DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In the indented clause "the complex equipment and operating scenario...", the following language appears: "firstly, the detection strategies that adapt to personalized scenarios are intelligently decided based on the complex equipment and operating scenario fused DT model". The terms "detection strategies" and "personalized scenarios" are not described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims 2-7 and 9-10 are rejected only for the defects they inherit through their dependence on claims 1 and 8.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for specific choices of detection plans and personalized scenarios, does not reasonably provide enablement for all conceivable detection plans and personalized scenarios. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
In the indented clause "the complex equipment and operating scenario...", the following language appears: "firstly, the detection strategies that adapt to personalized scenarios are intelligently decided based on the complex equipment and operating scenario fused DT model". The features, "the detection strategies ... are intelligently designed" and "adapt to personalized scenarios", are very broad, and are aspects that purport to be inventive (and are therefore presumptively beyond either the state of the prior art or the level of one of ordinary skill). The invention deals with building models, which has a vast and unpredictable configuration space. Examiner can find only a few examples and limited direction in the disclosure that might serve as guidance, and the enablement of the full scope of the claims could not be reasonably extrapolated from the examples. Lastly, given the breadth and number of possibilities for these claim features, undue experimentation would be required to make and use the invention. Therefore, the specification does not teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
Claims 2-7 and 9-10 are rejected only for the defects they inherit through their dependence on claims 1 and 8.
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.
Note that, in the following rejections, the highlighting indicates differences from the exact claim language, or items involved in an obviousness argument.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 111210359 A; The following remarks are made with respect to the English translation, submitted by Applicant, 1/25/24) in view of Tian et al. (CN 109445305 A; The following remarks are made with respect to the English translation, submitted by Applicant, 1/25/24).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang et al. disclose a digital twin (DT) enhanced method (method; see paragraph 63) for detecting and compensating complex equipment (equipment; see paragraph 49), comprising:
obtaining real-time sensor data (real time sensor data; see paragraph 26) and historical operating data (historical data; see paragraph 26) of complex equipment, operating scenarios of the complex equipment (working conditions; see paragraph 62), detection devices (multi-source sensor data; see paragraph 66) and a controller (network layer; see paragraph 11), wherein
a detection and compensation module (edge computing; see paragraph 11) is configured to build a complex equipment and operating scenario fused DT model (DT model of fully mechanized mining face; see paragraph 68), ... according to the obtained real-time sensor data, the obtained historical operating data, operating mechanism modeling, and intelligent algorithms (see paragraph 68), ... ;
the complex equipment and operating scenario fused DT model, ... is obtained through model assembly and fusion (evolved and integrated from physical models, logical models, data models, and simulation models; see paragraph 68); ... .
Zhang et al. do not disclose the highlighted limitations:
A digital twin (DT) enhanced method for detecting and compensating complex equipment, comprising:
obtaining real-time sensor data and historical operating data of complex equipment, operating scenarios of the complex equipment, detection devices and a controller, wherein
a detection and compensation module is configured to build a complex equipment and operating scenario fused DT model, a complex equipment and detection device fused DT model, and a complex equipment and controller fused DT model according to the obtained real-time sensor data, the obtained historical operating data, operating mechanism modeling, and intelligent algorithms, to obtain detection and compensation strategies for the complex equipment, and perform detection and compensation on the complex equipment;
the complex equipment and operating scenario fused DT model, the complex equipment and detection device fused DT model, and the complex equipment and controller fused DT model are obtained through model assembly and fusion; firstly, the detection strategies that adapt to personalized scenarios are intelligently decided based on the complex equipment and operating scenario fused DT model; then, the detection strategies are autonomously implemented based on the complex equipment and detection device fused DT model, and errors are located and quantified according to detection results; and finally, a compensation solution fused with an operating process is decided and implemented based on the complex equipment and controller fused DT model.
Tian et al. disclose
a ... module is configured to build ... a complex equipment and detection device fused DT model (assembly equipment DT models; see paragraph 70), ... ... ... , to obtain detection and compensation strategies for the complex equipment (online compensating and precise control; see paragraph 71), and perform detection (see paragraphs 30-31 and 64-66) and compensation on the complex equipment (see paragraph 71);
... firstly, the detection strategies that adapt to personalized scenarios are intelligently decided based on the complex equipment and operating scenario fused DT model (the selection of variables based on sensitivity; see paragraphs 30-31 and 64-66); then, the detection strategies are autonomously implemented based on the complex equipment and detection device fused DT model (supra), and errors are located and quantified according to detection results (the necessary compensations; see paragraph 66); and finally, a compensation solution fused with an operating process is decided and implemented based on the complex equipment and controller fused DT model (see paragraph 66).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Zhang to incorporate the highlighted features from Tian et al.:
a detection and compensation module is configured to build a complex equipment and operating scenario fused DT model, a complex equipment and detection device fused DT model, and ... according to the obtained real-time sensor data, the obtained historical operating data, operating mechanism modeling, and intelligent algorithms, to obtain detection and compensation strategies for the complex equipment, and perform detection and compensation on the complex equipment;
the complex equipment and operating scenario fused DT model, the complex equipment and detection device fused DT model, ... are obtained through model assembly and fusion; firstly, the detection strategies that adapt to personalized scenarios are intelligently decided based on the complex equipment and operating scenario fused DT model; then, the detection strategies are autonomously implemented based on the complex equipment and detection device fused DT model, and errors are located and quantified according to detection results; and finally, a compensation solution fused with an operating process is decided and implemented based on the complex equipment and controller fused DT model.
These would have been obvious because such modifications would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Furthermore, Tian et al. disclose DT fusion models for multiple pairings of the equipment with other subsystems (see paragraphs 35 and 70).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the combination to incorporate a complex equipment and controller fused DT model, as suggested by the invention of Tian et al., because such a modification would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding claim 8, see the foregoing rejection of claim 1, for all limitations. Claim 8 is essentially a system version of method claim 1, with clearly corresponding limitations.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 111210359 A; The following remarks are made with respect to the English translation, submitted by Applicant, 1/25/24) in view of Tian et al. (CN 109445305 A; The following remarks are made with respect to the English translation, submitted by Applicant, 1/25/24), further in view of Raphaeli (2006/0222128).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, see the foregoing rejection of claim 1, for limitations recited therein.
Regarding claim 9, this combination of references does not teach the highlighted limitations:
A computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, the program implementing the steps of the DT enhanced method for detecting and compensating complex equipment according to claim 1 when being executed by a processor.
Raphaeli discloses a computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, the program implementing the steps of a method (see paragraph 8).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the combination to include a computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, the program implementing the steps of the method, similarly to the invention of Raphaeli, because such a modification would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding claim 10, this combination of references does not teach the highlighted limitations:
An electronic device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored on the memory and configured to run on the processor, the processor implementing the steps of the DT enhanced method for detecting and compensating complex equipment according to claim 1 when executing the program.
Raphaeli discloses an electronic device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored on the memory and configured to run on the processor, the processor implementing a method (see paragraph 8).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the combination to include an electronic device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored on the memory and configured to run on the processor, the processor implementing the steps of the method, similarly to the invention of Raphaeli, because such a modification would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY T EVANS whose telephone number is (571)272-2369. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/GEOFFREY T EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights