DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filed on
8/13/2025. In Applicant’s amendment, claims 1 and 4 were amended. Claims 5, 15-16, and 18 are cancelled. Claims 19-24 are added. Claims 1-4, 6-14, 17, and 19-24 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Response to Amendments
Rejections under 35 USC 101 are maintained. Applicant’s amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 35 USC 101 rebuttal arguments and amendments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues on p. 10-12 that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1 because the claim recited elements that cannot be performed in the mind.Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 1, examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas. If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One. The claim then requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong Two, to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Incorporating the use of a digital-twin database of a server computer of a computational environment; a multitude of coordinate measuring devices including the first coordinate measuring device, each coordinate measuring device comprising a plurality of components; a mobile device of an operator assigned to the first coordinate measuring device; and a maintenance service provider does not preclude the claim from the realm of abstract ideas. The claimed additional elements are considered individually and in combination with the limitations directed to the abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong 2. Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of mathematical concepts and mental processes because the claims recite steps to gather data, model data, analyze data to predict an output and present results in the form of a scheduled appointment.
Applicant argues on p. 12-13 that the claims recite a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2 because maintenance information is created and sent over the internet from the server computer to recipients and because a maintenance appointment is created and provided over the internet to the maintenance service provider.Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 2, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Here, the claimed additional elements such as a digital-twin database of a server computer of a computational environment; a multitude of coordinate measuring devices including the first coordinate measuring device, each coordinate measuring device comprising a plurality of components; a mobile device of an operator assigned to the first coordinate measuring device; and a maintenance service provider are recited to send/receive information over a network to create and schedule maintenance. The alleged integration is merely a series of data gathering steps to perform an analysis and prediction of maintenance requirements and outputting the result of the analysis/prediction in the form of a notification and/or scheduled appointment (insignificant extra-solution activity). The claims do not recite an improvement to the function of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The claims merely use computers as tools to perform the abstract idea.Further, an operator or a device going from not having information to having information is not a ‘changed state’ as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c).
Applicant argues on p. 13 that the claimed element is tied to a particular machine by reciting the first coordinate measuring device, which is a specialized metrology instrument. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim merely recites the coordinate measuring device as context for the information.
Applicant argues on p. 13 that the claimed feature effects a technological improvement in device maintenance by enabling the maintenance process to be initiated, coordinated, and executed remotely over the internet. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Performing steps to coordinate maintenance scheduling over the internet is merely performing a method of organizing human activity (abstract idea) and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Applicant argues on p. 13-14 that the claimed element provides a specific improvement in the technical field of industrial measurement systems because prior systems required manual inspection or separate local data retrieval, which introduced delays and increased costs, while the present system enables automated, server-driven, real-time distribution of device-specific maintenance information to multiple parties. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites an improvement to the results of the abstract idea rather than an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Applicant argues on p. 14-15 that the claims are eligible under Step 2B because the claims recite a particularized data transmission architecture that integrates specialized hardware and targeted end-points, improving the functioning of the coordinate measuring device’s workflow by enabling remote delivery of critical information without human intervention.Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should:
• Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and
• Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Here, the claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims mimic conventional, routine, and generic computing by their similarity to other concepts already deemed routine, generic, and conventional [Berkheimer Memorandum, Page 4, item 2] by the following [MPEP § 2106.05(d) Part (II)]. Further, the claims do not recite a particularized data architecture other than transmitting data over the internet to various recipients.
Applicant's prior art arguments have been fully considered but they are moot in light of the newly cited Bell and Atsumi references.
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 1-4, 6-14, 17, and 19-24 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (method). Claims 1-4, 6-14, 17, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (‘2019 PEG”), Claims 1-4, 6-14, 17, and 19-24 are directed toward the statutory category of a process (reciting a “method”).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1 of the 2019 PEG, Claims 1 and 19 are directed to an abstract idea by reciting providing … comprising individual digital twins for each of a multitude of coordinate measuring devices including the first coordinate measuring device, each coordinate measuring device comprising a plurality of components, each individual digital twin comprising information about the individual components of the respective coordinate measuring device … continuously receiving usage-related data … the usage related data regarding a usage of the multitude of coordinate measuring devices, particularly a usage in coordinate measuring applications; receiving maintenance data … the maintenance data related to maintenance events of the coordinate measuring devices; receiving operator feedback of a human operator … the operator feedback includes operator feedback data regarding other devices of the multitude of coordinate measuring devices than the first device, the operator feedback data comprising information about results of one or more maintenance events of the coordinate measuring devices and information about deviations from scheduled maintenance appointments; using one or more algorithms to perform a maintenance analysis involving the maintenance data and the operator feedback of at least a subset of the multitude of coordinate measuring devices, the information about the components used in the coordinate measuring devices of the subset and the usage-related data of the coordinate measuring devices of the subset; predicting, based on a result of the maintenance analysis, maintenance requirements for the first coordinate measuring device; obtaining maintenance information regarding the predicted maintenance requirements … and/or automatically scheduling a maintenance appointment for the first coordinate measuring device … based on the predicted maintenance requirements (Example Claim 1).
The claims are considered abstract because these steps recite mathematical concepts and mental processes. The claims recite steps to gather data, model data, analyze data to predict an output and present results in the form of a scheduled appointment. It is understood that the claimed steps aim to improve the maintenance and service of measurement devices by determining a need for maintenance for individual devices (Applicant’s Specification, p. 1). By this evidence, the claims recite a type of mathematical concept and mental process common to judicial exception to patent-eligibility. By preponderance, the claims recite an abstract idea (e.g., a “method” for determining a need for maintenance for a coordinate measuring device).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and the additional elements such as providing a digital-twin database of a server computer of the computational environment; wherein the server computer is communicatively coupled with the internet; automatically providing the maintenance information over the internet from the server computer to the first coordinate measuring device, to a mobile device of an operator assigned to the first coordinate measuring device, and/or to a maintenance service provider) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a-c, e)).
Claims 14 and 23 recite a computer system. Claims 17 and 24 recite a non-transitory machine-readable medium. Dependent claims 1-4, 6-14, 17, and 20-24 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional elements have been considered above in Step 2A Prong 2. The claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05I.A. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP
2106.05(f).
Applicant's claims mimic conventional, routine, and generic computing by their similarity to other concepts already deemed routine, generic, and conventional [Berkheimer Memorandum, Page 4, item 2] by the following [MPEP § 2106.05(d) Part (II)]. The claims recite steps like: “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” Symantec, “Performing repetitive calculations,” Flook, and “storing and retrieving information in memory,” Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. (citations omitted), by performing steps of “providing” a database, “continuously receiving” usage data, “receiving” maintenance data, “receiving” operator feedback, “using” algorithms, “predicting” maintenance requirements, “obtaining” maintenance requirements, and “automatically scheduling” an appointment.
By the above, the claimed computing “call[s] for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions ‘on a set of generic computer components' and display devices” [Elec. Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355] operating in a “normal, expected manner” [DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d at 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014)].
Conclusively, Applicant's invention is patent-ineligible. When viewed both individually and as a whole, Claims 1-4, 6-14, 17, and 19-24 are directed toward an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and lacking an inventive concept.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Johnson et al., US 20190147413 A1, hereinafter Johnson, in view of
Cella et al., US 20200166923 A1, cite no 1 from IDS filed 6/9/2023, hereinafter Cella, in view of
Bell, US 20120221191 A1, hereinafter Bell. As per,
Claim 1
Johnson teaches
A computer-implemented method for determining maintenance requirements of a first coordinate measuring device, the method comprising, in a computational environment: (Johnson fig. 2)
providing a digital-twin database of a server computer of the computational environment, the digital-twin database comprising individual digital twins for each of a multitude of coordinate measuring devices including the first coordinate measuring device, each coordinate measuring device comprising a plurality of components, each individual digital twin comprising information about the individual components of the respective coordinate measuring device, wherein the server computer is communicatively coupled with the internet; (Johnson [0034] “The system described herein interfaces with existing equipment networks via a communication network. By way of example, the communication network can be WiFi, Internet, Bluetooth, 802.11, 802.15, cellular, or other computer networks. The maintenance system, according to embodiments of the present invention, interface directly with existing maintenance software systems well known to those of skill in the art;” [0050] “the storage medium 250 may be configured to log data processed, recorded, or collected during the operation of the computing modules 110, 120, or 130. For example, the storage medium 250 may store the historical data, calculated UI data, and created modified maintenance schedule data;” [0114] “A digital twin analytics module 1930 includes a digital twin degradation analysis 1932 and a simulation-based modeling analysis 1934” note the storage of digital twin data)
continuously receiving usage-related data into the server computer, the usage related data regarding a usage of the multitude of coordinate measuring devices, particularly a usage in coordinate measuring applications; (Johnson [0054] “Data regarding the equipment is live streamed to the computing module 110”)
receiving maintenance data into the server computer, the maintenance data related to maintenance events of the coordinate measuring devices; (Johnson [0039] “ the computing module 110 retrieves maintenance history data and equipment parameters associated with the plurality of industrial equipment systems associated via the networks 50, 55, 60, and 65”)
[…] information about deviations from scheduled maintenance appointments; (Johnson [0053] “the skip shift process 400 includes determining maintenance extensions to avoid unnecessary maintenance. By way of example, this determination can be based upon the historical data for a one (1) year period, as received from the networks 50, 55, 60, and 65 by the computing module 110 of FIG. 1B. The maintenance of the industrial equipment components is shadowed and verified and based on maintenance effectiveness a “skip.””)
using one or more algorithms to perform a maintenance analysis involving the maintenance data and the operator feedback of at least a subset of the multitude of coordinate measuring devices, the information about the components used in the coordinate measuring devices of the subset and the usage-related data of the coordinate measuring devices of the subset; (Johnson [0035] “calculating usage intensity (UI) for each equipment component or subsystem” note that calculations are performed for each individual component and subsystem; [0068] “VM1 performs [smart signal predictive analytics] SSPA maintenance computations, using both incoming and stored 842 history data, in conjunction with analytics from its machine learning modules 846;” [0069] “VM2 performs [usage intensity factor analysis] UIFA computations using model behavior data” note the one or more algorithms for the maintenance analysis; [0058] “The report data can be displayed and analyzed by operators at the user interface 70 for purposes of determining the effectiveness and accuracy of the system 100;” [0116] “With the MER system, as maintenance tasks are completed, the maintenance tracking system notifies the server-system. For example, if the maintenance task was a corrective action raised on the basis of a SSPA predictive insight 1812, calendar maintenance schedules 1814, and UIPA 1816, each task is analyzed to ascertain how effective the maintenance was 1820. the asset model should return to its nominal modelled state. For example, predictive maintenance, effectiveness may be determined by looking at key parameters such as temperature, since changes in these parameters show how effective the maintenance has been 1836;” [0117] “MER data is feedback into the maintenance scheduling system to allow continuous system learning and improved modelling 1850” note the effectiveness analyzed by the operator and fed back into the system)
predicting, based on a result of the maintenance analysis, maintenance requirements for the first coordinate measuring device; (Johnson [0055] “predictive maintenance analysis using machine learning based predictions can be performed. Based on the analytics, a shift of the maintenance schedule is performed.” Note the shift of the maintenance schedule corresponding to the maintenance requirements predicted)
obtaining maintenance information regarding the predicted maintenance requirements at the server computer; (Johnson [0062] “The embodiments use principles of big data management to bring maintenance optimization to an enterprise level, providing visibility of maintenance requirements, schedules and equipment conditions to a centralized location allowing maintenance analysis and optimization to be performed.” Note the maintenance requirements obtained at a centralized location corresponding to the server)
automatically providing the maintenance information over the internet from the server computer to the first coordinate measuring device, to a mobile device of an operator assigned to the first coordinate measuring device, and/or to a maintenance service provider; and/or automatically scheduling a maintenance appointment for the first coordinate measuring device over the internet with the maintenance service provider based on the predicted maintenance requirements. (Johnson [0055] “predictive maintenance analysis using machine learning based predictions can be performed. Based on the analytics, a shift of the maintenance schedule is performed.” Note the shifting of the maintenance schedule in response to the predicted maintenance requirement; fig. 5 noting the user interface for viewing maintenance reports including the predictive alerts report; [0057] “The predictive alerts report 514 can also include the type of maintenance task, the subsystem or equipment (e.g., a gearbox), the impact of the maintenance extension (e.g., low), and/or the advised maintenance date.”)
Johnson does not explicitly teach, Cella however in the analogous art of data measurement teaches “a first coordinate measuring device” and “a multitude of coordinate measuring devices” as recited throughout the claim (Cella [0689] “Depending on the type of equipment, the component being measured, the environment in which the equipment is operating, and the like, the sensors 8106 may comprise one or more of, without limitation … a laser-based image sensor;” [1215] “The system includes an industrial system comprising a plurality of components, and a plurality of sensors each operatively coupled to at least one of the plurality of components”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Johnson’s digital twins for industrial equipment to include coordinate measuring devices in view of Cella in an effort to facilitate improved operation, reduce down time, preventive maintenance, and failure prevention (see Cella ¶ [0597] & MPEP 2143G).
Johnson still teaches receiving operator feedback. Johnson / Cella do not explicitly teach, Bell however in the analogous art of data measurement teaches
receiving operator feedback of a human operator into the server computer, the operator feedback includes operator feedback data regarding other devices of the multitude of coordinate measuring devices than the first device, the operator feedback data comprising information about results of one or more maintenance events of the coordinate measuring devices and […]; (Bell [0176] “Feedback data … such as component replacements, maintenance actions, and defect investigations will be recorded against the maintenance work orders at forwards operations process 94. … The operators such as pilots and aircraft preparation crew will provide any operational faults, warnings or query feedback through an operational data system process … Reliability analysis process 12 is applied against a trended and cleansed form of the maintenance approved organisation data process 9” note the provided feedback from the operators and including results of defect investigations against maintenance work orders)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Johnson’s digital twins for industrial equipment and Cella’s coordinate measuring devices to include operator feedback data regarding other devices and information about results of maintenance events in view of Bell in an effort to improve operational and maintenance scenarios (see Bell ¶ [0072] & MPEP 2143G).
Claim 2
Johnson teaches
wherein each digital twin comprises information about specified maintenance intervals of the plurality of components of the respective coordinate measuring device; and (Johnson [0052] “Existing maintenance tracking systems typically include calendar-based maintenance that include a planned maintenance schedule to be performed monthly, every three-months, six-months, yearly, and the like” noting the maintenance intervals)
the method further comprises generating adjusted maintenance intervals for one or more of the plurality of components of the first coordinate measuring device by adjusting the specified maintenance intervals of the respective one or more components based on the predicted maintenance requirements and/or on the result of the maintenance analysis, (Johnson fig. 16A; [0053] “the skip shift process 400 includes determining maintenance extensions to avoid unnecessary maintenance … A skip is performed such that the routine scheduled maintenance can be skipped without damage to the equipment;” [0054] “maintenance foresight is performed to prevent unplanned downtime of the equipment by prediction of necessary maintenance”)
wherein predicting the maintenance requirements comprises predicting maintenance events based on the adjusted maintenance intervals. (Johnson [0116] “With the MER system, as maintenance tasks are completed, the maintenance tracking system notifies the server-system. For example, if the maintenance task was a corrective action raised on the basis of a SSPA predictive insight 1812, calendar maintenance schedules 1814, and UIPA 1816, each task is analyzed to ascertain how effective the maintenance was 1820;” [0117] “MER data is feedback into the maintenance scheduling system to allow continuous system learning and improved modelling 1850. The TA maintenance dashboard is then updated 1860” note the predicted maintenance performed, monitored for effectiveness, then fed back into the model to update the maintenance dashboard)
Claim 3
Johnson teaches
wherein generating an adjusted maintenance interval of a first component comprises adjusting, in the digital twins of all coordinate measuring devices that comprise the first component, the specified maintenance interval of the first component. (Johnson [0123] “This process also moves visibility of maintenance requirements, schedules and equipment conditions to a centralized location, which allows fleet wide analysis and optimization to be performed” noting the optimization of maintenance schedules fleet wide)
Claim 4
Johnson teaches
wherein the operator feedback: is received in response to provided maintenance information; and/or in response to a scheduled maintenance date; and/or comprises information about a deviation from a scheduled time or kind of the maintenance appointment. (Johnson fig. 6 noting the report of effectiveness of modified maintenance schedules for a plurality of devices; [0058] “The report data can be displayed and analyzed by operators at the user interface 70 for purposes of determining the effectiveness and accuracy of the system 100” noting the operator feedback on the effectiveness and accuracy in response to provided maintenance information)
Claim 6
Johnson teaches
wherein the one or more algorithms use artificial intelligence to perform the maintenance analysis, (Johnson [0068] “VM1 performs SSPA maintenance computations, using both incoming and stored 842 history data, in conjunction with analytics from its machine learning modules 846”)
Johnson / Bell do not explicitly teach, Cella however in the analogous art of data measurement teaches
particularly wherein the one or more algorithms use at least one of Unsupervised Machine Learning, Supervised Machine Learning, Deep Learning or Reinforcement Learning. (Cella [0397] “In embodiments, machine learning may involve performing a plurality of machine learning tasks by machine learning systems, such as supervised learning, unsupervised learning, and reinforcement learning.”)
The motivation/rationale to combine Johnson / Bell with Cella persists.
Claim 7
Johnson teaches
wherein the maintenance analysis comprises correlating the maintenance data with the components used in the respective coordinate measuring devices and with the usage-related data of the respective coordinate measuring devices. (Johnson [0064] “The term target asset will be used generically to refer to … complex equipment having pluralities of components;” [0070] “VM3 combines information from VM1 and VM2 and manages maintenance tracking and scheduling 870. VM3 also uses the historical and calculated data to drive dashboards providing meaningful information on maintenance status of covered equipment, and VM3 860 controls displays 880 and interactions with operators.” Note the correlating of the maintenance data VM1 with the components and usage data of VM2)
Claim 8
Johnson teaches
wherein the maintenance analysis comprises a statistical analysis of the maintenance events, the used components and the usage-related data, particularly wherein the statistical analysis comprises at least one of segmentation, clustering and anomaly detection. (Johnson [0075] “use of the SSPA technology continues 980 for monitoring the health of the TA and for detection of anomalies, to enable real-time predictive failure warnings. Thus, using SSPA allows users to continuously monitor equipment performance and detect any degradation 1670. This provides advanced warnings of potential failure, often early enough to recommend carrying out additional maintenance inspections or tasks during an upcoming maintenance” note the anomaly detection)
Claim 9
Johnson teaches
wherein the usage-related data comprises individual usage information for a plurality of components of the respective coordinate measuring device, the individual usage information comprising at least information about an age of the respective component, and a duration and/or intensity of use of the respective component; and/or the maintenance analysis is performed for each component of the first coordinate measuring device individually. (Johnson [0082] “track maintenance on each of the components independently;” [0084] “the system 100 can track top drive motor and gearbox utilization, based upon predictive maintenance, in accordance with the embodiments. The utilization can be determined by considering total hours run and the actual number of revolutions of each motor, or the gearbox” note the individual usage information and total hours run)
Claim 10
Johnson / Bell do not explicitly teach, Cella however in the analogous art of data measurement teaches
wherein the usage-related data comprises information about environmental stresses to which each of the multitude of coordinate measuring devices and/or at least one of its components has been exposed during use or during transport, (Cella [0730] “Subsets of monitoring data may be selected based on data from a single type of component or data from a single type of equipment in which the component is operating. Monitoring data may be selected or grouped based on common operating conditions such as size of load, operational condition (e.g., intermittent, continuous), operating speed or tachometer, common ambient environmental conditions such as humidity, temperature, air or fluid particulate, and the like” note the monitored data including environmental stresses)
particularly wherein the environmental stresses comprise at least one of heat, frost, moisture, dust, vibrations, shocks, corrosives, radiation and atmospheric pressure. (Cella [0730] “Monitoring data may be selected based on the effects of other nearby equipment, such as nearby machines rotating at similar frequencies, nearby equipment producing electromagnetic fields, nearby equipment producing heat, nearby equipment inducing movement or vibration, nearby equipment emitting vapors, chemicals or particulates, or other potentially interfering or intervening effects.” Note the heat, vibration, and corrosives)
The motivation/rationale to combine Johnson / Bell with Cella persists.
Claim 11
Johnson teaches
wherein the plurality of components comprise: at least one of actuators, joints and gears; and/or wear parts, (Johnson [0078] “if the TA is a very simple apparatus (e.g., a valve), see FIG. 11A; if the TA is a simple apparatus (e.g., bearings), see FIG. 11B; if the TA is a complex apparatus, such as a gearbox, see FIG. 12”)
wherein the usage-related data comprises information about individual wear of the wear parts, wherein the plurality of components comprise wear parts that comprise at least one of actuators, joints and gears. (Johnson [0081] “The top drive power mechanism, noted above, consists of multiple components, including two motors: motor A and motor B. Motor A and Motor B are brought together into a dual input bull and pinion gearbox, depicted in FIG. 3. Each motor and the gearbox can be viewed independently for performing predictive maintenance and intensity usage calculations;” [0083] “consider wear on the top drive train (motors, gearbox, coupling, etc.). Wear on top of the drive train has a direct relationship to the number of revolutions of the motor.” Note the individual wear)
Claim 12
Johnson / Bell do not explicitly teach, Cella however in the analogous art of data measurement teaches
wherein the first coordinate measuring device is a laser-based metrology device, particularly a laser tracker, a laser scanner or a total station; and the plurality of components comprise at least one of optical sensors and laser sources. (Cella [0689] “Depending on the type of equipment, the component being measured, the environment in which the equipment is operating, and the like, the sensors 8106 may comprise one or more of, without limitation … a laser-based image sensor”)
The motivation/rationale to combine Johnson / Bell with Cella persists.
Claim 13
Johnson teaches
wherein the information of each individual digital twin about the individual components of the respective coordinate measuring device: is continuously updated based on the received usage-related data and the received maintenance data; and/or comprises, for each individual component, at least one of a lot number, a manufacturer, and a manufacturing date. (Johnson [0113] “Through continuous monitoring, maintenance effectiveness information is fed back into the maintenance scheduling calculations to allow a continuous system learning and improvement in modelling capabilities.” Note the continuous monitoring, maintenance, learning, and improvement of the models)
Claim 14
Johnson teaches
A computer system for determining maintenance requirements of a first coordinate measuring device, the system comprising one or more server computers, wherein the one or more server computers comprise memory for storing a digital-twin database, the digital-twin database comprising individual digital twins for a multitude of coordinate measuring devices including the first coordinate measuring device, each individual digital twin comprising information about the respective individual coordinate measuring device, wherein the computer system is configured to perform the method according to claim 1. (Johnson fig. 2; [0050])
Claim 17
Johnson teaches
A computer program product comprising program code which is stored on a non- transitory machine-readable medium, and having computer-executable instructions for performing, when run on a computer system, the method according to claim 1. (Johnson fig. 2; [0050])
Claims 19-24 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Johnson et al., US 20190147413 A1, hereinafter Johnson, in view of
Cella et al., US 20200166923 A1, cite no 1 from IDS filed 6/9/2023, hereinafter Cella, in view of
Atsumi, US 20010012311 A1, hereinafter Atsumi. As per,
Claim 19
Johnson teaches
A computer-implemented method for determining maintenance requirements of a first laser-based metrology device, the method comprising, in a computational environment:
providing a digital-twin database comprising individual digital twins for each of a multitude of laser-based metrology devices including the first laser-based metrology device, each laser-based metrology device comprising a plurality of optical sensors and laser sources, each individual digital twin comprising information about the individual optical sensors and laser sources of the respective laser-based metrology device; (Johnson [0034] “The system described herein interfaces with existing equipment networks via a communication network. By way of example, the communication network can be WiFi, Internet, Bluetooth, 802.11, 802.15, cellular, or other computer networks. The maintenance system, according to embodiments of the present invention, interface directly with existing maintenance software systems well known to those of skill in the art;” [0050] “the storage medium 250 may be configured to log data processed, recorded, or collected during the operation of the computing modules 110, 120, or 130. For example, the storage medium 250 may store the historical data, calculated UI data, and created modified maintenance schedule data;” [0114] “A digital twin analytics module 1930 includes a digital twin degradation analysis 1932 and a simulation-based modeling analysis 1934” note the storage of digital twin data)
continuously receiving usage-related data regarding a usage of the multitude of laser-based metrology devices, the usage-related data comprising individual usage information for a plurality of optical sensors and laser sources of the respective laser-based metrology device, […], and a duration and/or intensity of use of the respective optical sensor or laser source; (Johnson [0054] “Data regarding the equipment is live streamed to the computing module 110”)
receiving maintenance data related to maintenance events of the laser-based metrology devices; (Johnson [0039] “ the computing module 110 retrieves maintenance history data and equipment parameters associated with the plurality of industrial equipment systems associated via the networks 50, 55, 60, and 65”)
using one or more algorithms to perform a maintenance analysis involving the maintenance data of at least a subset of the multitude of laser-based metrology devices, the information about the optical sensors and laser sources used in the laser-based metrology devices of the subset and the usage-related data of the laser-based metrology devices of the subset; and(Johnson [0035] “calculating usage intensity (UI) for each equipment component or subsystem” note that calculations are performed for each individual component and subsystem; [0068] “VM1 performs [smart signal predictive analytics] SSPA maintenance computations, using both incoming and stored 842 history data, in conjunction with analytics from its machine learning modules 846;” [0069] “VM2 performs [usage intensity factor analysis] UIFA computations using model behavior data” note the one or more algorithms for the maintenance analysis; [0058] “The report data can be displayed and analyzed by operators at the user interface 70 for purposes of determining the effectiveness and accuracy of the system 100;” [0116] “With the MER system, as maintenance tasks are completed, the maintenance tracking system notifies the server-system. For example, if the maintenance task was a corrective action raised on the basis of a SSPA predictive insight 1812, calendar maintenance schedules 1814, and UIPA 1816, each task is analyzed to ascertain how effective the maintenance was 1820. the asset model should return to its nominal modelled state. For example, predictive maintenance, effectiveness may be determined by looking at key parameters such as temperature, since changes in these parameters show how effective the maintenance has been 1836;” [0117] “MER data is feedback into the maintenance scheduling system to allow continuous system learning and improved modelling 1850” note the effectiveness analyzed by the operator and fed back into the system)
predicting, based on a result of the maintenance analysis, maintenance requirements for the first laser-based metrology device, (Johnson [0055] “predictive maintenance analysis using machine learning based predictions can be performed. Based on the analytics, a shift of the maintenance schedule is performed.” Note the shift of the maintenance schedule corresponding to the maintenance requirements predicted)
wherein: maintenance information regarding the predicted maintenance requirements is automatically provided to the first laser-based metrology device, to a mobile device of an operator assigned to the first laser-based metrology device, and/or to a maintenance service provider; and/or a maintenance appointment for the first laser-based metrology device is automatically scheduled based on the predicted maintenance requirements, (Johnson [0055] “predictive maintenance analysis using machine learning based predictions can be performed. Based on the analytics, a shift of the maintenance schedule is performed.” Note the shifting of the maintenance schedule in response to the predicted maintenance requirement; fig. 5 noting the user interface for viewing maintenance reports including the predictive alerts report; [0057] “The predictive alerts report 514 can also include the type of maintenance task, the subsystem or equipment (e.g., a gearbox), the impact of the maintenance extension (e.g., low), and/or the advised maintenance date.”)
wherein each digital twin comprises information about specified maintenance intervals of the plurality of optical sensors and laser sources of the respective laser-based metrology device, and (Johnson [0052] “Existing maintenance tracking systems typically include calendar-based maintenance that include a planned maintenance schedule to be performed monthly, every three-months, six-months, yearly, and the like” noting the maintenance intervals)
the method further comprises generating adjusted maintenance intervals for one or more of the optical sensors and/or laser sources of the first laser-based metrology device by adjusting the specified maintenance intervals of the respective one or more optical sensors and/or laser sources based on the predicted maintenance requirements and/or on the result of the maintenance analysis, (Johnson fig. 16A; [0053] “the skip shift process 400 includes determining maintenance extensions to avoid unnecessary maintenance … A skip is performed such that the routine scheduled maintenance can be skipped without damage to the equipment;” [0054] “maintenance foresight is performed to prevent unplanned downtime of the equipment by prediction of necessary maintenance”)
wherein predicting the maintenance requirements comprises predicting maintenance events based on the adjusted maintenance intervals, and generating an adjusted maintenance interval of a first optical sensor or a first laser source comprises adjusting, in the digital twins of all laser-based metrology devices that comprise the first optical sensor or the first laser source, respectively, the specified maintenance interval of the first optical sensor or the first laser source, respectively. (Johnson [0116] “With the MER system, as maintenance tasks are completed, the maintenance tracking system notifies the server-system. For example, if the maintenance task was a corrective action raised on the basis of a SSPA predictive insight 1812, calendar maintenance schedules 1814, and UIPA 1816, each task is analyzed to ascertain how effective the maintenance was 1820;” [0117] “MER data is feedback into the maintenance scheduling system to allow continuous system learning and improved modelling 1850. The TA maintenance dashboard is then updated 1860” note the predicted maintenance performed, monitored for effectiveness, then fed back into the model to update the maintenance dashboard)
Johnson does not explicitly teach, Cella however in the analogous art of data measurement teaches “a first laser-based metrology device” as recited throughout the claim. Cella [2743] “the data capture devices 15002 may include a point cloud data capture device configured to capture image data of the devices 13006 during operation of the devices 13006 using lasers or other suitable light to generate a set of data points represent a 3-dimensional model of the devices 13006.” Note the laser-based metrology device)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Johnson’s digital twins for industrial equipment to include coordinate measuring devices in view of Cella in an effort to facilitate improved operation, reduce down time, preventive maintenance, and failure prevention (see Cella ¶ [0597] & MPEP 2143G).
Johnson does not explicitly teach, Atsumi however in the analogous art of data measurement teaches “a plurality of optical sensors and laser sources” and “the individual usage information comprising at least information about an age of the respective optical sensor or laser source” as recited throughout the claim (Atsumi fig. 1; [0016] “it is possible to estimating the timing when the data for use in determining the life of the parts of the laser light source will reach the limit value;” [0023] “The pulse light from the excimer laser light source 10 may be formed into a predetermined shape in section and size by incidence onto an optical system 14 for shaping the laser beams” noting the optical sensors and laser sources; [0037] “the main control unit 40 has a memory device 41 and the data of the parameter as described above are accumulated in a time series within the memory device 41. The main control unit 40 is so arranged as to estimate the timing when the data of each parameter amounts to its limit value on the basis of the data accumulated in a time series”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Johnson’s digital twins for industrial equipment and Cella’s laser based metrology device to include optical sensors and laser sources in view of Atsumi in an effort to implement an optimized timing for maintenance of laser light sources (see Atsumi ¶ [0010]-[0011] & MPEP 2143G).
Claim 20
Johnson / Atsumi do not explicitly teach, Cella however in the analogous art of data measurement teaches
wherein the first laser-based metrology device is one of laser tracker, a laser scanner and a total station. (Cella [0689] “Depending on the type of equipment, the component being measured, the environment in which the equipment is o