIG. 4 for definitions of DTE, DTI, DTO, DTP, and DTM.” ¶ [0063] provides an example. Examiner’s Note: the digital representation service associated with a digital representation of the physical device (digital twin) is the virtual device. It can determine whether a type of information resides on the physical device or another information source by using the mapping information and the semantic relations between model element types. The data models of information sources besides the physical device are the types of information that are stored in association with the physical device),
in response to determining that the requested information does not reside in the physical device, the virtual device connects to a storage area determined in advance for content of the requested information and reads/writes the requested information (¶ [0034] states “the digital representation service of a device automatically establishes connections to the requested data of the information sources in an interoperable manner even when the information sources have different formats.” ¶ [0063] states “For example, a production system hosted in an external cloud EC1 may provide data models DTP related to the production of the device. A database DB1 may provide data models DTI related to the installation of said device. An engineering tool ET1 may provide data models DTE to DT in relation to the engineering phase of the device. And a maintenance application MA1 may provide data models DTM in relation to the maintenance phase of the device D1” and “the semantic relations between model element types of the various data models DT including DTE, DTI, DTO, DTP, and DTM in the semantic relations library of DTS1 allow to generate mappings between instances of the model elements when a request for data of any of the connected information systems is received by DTS1.” ¶ [0063] provides an example stating “For example, the maintenance application MA1 may request operational data from D1 and data from its engineering phase. For this purpose a mapping is generated between the respective data models DTM, DTO and DTE. Based on this mapping, MA1 can now retrieve the operation data of D1 which may be either already stored by DT in cases where the device D1 pushes its data to the digital twin, or the data may be retrieved from the device D1 because DTS1 knows how to access the requested data via the generated mapping. Similarly, requested data [from] the engineering tool ET1 can be accessed by DTS1 via the corresponding mapping.” Examiner’s Note: if the requested data is related to production of the device, installation of the device, engineering phase of the device, or maintenance phase of the device, then the semantic relations between model elements indicates to the virtual device which data model to use to access the requested data from the respective information source).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the digital twin and semantic relations between model elements of Malakuti with the virtual device providing information to applications of Berarducci. As a result, when an internal application reads/writes information, the virtual device of Berarducci and the digital representation service of Malakuti fulfills the request using the data models and semantic relationship mappings of Malakuti. If the requested data is at the physical device, a connection to the physical device is formed. If the requested data type is at a different location, such as the database DB1 that stores data models related to the installation of the device, the other information source is connected to. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to improve the interoperability of data between multiple information systems (¶ [0045] states “Typically, the data models of the various information systems differ from each other so that data exchange of data related to the device is not possible between such information systems without error prone manual interaction by a user. The computer system 100 overcomes this technical problem with the following features”).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berarducci in view of Malakuti and further in view of Mijar et al. Pat. No. US 9380523 B1 (hereafter Mijar).
With regard to claim 3, Berarducci and Malakuti teach the information processing device according to claim 2. Berarducci additionally teaches wherein the storage area determined in advance is one of
a duplicate storage area that is provided in the virtual device and that duplicates and retains the information of the physical device (¶ [0075] states “The device management server 300 may comprise one or more virtual device models 310. The virtual device modules 310 may serve as a representation of the status of the device as known to a device management infrastructure. For example, each device in communication with the device management server 300 may have an object representation in a memory or database.” ¶ [0080] states “The connection management module 314 may, for example, configure the manner and frequency of device state reporting and polling”. Examiner’s Note: the connection management module polls the device status data to be stored in the virtual device object representation which is further stored in the device management server’s memory or in a database. The information stored is a duplicate of the device status information present on the device. Therefore, the device management server’s memory or database is the duplicate storage area),
Malakuti additionally teaches an extended storage area that is provided in the virtual device separately from the duplicate storage area (¶ [0026] states “The digital representation service further stores a plurality of data models wherein each data model is associated with a particular information source.” ¶ [0063] states “Further data models of the digital twin DT may be collected from other information systems. For example, a production system hosted in an external cloud EC1 may provide data models DTP related to the production of the device. A database DB1 may provide data models DTI related to the installation of said device. An engineering tool ET1 may provide data models DTE to DT in relation to the engineering phase of the device.” Examiner’s Note: the database DB1 is an extended storage area),
and an external storage area that is provided outside the virtual device (¶ [0026] states “The digital representation service further stores a plurality of data models wherein each data model is associated with a particular information source.” ¶ [0063] states “Further data models of the digital twin DT may be collected from other information systems. For example, a production system hosted in an external cloud EC1 may provide data models DTP related to the production of the device. A database DB1 may provide data models DTI related to the installation of said device. An engineering tool ET1 may provide data models DTE to DT in relation to the engineering phase of the device.” Examiner’s Note: external cloud EC1 is an external storage area that is provided outside the virtual device).
Berarducci and Malakuti do not explicitly teach an extended storage area provided in the virtual device.
However, in analogous art, Mijar teaches an extended storage area that is provided in the virtual device separately from the duplicate storage area (Col. 4 Lines 28-34 states “Each of the PoP locations includes a first area of distributed storage. The first distributed storage area stores a common set of master images from which one or more different virtual devices can be instantiated based on user administration enterprise policies. The virtual devices are instantiated and executed on a compute host within the PoP.” Col. 4 Lines 59-60 states “The master images may include operating systems and one or more applications for the respective virtual devices.” Col. 4 Lines 34-36 states “The PoP includes a second distributed storage area that stores one or more data volumes, where each data volume is associated with a corresponding user.” Col. 3 Lines 64-66 states “the virtual devices are attached to storage volumes that store user-specific data corresponding to the users of the respective devices.” Col. 26 Lines 58-61 states “Data may be stored in a single storage medium or distributed through multiple storage mediums, and may reside in a single database or multiple databases (or other data storage techniques).” Examiner’s Note: the first area of distributed storage is analogous to the duplicate storage area because it is related to physical device state. The second area of distributed storage is analogous to an extended storage area for storing additional device information. The two distributed storages are separate from each other).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the two types of distributed storage areas of Mijar with the external cloud, database, and information sources of Malakuti and the virtual device of Berarducci. As a result, the database of Malakuti and the second distributed storage area of Mijar together are the extended storage area. Mijar teaches that data can be stored in single or multiple databases (Col. 26 Lines 58-61). The database/second distributed storage area are provided to the virtual device of Mijar and Berarducci and the digital representation of Malakuti, so the extended storage area is provided in the virtual device. Additionally, it is a separate storage area from the memory or database for the object representation of Berarducci and the first distributed storage area of Mijar, so it is separate from the duplicate storage area.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of “efficient roaming of mobile devices that are connected to corresponding virtual devices that are hosted on point-of-presence (PoP) servers, where the virtual devices perform functions that are presented to users of the mobile devices as if they were performed on the mobile devices themselves.” (Col. 3 Lines 53-58). Additionally, Mijar teaches storing user data (the second distributed storage) in a PoP location closest to the user and caching this data at other PoP location so that “the virtual devices instantiated at a roaming PoP location can start operating almost immediately using a small portion of the user data that is transmitted to the roaming PoP location and cached locally, the user does not experience large delays that might result from transferring an entire user data volume before beginning operation” (Col. 5 Lines 57-62). If the user connects to the PoP location where the entire user data volume is stored, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that reduced latency improvement applies to the entire user data volume.
With regard to claim 4, Berarducci, Malakuti, and Mijar teach the information processing device according to claim 3. Berarducci additionally teaches wherein the processor is configured to connect to the duplicate storage area and read/write the requested information in a case where the content of the requested information is information of a type managed by the virtual device (¶ [0075] states “The device management server 300 may comprise one or more virtual device models 310. The virtual device modules 310 may serve as a representation of the status of the device as known to a device management infrastructure. For example, each device in communication with the device management server 300 may have an object representation in a memory or database.” ¶ [0116] states “FIG. 10 depicts an example illustration of a visualization of a device virtual model … The device virtual model may include a variety of types of information about the device, including the configuration of the device, readings from one or more sensors coupled to the device, and/or an activity log associated with the device … a non-read only device could have interface controls to configure various aspects of the device, such as but not limited to device power management settings, device network settings, device troubleshooting tools, or the like.” Examiner’s Note: the device management server connects to the memory or database that stores the virtual device. As explained previously, the memory or database is the duplicate storage area. The sensor data and device settings are examples of information that are managed by the virtual device and that are read and written respectively).
Malakuti additionally teaches and connects to the extended storage area or the external storage area and reads/writes the requested information in a case where the content of the information is information of a type managed by a device other than the virtual device (¶ [0034] states “the digital representation service of a device automatically establishes connections to the requested data of the information sources in an interoperable manner even when the information sources have different formats.” ¶ [0063] states “For example, a production system hosted in an external cloud EC1 may provide data models DTP related to the production of the device. A database DB1 may provide data models DTI related to the installation of said device. An engineering tool ET1 may provide data models DTE to DT in relation to the engineering phase of the device. And a maintenance application MA1 may provide data models DTM in relation to the maintenance phase of the device D1” and “Based on this mapping, MA1 can now retrieve the operation data of D1 which may be either already stored by DT in cases where the device D1 pushes its data to the digital twin, or the data may be retrieved from the device D1 because DTS1 knows how to access the requested data via the generated mapping. Similarly, requested data [from] the engineering tool ET1 can be accessed by DTS1 via the corresponding mapping.” Examiner’s Note: the external cloud, engineering tool, and maintenance application are examples of the external storage area. As explained in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 claim rejection of claim 3, the database is interpreted to be the extended storage area. Based on the type of requested information, the corresponding information source is connected to. The mappings between data models facilitates this access of information).
Mijar additionally teaches and connects to the extended storage area or the external storage area and reads/writes the requested information in a case where the content of the information is information of a type managed by a device other than the virtual device (Col. 4 Lines 34-36 states “The PoP includes a second distributed storage area that stores one or more data volumes, where each data volume is associated with a corresponding user.” Col. 3 Lines 64-66 states “the virtual devices are attached to storage volumes that store user-specific data corresponding to the users of the respective devices.” Col. 3 Lines 60-61 states “the mobile devices are used as input/output devices for the virtual devices.” Col. 19 Lines 22-24 states “In one embodiment, distributed storage 821 is a read-only memory that does not allow any changes to the master images.” Examiner’s Note: it is understood that the data volumes are read/written to by the virtual device because it stores mutable information, unlike the first distributed storage area that stores master images).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berarducci in view of Malakuti and further in view of Young Pat. No. US 20140204403 A1 (hereafter Young).
With regard to claim 8, Berarducci and Malakuti teach the information processing device according to claim 1. Malakuti additionally teaches wherein the type of the requested information that resides in the physical device includes a toner level and a paper level, and the virtual device determines that the requested information resides in the physical device if the type is the toner level or the paper level (¶ [0021] states “a computer system is proposed for interoperable data exchange between a plurality of information systems via a digital representation service associated with a digital representation of the physical device.” ¶ [0027] states “The digital representation service further includes a semantic relations library storing semantic relations between model element types from data models of different information sources.” ¶ [0033] states “Once the mapping is generated, it is straight forward for the manager module to retrieve the requested data from the respective information sources via the corresponding model providers by executing data access to the requested data in accordance with the mapping and providing the requested data to requesting information consumer (i.e., executing the data exchange between at least two information sources).” ¶ [0063] additionally states “The semantic relations between model element types of the various data models DT including DTE, DTI, DTO, DTP, and DTM in the semantic relations library of DTS1 allow to generate mappings between instances of the model elements when a request for data of any of the connected information systems is received by DTS1.” Examiner’s Note: the mappings are used to determine which connected information system to request data from. In other words, the mappings determine if the information of the physical device have a certain type).
Berarducci and Malakuti do not explicitly teach the requested information including toner level and paper level.
However, in an analogous art, Young teaches wherein the type of the requested information that resides in the physical device includes a toner level and a paper level, and the virtual device determines that the requested information resides in the physical device if the type is the toner level or the paper level (¶ [0075] states “Moreover, the printer driver 165 is configured to communicate with the imaging device 170 regarding the settings, capabilities, and status of the imaging device 170 (e.g., paper level, ink level, toner level, paper size, colors).”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the imaging device with a toner level and paper level of Young with the virtual device object of Berarducci and the data models and semantic relationship mappings of Malakuti. As a result, the semantic relationship mapping would indicate toner level and paper level to the imaging device. Any request that requests toner level and paper level will be mapped to the imaging device of Young. The imaging device of Young is analogous to the Device D1 of FIG. 4 of Malakuti. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of monitoring and understanding printer status so that in the event of a printer error, the user may intervene to fix the error (¶ [0069] states “the print requesting application or intermediary of the instant application is able to determine, aided by the status monitor instructions, retrieval and understanding of the printer status. The user may intervene during printing (for example, to cancel a print job) or to correct any print error (for example, if the printer paper is out, the printer is out of ink, the printer cover is open, etc.”). This is an improvement over existing systems that only provide users generic statements that do not help resolve the issue (¶ [0068] states “However, no warning is passed to the thin-client if the printer is a non-cloud aware printer, and at best the user may eventually find out through the distributed printing server that there was a "Printer Error" or "An error occurred." Such generic statements do little to help resolve the issue or error and thus the printing is unable to resume”). Furthermore, Berarducci provides additional teachings that show the virtual device model is for a printer in ¶ [0050] and TABLE 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to applicant’s arguments that Berarducci and Hu does not teach the amendment in claims 1-7, applicant argues that Hu “includes determining of the storage device based on the data identifier associated with the target data, not based on whether the target data resides in the physical device or does not reside in the physical device but is stored in association with the physical device.”
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of Berarducci and Hu applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
As explained in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 6, and 7, the combination of Berarducci and Malakuti teach the amended claim limitations. Specifically, Malakuti teaches “the virtual device determines, based on a type of the requested information, whether the requested information resides in the physical device or does not reside in the physical device but is stored in association with the physical device” by teaching semantic relations between model element types and using the mapping between element types so that consumer information sources can request information from other information sources associated with the digital twin and digital representation service (see at least Malakuti ¶ [0033] and [0063]).
The newly added limitation in claim 8 is taught by Berarducci in view of Malakuti and further in view of Young.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150081700 A1
teaches
A routing table that routes requests based on data types
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER L YUAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5737. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets can be reached at 571-272-3338. 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.
/PETER LI YUAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2197
/BRADLEY A TEETS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights