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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on April 19, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending with claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on April 19, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully asse1is that Mehrotra and Tabet, taken singly or m combination, do not teach or suggest "providing, based on the digital twin simulation, one or more recommendations to upgrade, replace, install and/or perform proactive maintenance of the industrial floor infrastructure to further utilize capabilities of the updated automation software" as recited in claim 1 and similarly in claims 8 and 15. The Examiner cites paragraphs [0021-0022] of Tabet as teaching the above-cited claim limitation. Office Action (3/23/2026), pages 8-9. Applicant respectfully traverses (Remarks, pg. 2-4).
Examiner’s response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the rejection relies on the combined teachings of Mehrotra and Tabet, rather than Tabet alone. Applicant’s arguments improperly attack Tabet individually, where the rejection is based on the combined teaching and suggestions of Mehrotra and Tabet. Tabet teaches analyzing digital twin simulation results to determine one or more remedial or preventative actions regarding infrastructure (Tabet ¶0022). These remedial or preventative actions can be reasonably interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art as recommendations to upgrade, replace, install and/or perform proactive maintenance because remedial or preventative infrastructure actions reasonably include upgrades, replacements, installations and proactive maintenance activities in the industrial infrastructure context. Therefore, Tabet teaches or at least suggests providing recommendations for infrastructure modifications and maintenance actions based on digital twin analysis. Mehrotra teaches identifying capabilities of updated automation software utilized with existing industrial floor infrastructure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Tabet’s digital twin analysis and resulting infrastructure actions in the system of Mehrotra in order to recommend infrastructure upgrades, replacements, installations, and/or proactive maintenance that improve compatibility and utilization of updated automation software capabilities, because such actions represent predictable infrastructure optimization measures derived from simulation and operational analysis.
In addition, the term “recommendation “ is broadly understood as suggesting or advising a possible act or course of action. Tabet teaches determining remedial or preventative actions regarding infrastructure based on digital twin analysis (Tabet ¶ 22). Such determined actions reasonably constitute recommendations for infrastructure related actions to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, the recitation “to further utilize capabilities of the updated automation software" merely states an intended objective or desired result of the recited recommendations, and does not positively require any additional structure limitation or specific operational step beyond providing recommendations regarding the industrial floor infrastructure. The combined teachings of Mehrotra and Tabet teach or at least suggest providing infrastructure recommendations based on digital twin analysis, and such recommendations reasonably would improve utilization of updated automation software capabilities.
Therefore, for at least the reason set forth above, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) with respect to claim 1, 8, and 15 are proper and therefore, maintained.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Applicant further asserts that Mehrotra and Tabet, taken singly or in combination, do not teach or suggest "executing the digital twin simulation to analyze capabilities of the industrial floor infrastructure in view of the update to the automation software to identify capabilities of the updated automation software that are utilized with existing capabilities of the industrial floor infrastructure" as recited in claim 1 and similarly in claims 8 and 15. The Examiner cites paragraphs [0029, 0093, 0111 and 0202] as teaching the above-cited claim limitation. Office Action (3/14/2025), pages 4-5; Office Action (7/18/2025), pages 8-9; Office Action (3/23/2026), pages 7-8. Applicant respectfully traverses. …
There is no language in the cited passages that teaches or suggests executing the digital twin simulation to analyze capabilities of the industrial floor infrastructure in view of the update to the automation software to identify capabilities of the updated automation software that are utilized with existing capabilities of the industrial floor infrastructure. (Remarks, pg. 5-14).
Examiner’s response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments improperly narrow the scope of the claims by requiring a more particularized identification of software capabilities than is positively recited. For example., Applicant argues that Mehrotra merely determines compatibility and does not identify which updated software capabilities are utilized with existing industrial infrastructure capabilities. However, the claims do not recite any particular manner of identifying capabilities, nor do the claims require expressly listing, categorizing, or otherwise specifically enumerating software capabilities. Rather, the claims broadly recite executing a digital twin simulation in view of an automation software update to analyze industrial floor infrastructure and identify operational capabilities of the updated automation software utilized with existing infrastructure capabilities.
As previously cited, Mehrotra teaches using digital twins coordinated with a simulation system to test Operational Technology (OT) firmware updates in an emulation environment to ensure that assets operate in accordance with desired output parameters (Mehrotra ¶202). Mehrotra further teaches determining compatibility between updated OT components and other OT components, determining impacts on an overall system level, identifying operational failures or connectivity issues resulting from updates, simulating asset performance after updates, and performing OT firmware risk assessment without updating physical industrial assets (¶¶174-175, 202). Mehrotra additionally teaches utilizing digital twins to analyze asset-related data, conduct simulations, run diagnostics, troubleshoot issues, and support operation and maintenance of industrial automation assets (¶29, ¶93).
Such teachings reasonably correspond to analyzing capabilities of industrial floor infrastructure in view of software updates and identifying operational capabilities of updated automation software utilized with existing industrial infrastructure. In particular, determining compatibility and operational impact between updated OT firmware and existing OT infrastructure necessarily involves evaluating whether functions and operations of the updated software can be successfully utilized with existing industrial infrastructure components and system operations.
Applicant’s contention that Mehrotra merely teaches “compatibility testing” is not persuasive because Mehrotra’s analysis is not limited to simply detecting crashes or failures. Rather, Mehrotra evaluates whether updated OT firmware operates compatibly with existing OT infrastructure, whether assets continue operating according to desired output parameters, whether updates impact system-level operation, and whether connectivity or operational issues result from updates. Such analysis reasonably teaches evaluating capabilities of updated automation software utilized with existing infrastructure capabilities under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
Applicant additionally argues that the Examiner improperly relies upon inherency. However, the rejection is not based solely upon inherency. Mehrotra expressly teaches digital twin simulation, compatibility analysis, operational analysis, and system-level impact analysis of updated OT firmware operating with existing OT infrastructure (see at least Mehrotra’s ¶¶ 29, 93, 174-175, 202). The Examiner further notes that compatibility and operational analysis inherently involve evaluating whether updated software functions can operate with existing infrastructure components. Applicant’s argument improperly assumes that the claims require identifying a specific enumerated subset of software capabilities utilized within the infrastructure. However, the claims contain no such requirement.
Applicant further argues that the cited portions (¶ 13) of Applicant’s specification do not support the Examiner’s interpretation. However, the Examiner does not rely upon Applicant’s specification to improperly import additional limitations into the claims. Rather, the cited portions of the specification are consistent with the Examiner’s interpretation that the claims broadly concern evaluating whether updated automation software can operate with and be utilized by existing industrial floor infrastructure.
Therefore, for at least the reasons set forth above, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 are proper and therefore, maintained.
With respect to the remaining dependent claims, Applicant merely reiterates the argument made regarding claim 1 and asserts that any additional references cited by Examiner fail to resolve the alleged deficiencies in the rejections of the independent claims (Remarks, pg. 14-15). Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10 and 17 are substantially similar to claim 3 and objected to under the same rationale.
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 of this title, 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, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2022/0100851 (hereinafter "Mehrotra”) in view of US 2024/0440529 (hereinafter “Tabet”) with filing date 3/30/2023.
In the following claim analysis, Applicant’s claim language is in bold text and Examiner’s explanations are enclosed in square brackets.
As to claim 1, Mehrotra discloses A computer-implemented method for readiness validation of industrial floor infrastructure and automation software (Mehrotra, ¶ 51, the embodiments described herein may be employed in any industrial automation environment), the method comprising:
creating a digital twin simulation of the industrial floor infrastructure utilizing the automation software with an update (Mehrotra, ¶ 29, create a Digital Twin and assign the Digital Twin to the asset [industrial floor infrastructure]. The client may use/supervise the Digital Twin uniquely assigned to the asset to analyze the collected asset-related data, conduct simulations using a simulator coordinated with the Digital Twin, run diagnostics on and/or troubleshoot the asset-related data to determine one or more causes of respective issues or errors (e.g., based on data analysis and simulations), and update the code to enable appropriate solutions to the issues and errors; ¶ 202, use the Digital Twins 174 to coordinate with the simulation system 170 to test OT (Operation Technology) firmware (e.g., OT firmware 176) updates in an emulation environment to ensure that assets 154 will operate in accordance to desired output parameters);
executing the digital twin simulation to analyze capabilities of the industrial floor infrastructure in view of the update to the automation software to identify capabilities of the updated automation software that are utilized with existing capabilities of the industrial floor infrastructure (Mehrotra, ¶ 29, The client may use/supervise the Digital Twin uniquely assigned to the asset to analyze the collected asset-related data, conduct simulations using a simulator coordinated with the Digital Twin, run diagnostics on and/or troubleshoot the asset-related data to determine one or more causes of respective issues or errors; ¶ 93, utilize a Digital Twin to remotely monitor, control, support and maintain operations of an asset corresponding to the Digital Twin … the asset management system may allow the user (e.g. a technician) to have access to certain code (such as operational code, maintenance code, troubleshooting code, and firmware) associated with the asset that may have issues; ¶ 202, the asset management system 150 may use the Digital Twins 174 to coordinate with the simulation system 170 to test OT firmware (e.g., OT firmware 176) updates in an emulation environment to ensure that assets 154 will operate in accordance to desired output parameters. … the firmware updates may cause the assets 154 to operate inefficiently. That is, a firmware update provided to one OT component may cause another OT component to stop operating, lose connectivity, or the like. As such, in certain embodiments, OT firmware updates may be tested in a simulated software environment to determine the compatibility of the OT component being updated with the other OT components, determine an impact on an overall system level, and the like); and
providing one or more recommendations to upgrade, replace, install and/or perform proactive maintenance of the industrial floor infrastructure to further utilize capabilities of the updated automation software (Mehrotra, ¶ 76, a particular recommendation (e.g., a particular recommendation (e.g., a diagnostic or maintenance operation recommended to be performed based on analyzing the data 102B); ¶ 209, The client may use/supervise the Digital Twin to analyze collected asset-related data, conduct simulations using a simulator coordinated with the Digital Twin, run diagnostics on and/or troubleshoot the asset-related data to determine one or more causes of respective issues or errors, and update the code to enable appropriate solutions to the issues and errors [Examiner’s Remarks: one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that solutions determined based on simulation results correspond to redocumentations for addressing identified issues]).
Mehrotra does not appear to explicitly disclose providing, based on the digital twin simulation, one or more recommendations to upgrade, replace, install and/or perform proactive maintenance. However, Tabet teaches providing, based on the digital twin simulation, one or more recommendations to upgrade, replace, install and/or perform proactive maintenance (Tabet, ¶ 21, Based on the real-time data 106, previously obtained historical data 108, and/or other data, digital twin 104 functions as a digital duplicate of infrastructure 102 and executes [simulates] all or a subset of the one or more physics-based models 110, one or more artificial intelligence (AI) driven models 112, one or more simulations 114, one or more analytics 116, and one or more predictions 118 to analyze and understand the attributes (e.g., parameters, settings, etc.) and operations (e.g., computations, functions, etc.) of infrastructure 102; ¶ 22, In response to application of the one or more datasets, results of execution of the one or more physics-based models 110, the one or more AI-driven models 112, the one or more simulations 114, the one or more analytics 116, and/or the one or more predictions 118 of digital twin 104 can be analyzed to determine one or more actions [recommendations] (e.g., remedial, preventative, or otherwise) that can be taken with regard to infrastructure 102 [Examiner’s Remarks: one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that recommendations, such as solutions taught by Mehrotra or remedial or preventative actions taught by Tabet based on simulation results are provided for upgrade, replace, or install to remediate issues and preventative actions are performed for proactive maintenance of the infrastructure]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mehrotra’s system with the system taught by Tabet. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide actionable guidance based on the simulation results to enable more effective remediation and preventative actions, and to improve system reliability, and representing a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. And Mehrotra further discloses The method as recited in claim 1 further comprising: providing the one or more recommendations to upgrade, replace, install and/or perform proactive maintenance of the industrial floor infrastructure using a knowledge corpus (Mehrotra, ¶ 152, the code repository system 166 may use a Digital Twin 174 to coordinate with the simulation system 170 to run simulations based on the received code. After the simulations, the simulation system 170 may send simulation results to the code repository system 166. the simulation system 170 may send the simulation results and other analytical data to a user (e.g., a user of the client device 160) for evaluation; ¶ 29, The client may use/supervise the Digital Twin uniquely assigned to the asset to analyze the collected asset-related data, conduct simulations using a simulator coordinated with the Digital Twin, run diagnostics on and/or troubleshoot the asset-related data to determine one or more causes of respective issues or errors (e.g., based on data analysis and simulations), and update the code to enable appropriate solutions to the issues and errors).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. And Mehrotra further discloses The method as recited in claim 1 further comprising: upgrading, replacing, installing and/or performing proactive maintenance of the industrial floor infrastructure forming an industrial floor infrastructure with upgraded capabilities using the knowledge corpus (Mehrotra, ¶ 152, the code repository system 166 may use a Digital Twin 174 to coordinate with the simulation system 170 to run simulations based on the received code. After the simulations, the simulation system 170 may send simulation results to the code repository system 166. the simulation system 170 may send the simulation results and other analytical data to a user (e.g., a user of the client device 160) for evaluation; ¶ 29, The client may use/supervise the Digital Twin uniquely assigned to the asset to analyze the collected asset-related data, conduct simulations using a simulator coordinated with the Digital Twin, run diagnostics on and/or troubleshoot the asset-related data to determine one or more causes of respective issues or errors (e.g., based on data analysis and simulations), and update the code to enable appropriate solutions to the issues and errors; ¶ 185, utilize the data models associated with the Digital Twin 174 corresponding to the asset 154 and other Digital Twins corresponding to the other assets associated with the other identified anomalies to analyze received data, coordinate with the simulation system 170 to run simulations or diagnosis for the anomalies based on received data, and update corresponding operational parameters, code, or OT firmware to enable appropriate solutions to the anomalies); creating a second digital twin simulation of the industrial floor infrastructure with upgraded capabilities utilizing the updated automation software (Mehrotra, ¶ 29, the asset management system may create a number of Digital Twins each representing a corresponding asset in the industrial automation network. … enable users (e.g., clients) to utilize the Digital Twins to remotely monitor, control, support, and maintain the operations of the corresponding assets;); and executing the second digital twin simulation to analyze capabilities of the industrial floor infrastructure with upgraded capabilities in view of the update to the automation software to identify capabilities of the industrial floor infrastructure with the upgraded capabilities that are utilized by the updated automation software (Mehrotra, ¶ 93, the asset management system may allow the user (e.g. a technician) to have access to certain code (such as operational code, maintenance code, troubleshooting code, and firmware) associated with the asset that may have issues. The client may use/supervise the Digital Twin uniquely assigned to the asset to analyze the collected asset-related data, to conduct simulations using a simulator coordinated with the Digital Twin, to run diagnose and/or trouble shooting to find the root causes of respective issues based on data analysis and simulations, and to update the code to enable appropriate solutions to the issues).
As to claims 8, 11, and 13, the claims are computer program product claims corresponding to method claims 1, 4, and 6. Therefore, they are rejected under the same rational set forth in the rejection of method claims 1, 4, and 6.
As to claims 15, 18 and 20, the claims are computer program product claims corresponding to method claims 1, 4, and 6. Therefore, they are rejected under the same rational set forth in the rejection of method claims 1, 4, and 6.
Claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehrotra, in view of Tabet, and further in view of US 20230086361 (hereinafter “Wan”).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Mehrotra discloses the updated automation software being utilized by the industrial floor infrastructure (Mehrotra, ¶ 202, The OT firmware updates (e.g., software patches) may be provided to various devices (e.g., the assets 154); ¶ 92, hierarchical levels of the industrial automation system 10 discussed above include factories (e.g., factory 12 and factories 14) include areas 16 … Location-level hierarchical levels may be physical areas related to physical portions (e.g., rooms, floors, or other subsections) of a factory), but does not appear to explicitly disclose The method as recited in claim 1 further comprising: installing the updated automation software in an industrial facility in response to having a percentage of capabilities of the updated automation software exceeding a threshold value (Wan, ¶ 108, responsive to detecting whether the performance score meets a performance threshold, switching between: causing the continuous integration and continuous delivery pipeline to reject the software update to the software application if the performance score is below a predefined performance threshold; and releasing the software application incorporating the software update … if the performance score is greater than or equal to the predefined performance threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mehrotra’s system as modified with the system taught by Wan including installing the updated automation software in an industrial facility in response to having a percentage of capabilities of the updated automation software being utilized by the industrial floor infrastructure exceeding a threshold value. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to automatic perform a test of the software application incorporating the software update on the target system and determine a performance score based on the plurality of performance metrics. Responsive to detecting the performance score is below a predefined performance threshold, reject the software update to the software application and releasing the software application incorporating the software update if the performance score is greater than or equal to the predefined performance threshold (Wan, Abstract and ¶ 108).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Mehrotra as modified further discloses The method as recited in claim 1 further comprising: providing the one or more recommendations to upgrade, replace, install and/or perform proactive maintenance of the industrial floor infrastructure using the knowledge corpus (Mehrotra, ¶ 152, the code repository system 166 may use a Digital Twin 174 to coordinate with the simulation system 170 to run simulations based on the received code. After the simulations, the simulation system 170 may send simulation results to the code repository system 166. the simulation system 170 may send the simulation results and other analytical data to a user (e.g., a user of the client device 160) for evaluation; ¶ 29, The client may use/supervise the Digital Twin uniquely assigned to the asset to analyze the collected asset-related data, conduct simulations using a simulator coordinated with the Digital Twin, run diagnostics on and/or troubleshoot the asset-related data to determine one or more causes of respective issues or errors (e.g., based on data analysis and simulations), and update the code to enable appropriate solutions to the issues and errors) in response to having a percentage of capabilities of the updated automation software being utilized by the industrial floor infrastructure not exceeding a threshold value (Wan, ¶ 108, responsive to detecting whether the performance score meets a performance threshold … to reject the software update to the software application if the performance score is below a predefined performance threshold). The motivation to combine the references is the same as set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Mehrotra as modified further discloses The method as recited in claim 6 further comprising: storing a result of the execution of the second digital twin simulation in the knowledge corpus (Mehrotra, ¶ 106, the code repository system 166 may perform a data repository service for hosting the code 172 and the Digital Twins 174 … The code repository system 166 may utilize the Digital Twins 174 to manage operations of the corresponding assets 154; ¶ 107, the data repository service may emulate the stored code in a cloud-based environment to determine how the code will operate … the simulation system 170 may be used to simulate asset code performance after code updates); and providing one or more recommendations to update, upgrade or replace the updated automation software (Mehrotra, the receiving device may access the Digital Twin 174 assigned to the asset 154 to analyze received data, to coordinate with the simulation system 170 to run simulations or diagnostics for given issues based on received data, and to update corresponding parameters or code to enable appropriate solutions to the issues to be determined and implemented) using the knowledge corpus (Mehrotra, ¶ 107, the data repository service may emulate the stored code in a cloud-based environment to determine how the code will operate … the simulation system 170 may be used to simulate asset code performance after code updates) in response to having a percentage of capabilities of the industrial floor infrastructure with the upgraded capabilities being utilized by the automation software with the update not exceeding a threshold value (Wan, ¶ 108, responsive to detecting whether the performance score meets a performance threshold, switching between: causing the continuous integration and continuous delivery pipeline to reject the software update to the software application if the performance score is below a predefined performance threshold).
As to claims 9, 12, and 14, the claims are computer program product claims corresponding to method claims 2, 5, and 7. Therefore, they are rejected under the same rational set forth in the rejection of method claims 2, 5, and 7.
As to claims 16 and 19, the claims are system claims corresponding to method claims 2 and 5. Therefore, they are rejected under the same rational set forth in the rejection of method claims 2 and 5.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0014946 teaches digital twin circuitry 830 provides recommendation messages; and
US 11200045 teaches digital twin enabled asset performance and upgrade management.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAXIN WU whose telephone number is (571) 270-7721. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (7 am - 11:30 am; 1:30- 5 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Wei Mui can be reached at (571) 272-3708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
Wu, Daxin
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2191
/DAXIN WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights