DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
This Office Action is in response to submission of documents on February 4, 2025.
Rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Rejection of claims 1-4 and 8-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Barak in view of Rudolph.
Rejection of claims 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. as being obvious over Barak in view of Rudolph and Fink.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on March 6, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation " The computer program product of claim 11" in the preamble. Claim 11 does not recite “a computer program product.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner assumes the claim should recite “The computer program product of claim 16” and will be interpreted as such for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed “a computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code.” Although the Specification discloses “[a] computer readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide, light pulses passing through a fiber optic cable, electrical signals communicated through a wire, and/or other transmission media. As will be understood by those of skill in the art, data is typically moved at some occasional points in time during normal operations of a storage device, such as during access, de-fragmentation or garbage collection, but this does not render the storage device as transitory because the data is not transitory while it is stored,” the disclosure does not entirely preclude the “computer readable storage medium” from being transitory. For example, the disclose indicates that the memory is not necessarily or always transitory because the data is at times transitory, but does not explicitly indicate that a non-transitory for of the medium exists. Thus, the claimed language can mean the transitory and/or non-transitory form of the medium, which is not one of the statutory categories of invention.
To overcome the rejection, the claims can be amended to explicitly recite the non-transitory instances of the medium, such as a preamble of “[a] computer program product for implementing enhanced access control of an enclosed surrounding, the computer program product comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code embodied therewith….”
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exceptions without significantly more. The claims recite mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements that are recited in the claims are extra-solution activities that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because courts have found that the steps of data transmission and recitation of generic computer components are not significantly more than a judicial exception.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim is directed to a process, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim 1 limitations include (bolded for abstract idea identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
A method comprising: providing a digital twin simulation of an enclosed surrounding to implement access control;
determining a degree of physical stability inside the enclosed surrounding, based on the digital twin simulation of the enclosed surrounding;
determining suitability of the enclosed surrounding for worker activity inside the enclosed surrounding, based on the determined degree of physical stability; and
assigning an appropriate security rule for entering the enclosed surrounding based on the suitability of the enclosed surrounding for worker activity.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Determining a degree of stability inside a building is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind by observing the current status of one or more components of the building, evaluating the factors that contribute to stability, and decide how stable the building is on a scale of physical stability. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
The step can be performed in the human mind by assessing a stability degree and determining, based on judgment and opinion, whether the building is safe for human occupancy. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
The step can be performed in the human mind and can include, for example, determining what precautions must be taken by humans within the building based on the threat to occupants. For example, if the stability is low because of a contaminant in the building, and therefore the suitability is also low, the appropriate security rule can include wearing protective gear to mitigate harm to occupants. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim 1 limitations recite (bolded for additional element identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
A method comprising: providing a digital twin simulation of an enclosed surrounding to implement access control;
determining a degree of physical stability inside the enclosed surrounding, based on the digital twin simulation of the enclosed surrounding;
determining suitability of the enclosed surrounding for worker activity inside the enclosed surrounding, based on the determined degree of physical stability; and
assigning an appropriate security rule for entering the enclosed surrounding based on the suitability of the enclosed surrounding for worker activity.
Providing a simulation is an extra-solution activity that include data transmission. A simulation is provided by sending access to the generated digital twin to a computer that can utilize the simulation. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The step does not include generating the digital twin and/or executing the digital twin and therefore is merely sending access to an already generated simulation to another entity.
The judicial exception is performed using a digital twin and, as recited, does not require actual execution of the simulation to perform the step. Instead, the limitation requires using the simulation to make a decision, which can include receiving data from the simulation, an extra-solution activity of data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B, the inquiry is whether any of the additional elements (i.e., the elements that are not the judicial exception) amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Providing data is an extra-solution activity that courts have found does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Further, courts have found that the extra-solution activity of data gathering is insignificantly more than the recited judicial exception. See, e.g., In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982); OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites wherein providing the digital twin simulation of the enclosed surrounding further comprises capturing information from sensors in the enclosed surrounding including Internet of Things (IoT) sensors to detect predefined physical stability parameters of the enclosed surrounding. Capturing data is the extra-solution activity of data gathering, which courts have found is insignificantly more than the recited judicial exception. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(g); In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982); OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, claim 2 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites wherein providing the digital twin simulation of the enclosed surrounding further comprises detecting predefined physical stability parameters of the enclosed surrounding, wherein the predefined physical stability parameters comprise one or more of temperature conditions, liquid, gas, chemicals, and movement of objects within the enclosed surrounding. Detecting data is the extra-solution activity of data gathering, which courts have found is insignificantly more than the recited judicial exception. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(g); In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982); OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites wherein providing the digital twin simulation of the enclosed surrounding further comprises scanning the enclosed surrounding to capture images of objects inside the enclosed surrounding. Capturing data is the extra-solution activity of data gathering, which courts have found is insignificantly more than the recited judicial exception. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(g); In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982); OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites wherein providing the digital twin simulation of the enclosed surrounding further comprises using image recognition and digital twin technology to identify objects within the enclosed surrounding. Using “image recognition” is a mental process that can be performed by a human through observation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III. The process can include reviewing captured images and identifying objects in the images. Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites wherein providing the digital twin simulation of the enclosed surrounding further comprises using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) to analyze text in captured images of objects inside the enclosed surrounding. Using “Optical Character Recognition” can be performed as mental process through observation of images and reading text from the images. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III. The process can include reviewing captured images and identifying text in the images. Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites wherein providing the digital twin simulation of the enclosed surrounding further comprises using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) to identify features of a given object, wherein the object features comprise one or more of position, content, dimensions and weight of the object. Using “Optical Character Recognition” can be performed as mental process through observation of images and reading text from the images. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III. The process can include reviewing captured images, identifying text in the images, and inferring information about an object from the text. Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites receiving user input of testing parameters for a proposed action within the enclosed surrounding; and evaluating the received testing parameters, based on the digital twin simulation, to trigger alerts for the user to safely perform the proposed action. Evaluating data (i.e., testing parameters) is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III. The step can include using observation and judgement to determine whether an alert should be issued, all of which can be performed by a human. According, claim 8 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites receiving user input of testing parameters for a proposed action within the enclosed surrounding and identifying a plan of defined activities by the user, based on the digital twin simulation, for the proposed action. Receiving data is the extra-solution activity of data gather, which is an additional element that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Further, identifying a plan is a mental process that includes reviewing the parameters and inferring a plan that the user is intending to pursue, which can be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, claim 9 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites wherein assigning appropriate security rule for entering the enclosed surrounding further comprises validating specific users allowed to enter the enclosed surrounding. Determining the permissions of a user is a mental process whereby, for a given user, one of the determined rules can be applied to the access permissions of that user. This activity can be performed by a user who, through evaluation of the security rules, can determine whether a user should have access to an area. Accordingly, claim 10 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites a system that performs a method that is substantially the same as the method of claim 1. The limitation of a processor is a recitation of generic computer components, which is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, for at least the same reasons as claim 1, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claims 12-15
Claims 12-15 recite substantially the same imitations as claims 2, 4, 8, and 9. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons as claims 2, 4, 8, and 9, claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites a “computer program product” that includes “computer-readable medium” that includes instructions to perform a method that is substantially the same as the method of claim 1. The limitation of is a recitation of generic computer components and therefore does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons as claim 1, claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claims 17-20
Claims 17-20 recite substantially the same imitations as claims 2, 4, 8, and 9. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons as claims 2, 4, 8, and 9, claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Barak, et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0193341) in view of Rudolph, et al., (“Maintenance in Process Industries with Digital Twins and Mixed Reality: Potentials, Scenarios and Requirements,” hereinafter “Rudolph”).
Claim 1
Barak discloses:
A method comprising:
At step 432, the processing device may identify a real-time hazard and/or a potential hazard. The term “real-time hazard” refers to a cause of immediate danger associated with a place, a machine, a material, or a tool. Barak at [0062].
In other embodiments, initiating the remedial action may include…performing an automatic shutdown to prevent predicted injuries or damages…. Barak at [0064].
determining a degree of physical stability inside the enclosed surrounding,
At step 432, the processing device may identify a real-time hazard and/or a potential hazard. The term “real-time hazard” refers to a cause of immediate danger associated with a place, a machine, a material, or a tool. Barak at [0062].
determining suitability of the enclosed surrounding for worker activity inside the enclosed surrounding, based on the determined degree of physical stability; and
Consistent with the present disclosure, the remedial action may prevent of a series of incidents associated with personal safety or a catastrophic incident associated with process safety. In one embodiment, initiating the remedial action may include identifying an employee that is responsible for handling the determined type of hazard; and transmitting a message to the identifying employee, wherein the message may include the location of the hazard (e.g., the message may include an indication of the actual risk score and the GPS location of the hazard). Barak at [0064].
assigning an appropriate security rule for entering the enclosed surrounding based on the suitability of the enclosed surrounding for worker activity.
In other embodiments, initiating the remedial action may include…performing an automatic shutdown to prevent predicted injuries or damages…. Barak at [0064].
Barak does not appear to disclose:
providing a digital twin simulation of an enclosed surrounding
Rudolph, which is analogous art, discloses:
providing a digital twin simulation of an enclosed surrounding
These business models are an important factor to understand the requirements, process industries have with respect to Digital Twins of their plants. The concept of a digital twin describes a “dynamic virtual representation of a physical objector system across its lifecycle.” Rudolph at pg. 475, col. 1.
Once a hypothesis of the incident cause has been established, resolving the issue requires careful management of a variety of resources. These may include workers, spare parts for replacement, or cleaning materials for dealing with problematic parts. Additionally, tools may need to be acquired and access to the appropriate location within the plant may have to be organized (Fig. 4). Rudolph at pg. 477, col. 2.
Rudolph is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to utilizing a digital twin of an enclosed surrounding (e.g., an industrial site) to simulate one or more conditions at the surrounding. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine Rudolph with Barak to result in a system that performs the actions described in Barak but, instead of receiving data regarding the physical site, the data is received from a digital twin of the physical site. Motivation to combine includes reducing potential for injury to one or more users in a facility by simulating actions via the digital twin before allowing users to physically perform one or more actions. For example, a facility may experience a dangerous situation and a restriction rule to prevent worker access to the area may be identified and tested using the digital twin before an actual worker is exposed to the hazard.1
Claim 2
Barak discloses:
capturing information from sensors in the enclosed surrounding including Internet of Things (IoT) sensors to detect predefined physical stability parameters of the enclosed surrounding.
The real-time information may be obtained from at least one of: a plurality of cameras located in the industrial environment, one or more communication devices of employees in the industrial environment, wearable sensors of employees in the industrial environment, operational technology (OT) sensors, environmental sensors, and sensors associated with working tools. Barak at [0058].
Barak does not appear to disclose:
providing a digital twin simulation of an enclosed surrounding
Rudolph discloses:
providing a digital twin simulation of an enclosed surrounding
These business models are an important factor to understand the requirements, process industries have with respect to Digital Twins of their plants. The concept of a digital twin describes a “dynamic virtual representation of a physical objector system across its lifecycle.” Rudolph at pg. 475, col. 1.
Once a hypothesis of the incident cause has been established, resolving the issue requires careful management of a variety of resources. These may include workers, spare parts for replacement, or cleaning materials for dealing with problematic parts. Additionally, tools may need to be acquired and access to the appropriate location within the plant may have to be organized (Fig. 4). Rudolph at pg. 477, col. 2.
Claim 3
Barak discloses:
detecting predefined physical stability parameters of the enclosed surrounding, wherein the predefined physical stability parameters comprise one or more of temperature conditions, liquid, gas, chemicals, and movement of objects within the enclosed surrounding.
Other types of real-time information may be obtained from a multiple cameras located in the industrial environment, one or more communication device of employees in the industrial environment, wearable sensors on employees in the industrial environment, operational technology (OT) sensors, environmental sensors, sensors associated with working tools, and more. Barak at [0022].
Barak does not appear to disclose:
providing a digital twin simulation of an enclosed surrounding
Rudolph discloses:
providing a digital twin simulation of an enclosed surrounding
These business models are an important factor to understand the requirements, process industries have with respect to Digital Twins of their plants. The concept of a digital twin describes a “dynamic virtual representation of a physical objector system across its lifecycle.” Rudolph at pg. 475, col. 1.
Once a hypothesis of the incident cause has been established, resolving the issue requires careful management of a variety of resources. These may include workers, spare parts for replacement, or cleaning materials for dealing with problematic parts. Additionally, tools may need to be acquired and access to the appropriate location within the plant may have to be organized (Fig. 4). Rudolph at pg. 477, col. 2.
Claim 4
Barak discloses:
scanning the enclosed surrounding to capture images of objects inside the enclosed surrounding.
An example type of real-time information that may be obtained is image data, e.g., from a closed-circuit television system. Other types of real-time information may be obtained from a multiple cameras located in the industrial environment…. Barak at [0022].
Barak does not appear to disclose:
providing a digital twin simulation of an enclosed surrounding
Rudolph discloses:
providing a digital twin simulation of an enclosed surrounding
These business models are an important factor to understand the requirements, process industries have with respect to Digital Twins of their plants. The concept of a digital twin describes a “dynamic virtual representation of a physical objector system across its lifecycle.” Rudolph at pg. 475, col. 1.
Once a hypothesis of the incident cause has been established, resolving the issue requires careful management of a variety of resources. These may include workers, spare parts for replacement, or cleaning materials for dealing with problematic parts. Additionally, tools may need to be acquired and access to the appropriate location within the plant may have to be organized (Fig. 4). Rudolph at pg. 477, col. 2.
Claim 8
Barak discloses:
further comprises receiving user input of testing parameters for a proposed action within the enclosed surrounding; and
In one embodiment, task characterization module 300 may determine at least one characteristic of a task based on received details and historical safety-related information. Barak at [0047].
evaluating the received testing parameters,
Accident prevention module 306 may determine which appropriate remedial action is needed for preventing an accident, and initiate the remedial action. Barak at [0050].
hereafter, system 100 may initiate a remedial action, such as triggering real-time alerts, preventing the task from being performed by shutting down connected machines, or making the task paused or locked. Barak at [0046].
Claim 9
Barak discloses:
further comprises receiving user input of testing parameters for a proposed action within the enclosed surrounding and
At step 402, a processing device (e.g., processing device 202) may receive details of a task scheduled to take place in an industrial environment associated with work procedures. Barak at [0049].
identifying a plan of defined activities by the user,
Consistent with the present disclosure, the at least one characteristic of the task may include at least one of: estimated start time of the task, identity of employees expected to participate in the task, expected time duration of the task, type of tools expected to be used in the task, type of material expected to be used in the task, potential accidents associated with the task, potential accidents associated with the identity of employees. Barak at [0049].
Barak does not appear to disclose:
based on the digital twin simulation
Rudolph discloses:
based on the digital twin simulation
These business models are an important factor to understand the requirements, process industries have with respect to Digital Twins of their plants. The concept of a digital twin describes a “dynamic virtual representation of a physical objector system across its lifecycle.” Rudolph at pg. 475, col. 1.
Once a hypothesis of the incident cause has been established, resolving the issue requires careful management of a variety of resources. These may include workers, spare parts for replacement, or cleaning materials for dealing with problematic parts. Additionally, tools may need to be acquired and access to the appropriate location within the plant may have to be organized (Fig. 4). Rudolph at pg. 477, col. 2.
Claim 10
Barak discloses:
wherein assigning appropriate security rule for entering the enclosed surrounding further comprises validating specific users allowed to enter the enclosed surrounding.
Specifically, the location has many characteristics and system 100 can consider the restrictions associated with the planned locations of the scheduled task For example, the location information may include: area classification (class, zone), symbol for equipment classification, type of protection designations, gas identification group, temperature classification, ignition sources, and more. In another embodiment, the safety-related information may include information about the tools expected to be used in the task. Barak at [0052].
Barak does not appear to disclose:
based on the digital twin simulation
Rudolph discloses:
based on the digital twin simulation
These business models are an important factor to understand the requirements, process industries have with respect to Digital Twins of their plants. The concept of a digital twin describes a “dynamic virtual representation of a physical objector system across its lifecycle.” Rudolph at pg. 475, col. 1.
Once a hypothesis of the incident cause has been established, resolving the issue requires careful management of a variety of resources. These may include workers, spare parts for replacement, or cleaning materials for dealing with problematic parts. Additionally, tools may need to be acquired and access to the appropriate location within the plant may have to be organized (Fig. 4). Rudolph at pg. 477, col. 2.
Claims 11-15
Claims 11-15 disclose: a system that performs steps that are substantially the same as the method disclosed in claim 1, 2, 4, 8, and 9. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art as claims 1, 2, 4, 8, and 9, claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Barak in view of Rudolph.
Claims 16-20
Claims 16-20 disclose: a computer program product storing steps that are substantially the same as the method disclosed in claim 1, 2, 4, 8, and 9. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art as claims 1, 2, 4, 8, and 9, claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Barak in view of Rudolph.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being obvious over Barak in view of Rudolph and Fink, et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 12,608,521, hereinafter “Fink”).
Claim 5
Barak does not appear to disclose:
wherein providing the digital twin simulation of the enclosed surrounding further comprises
using image recognition and digital twin technology to identify objects within the enclosed surrounding.
Rudolph discloses:
providing a digital twin simulation of an enclosed surrounding
These business models are an important factor to understand the requirements, process industries have with respect to Digital Twins of their plants. The concept of a digital twin describes a “dynamic virtual representation of a physical objector system across its lifecycle.” Rudolph at pg. 475, col. 1.
Once a hypothesis of the incident cause has been established, resolving the issue requires careful management of a variety of resources. These may include workers, spare parts for replacement, or cleaning materials for dealing with problematic parts. Additionally, tools may need to be acquired and access to the appropriate location within the plant may have to be organized (Fig. 4). Rudolph at pg. 477, col. 2.
Fink, which is analogous to the claimed invention, discloses:
Where the information is provided in an image format, image recognition, object recognition, and/or optical character recognition (OCR) techniques may be employed as appropriate to extract information for analysis. Fink at col. 8, lines 60-67.
Fink is analogous to the claimed invention because both are related to identifying one or more features of an enclosed surrounding based on OCR and/or image recognition. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the digital twin of Rudolph with the OCE and image recognition analysis of Fink to result in a system that can determine access rules, as disclosed by Barak, based on features and/or objects identified via OCR and/or image recognition analysis. Motivation to combine includes improving the reliability of the digital twin to determine access rules based on image and/or object analysis. Doing so may identify hazards that would otherwise be missed without the additional analysis.
Claim 6
Barak does not appear to disclose:
wherein providing the digital twin simulation of the enclosed surrounding further comprises
using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) to analyze text in captured images of objects inside the enclosed surrounding.
Rudolph discloses:
providing a digital twin simulation of an enclosed surrounding
These business models are an important factor to understand the requirements, process industries have with respect to Digital Twins of their plants. The concept of a digital twin describes a “dynamic virtual representation of a physical objector system across its lifecycle.” Rudolph at pg. 475, col. 1.
Once a hypothesis of the incident cause has been established, resolving the issue requires careful management of a variety of resources. These may include workers, spare parts for replacement, or cleaning materials for dealing with problematic parts. Additionally, tools may need to be acquired and access to the appropriate location within the plant may have to be organized (Fig. 4). Rudolph at pg. 477, col. 2.
Fink discloses:
Where the information is provided in an image format, image recognition, object recognition, and/or optical character recognition (OCR) techniques may be employed as appropriate to extract information for analysis. Where the extracted information is text, the recognized and extracted text may then be processed using text parsing techniques similar to those employed for text files. Fink at col. 8, lines 60-67.
Claim 7
Barak does not appear to disclose:
wherein providing the digital twin simulation of the enclosed surrounding further comprises
using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) to identify features of a given object, wherein the object features comprise one or more of position, content, dimensions and weight of the object.
Rudolph discloses:
providing a digital twin simulation of an enclosed surrounding
These business models are an important factor to understand the requirements, process industries have with respect to Digital Twins of their plants. The concept of a digital twin describes a “dynamic virtual representation of a physical objector system across its lifecycle.” Rudolph at pg. 475, col. 1.
Once a hypothesis of the incident cause has been established, resolving the issue requires careful management of a variety of resources. These may include workers, spare parts for replacement, or cleaning materials for dealing with problematic parts. Additionally, tools may need to be acquired and access to the appropriate location within the plant may have to be organized (Fig. 4). Rudolph at pg. 477, col. 2.
Fink discloses:
Similar to operation 302 of method 300 (FIG. 3 ), computer vision may be employed, such as optical character recognition (OCR), object recognition, machine learning and classification, and/or any other suitable technique now known or later developed. The extracted specifications may include quantities, dimensions, colors, textures, and other visual or spatially related information, in addition to related information such as installation instructions, operating manuals, warranty information, maintenance and service instructions, invoices, change orders, and any other similar information relevant to the construction and upkeep of the structure specified in construction plans. Fink at col. 16, lines 38-49.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH MORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. 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.
JOSEPH MORRIS
Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/JOSEPH P MORRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
1 For the remainder of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. for claims 2-20, the other references may not appear to disclose a digital twin. However, in each instance, “providing a digital twin of the enclosed surrounding” is taught by Rudolph. Thus, the obviousness of the reference combination and the motivation to combine is the same for each subsequent claim.
Prosecution Insights