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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/05/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is a Non-Final Action on the merits in response to the claims filed on 02/05/2026.
Claims 1 – 2, 6, 10, and 16 have been amended.
Claim 22 is a new claim.
Claim 21 has been cancelled.
Claims 1 – 19, and 22 are currently pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/05/2026 and 03/13/2026 have been acknowledged. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner. The initialed and dated copies of Applicant’s IDS forms, 1449, are attached to the instant Office action.
Response to Remarks
Examiner’s Response to Remarks:
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Examiner’s Response to Rejections Under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant argues Rakshit, in view of Stocker in view of Akyureklier fail to disclose claims 1 – 20.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the KSR decision multiple references may be used to map the claimed invention; and Examiner has established this approach. Rakshit, claim 1, explicitly recites A computer-implemented method comprising: creating, by a processor, a digital twin model representing a physical asset, wherein a real-time data feed from a data collection device describes components and performance of the physical asset and reflects the components and the performance of the physical asset in the digital twin model; Furthermore, any deficiencies of Rakshit are cured by Stocker and Akyureklier. For example, Akyureklier teaches in ¶ 0003, a computer system is provided that includes a memory and a processor in communications with the memory, wherein the computer system is configured to perform a method including obtaining replication volume configuration information identifying configuration of at least one replication volume in a data replication relationship in which data is replicated from a replication source to a replication target, wherein the at least one replication volume is configured for the replication source and the at least one replication volume remains at least partially non-configured for the replication target during data replication from the replication source to the replication target; and based on an indication of failover from a replication source site to a replication target site, automatically configuring, using the obtained replication volume configuration information, the at least one replication volume for the replication target in preparation for use by an application of the replication target site, the automatically configuring including configuring, for the at least one replication volume, at least one volume group and at least one mount point; thus Akyureklier is used for “effectuating (i.e., causing something to actually happen) actual real-world completion of a task started by the physical object.” Rakshit in view of Stocker in view of Akyureklier is functionally equivalent to Applicant’s claimed invention. Claims 10 and 16 are substantially similar and recite the same subject matter as claim 1. Rejection under 35 USC § 103 remains for all independent claims.
Applicant argues amended dependent claim 2 has been amended similar to the amended independent claims. However, even with the amendments to dependent claim 2, under a KSR rationale Rakshit and Akyureklier teach the limitations of amended claim 2 as shown below. Dependent claims are rejected under 35 USC § 103 by virtue of dependence on the independent claims. Accordingly, all pending claims are rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness
rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 – 19, and 22, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rakshit, Sarbajit K. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/037,4032) hereinafter “Rakshit” in view of Stocker, Thomas et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,334,471) hereinafter “Stocker” in view of Akyureklier, Ozan A. et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/006,0975) hereinafter “Akyureklier”.
Claims 1, 10, and 16:
A method of managing data processing systems responsible for performing a data workflow throughout a distributed environment, the method comprising: identifying an occurrence of an event indicating that a first data processing system of the data processing systems requires replacement in the data workflow, the first data processing system being operated and used by a downstream consumer to complete a task for the downstream consumer and provides computer- implemented services for actual real-world completion of the task to the downstream consumer via the data workflow; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0003, a method for processing a real-time data feed from a data collection device; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0018, digital twin simulation configurations to improve the ability of users to identify both improvements and solve problems hampering physical asset performance or limiting the achievement of peak performance; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0038, an approach that can be executed using one or more data processing systems 100 operating within a computing environment 200, 260, 300 to implement systems, methods and computer program products for simulating digital twin workflows of physical assets; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0076, the user can select a version of the digital twin model and modify the digital model by replacing one or more components or configurations to simulate the results that could occur by making such replacements or configurations to the physical asset;
to provide the computer-implemented services to the downstream consumer such that the downstream consumer now operates and uses the digital twin instead of the first data processing system to continue the actual real-world completion of the task; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0066, The digital twin services may be provided to owners, purchasers, licensees, manufacturers, sellers, licensors and other authorized individuals (collectively referred to generally as “users”) of the digital twins being accessed. Users may connect to the host system 201 and access the services of the digital twin module 203 via one or more client systems 227. Embodiments of the host system 201 may execute program code of the digital twin module 203 to perform one or more functions or operations of the digital twin module 203, including, but not limited to retrieving and creating digital twin models 233, aggregating and organizing data generated by sensor device(s) 219, IoT devices 221 and/or recording system 223 of the physical asset(s) 217, simulating changes to the digital twin using one or more digital twin models, mapping simulation components of the digital twin models 233, selecting components to bypass and alternative components to substitute for bypassed components 701, providing overriding values 803, and reporting simulation results to the user. One or more individual functions or features of the digital twin module 203 may be implemented by one or more subprocesses or sub-modules of the digital twin module 203. For example, the exemplary embodiment of the digital twin module 203, comprises a creation engine 205, data collection engine 207, digital twin version management 209, simulation engine 211, and reporting engine.
the second data processing system now being operated and used by the downstream consumer to continue the actual real- world completion of the task; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0082, embodiments of the digital twin module 203 may comprise a reporting engine 213. Embodiments of the reporting engine 213 may perform functions or tasks of the digital twin module 203 which may be directed toward receiving simulation results from the simulation engine 211, transmitting the simulation results to one or more client systems 227 and displaying the simulation results on the digital twin interface 229. In some embodiments of the reporting engine 213, the reporting engine 213 may save and archive the simulation results to the digital twin files 237 of repository 231. Users of the digital twin module 203 may request the reporting engine 213 to retrieve archived simulation results from previous simulation and view the archived simulation results on the digital twin interface 229. Embodiments of the reporting engine 213 may also be capable of accessing and providing to the user one or more available publicly shared simulation results from owners and users of similar physical assets where user may be an end user downstream and likened to downstream consumer.
While Rakshit teaches create a newer version of the digital twin model that reflects the reported changes, simulation, digital twin model, simulating changes to the digital twin using one or more digital twin models, digital twin workflow simulation, mapping a simulation, a user selects a digital twin model 233 representing the physical asset 217 in the physical asset's current state, and going from the next stage of the simulation to the next downstream, and Rakshit and Stocker are similar where Rakshit and Stocker teach simulating and testing workflows respectively, and Stocker further teaches the following:
after a second data processing system becomes available for replacement of the first data processing system, discontinuing use of the operation of the digital twin in the first updated data workflow and substituting operation of the second data processing system in the first updated data workflow for the operation of the digital twin in the first updated data workflow to obtain a second updated data workflow where the second data processing system replaces the digital twin to provide the computer-implemented services to the downstream consumer; Stocker teaches in col. 10, lines 55 – 63, using the duplicate workflow or a clone workflow that may be likened to a digital twin and testing with the duplicate workflow without using the original workflow may be likened to discontinuing use of the operation of the digital twin in the first updated data workflow and substituting operation of the second data processing system in the first updated data workflow for the operation of the digital twin in the first updated data workflow to obtain a second updated data workflow; further teaches in col. 11, lines 34 – 48, mock workflow replaces a target activity with a substitute activity; Stocker teaches in col. 16, lines 54 – 56, mocking comprises automatically creating a separate mock workflow comprising a duplicate of the original; Stocker teaches in col. 15, lines 45 – 53, address such shortcomings by employing activity mocking to facilitate RPA testing. Mocking herein denotes replacing a specific set of RPA activities of a workflow with a substitute activity (or activity sequence) for the purpose of testing. The respective substitute activity(ies) are configured to provide substitute input data to a set of test target activities of the workflow. Mocking therefore enables testing of the test target activities independently of the rest of the respective workflow. Stocker teaches in col. 16, lines 6 – 14, mock the activities that are unavailable, i.e., seamlessly replace them with substitute activities without affecting the rest of the workflow. For instance, the developer may mock the entire activity block 170a with an ‘Open File’ substitute activity as illustrated in Fig. 11. Such mocking may replace the output of block 170a with the content of a disk file indicated by the developer, enabling an easy testing of the ‘Calculate Taxes’ activity block. Rakshit teaches above “user” in ¶ 0066 where “user” is likened to downstream consumer.
after obtaining the second updated data workflow: performing an analysis for the digital twin and based on test operation of the second data processing system and test operation of the digital twin to obtain a digital twin performance report; and performing an action set based on the digital twin performance report; Stocker teaches in col. 2, lines 16 – 20, testing the mock workflow for errors; Stocker further teaches in col. 2, The instructions further cause the computer system, in response to receiving a user input selecting the first activity or the second activity, to modify the mock workflow by replacing the first activity with a substitute activity configured to supply a mock input to the second activity. The instructions further cause the computer system to output a computer-readable encoding of a test robot configured to execute the modified mock workflow, wherein executing the test robot comprises testing the RPA workflow for errors.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine systems, methods and computer program products for simulating workflows and activities of physical assets using digital twin models with a robot design interface of Rakshit and tools for testing a robotic process automation (RPA) workflow of Stocker to assist businesses in selecting an RPA workflow for testing, to create a mock workflow comprising a duplicate of the RPA workflow (Stocker, Spec. Col. 2, lines 3 – 5).
While Rakshit teaches create a newer version of the digital twin model that reflects the reported changes, simulation, digital twin model, simulating changes to the digital twin using one or more digital twin models, digital twin workflow simulation, mapping a simulation, and going from the next stage of the simulation to the next downstream, and Stocker teaches testing mock workflows that are duplicates of original workflows, and mimicking robotic activities, and Rakshit and Stocker are similar to Akyureklier where Rakshit teaches selects a digital twin model representing the physical asset in the physical asset’s current state, and Stocker teaches generate a mock workflow comprising a duplicate of the original workflow wherein a set of RPA activities are replaced with substitute activities, and Akyureklier teaches primary (source) and secondary (target) virtual machines that are active and online in the DR environment with at least a portion of storage of the replication source being replicated to the replication target, and Akyureklier further teaches the following:
based on the occurrence of the event: initiating operation of a digital twin, the operation of the digital twin being intended to duplicate operation of the first data processing system such that the digital twin provides identical ones of the computer-implemented services as the first data processing system, and the operation of the digital twin being substituted in the data workflow for the operation of the first data processing system in the data workflow to obtain a first updated data workflow where the digital twin replaces the first data processing system; Akyureklier teaches in ¶ 0001, a primary and secondary where the machine is running workloads and orchestrating a seamless failover to the secondary site in the event that the primary site experiences a catastrophic failure; Akyureklier teaches in ¶ 0004, obtaining replication volume configuration information identifying configuration of at least one replication volume in a data replication relationship in which data is replicated from a replication source to a replication target, wherein the at least one replication volume is configured for the replication source and the at least one replication volume remains at least partially non-configured for the replication target during data replication from the replication source to the replication target; and based on an indication of failover from a replication source site to a replication target site, automatically configuring, using the obtained replication volume configuration information, the at least one replication volume for the replication target in preparation for use by an application of the replication target site;
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine systems, methods and computer program products for simulating workflows and activities of physical assets using digital twin models with a robot design interface of Rakshit and tools for testing a robotic process automation (RPA) workflow of Stocker with a method for automatically configuring replication volumes as part of a failover procedure of Akyureklier to assist businesses in using workloads with replication volumes to represent replication relationships in failover procedures (Akyureklier, Spec. ¶ 0017).
Claim 2:
Rakshit, Stocker, and Akyureklier teaches claims 1, 10, and 16. Rakshit further teaches the following:
wherein the data workflow facilitates providing the computer-implemented services to the downstream consumer and removing the first data processing system from the data workflow interrupts the computer-implemented services from being provided to the downstream consumer until the digital twin replaces the first data processing system within the data workflow to provide the computer-implemented services to the downstream consumer in place of the first data processing system; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0081, the overriding intermediate values 803 can be inputted into the selected simulation model upstream from the selected portion being simulated and used as an input value into the selected portion 801, simulating the receipt of output of an intermediate value 803 from a previously simulated upstream component or set of components. Accordingly, upon executing the simulation, the simulation engine 211 may output the results of the simulation based on the input of the overriding intermediate value 803 and return an output returned for the selected portion 801 as a final simulation result. Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0090, performing a computer-implemented method for simulating the workflow and activities of a physical asset; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0090, selectively altering components of the digital twin model and/or inputting overriding values into the digital twin simulation and may be likened to removing the first data processing system from the data workflow interrupts the computer-implemented services the first data processing system; Rakshit further teaches in ¶ 0091, a transfer of ownership of the physical asset and may be likened to services to a downstream consumer;
such that the actual real-world completion of the task cannot be continued by the downstream consumer until the digital twin has replaced the first data processing system within the data workflow; Akyureklier teaches in ¶ 0018, an example of this is depicted in Fig. 1B, which presents features and reference numerals that correlate to those of Fig. 1A. In Fig. 1B, disaster 122 has rendered primary site 106 effectively offline or otherwise unable to handle its workload. A failover is to occur from the primary site 112 to the secondary site 110. As part of failover, and in accordance with aspects described herein, the replication target 108 is to become mounted for use by application(s) of the secondary site 110. Meanwhile, to the extent that there are mount point or other conflicts between the supplementary local storage 120 and the to-be-mounted replication target 108, it is desired that the supplementary local storage 120 be unmounted as indicated before the replication target 108 is mounted, in order to avoid those conflicts.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine systems, methods and computer program products for simulating workflows and activities of physical assets using digital twin models with a robot design interface of Rakshit and tools for testing a robotic process automation (RPA) workflow of Stocker with a method for automatically configuring replication volumes as part of a failover procedure of Akyureklier to assist businesses in using workloads with replication volumes to represent replication relationships in failover procedures (Akyureklier, Spec. ¶ 0017).
Claim 3:
Rakshit, Stocker, and Akyureklier teaches claims 1, 10, and 16. Rakshit further teaches the following:
wherein the data workflow comprises: a data collector located in a first position in the data workflow, the data collector collecting data to be processed by the first data processing system or the digital twin, whichever one is currently part of the data workflow, to provide the computer- implemented services to the downstream consumer; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0071, The data collection engine may perform the functions, tasks or operations associated with collecting, organizing, maintaining, formatting and/or storing performance data and other data sets (collectively referred to as “collected datasets”) generated by the sensor device(s) IoT device(s), and/or recording system(s) connected to or communicating with the physical asset. The collected datasets generated by the sensor device(s), IoT device(s) and/or recording system of the physical asset, may be stored in one or more data storage solutions, which may be part of one or more data processing systems onboard the physical asset;
the first data processing system located in a second position in the data workflow; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0077, processing a first component from a digital twin model combined with a second component from digital twin model;
and a third data processing system located in a third position in the data workflow; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0077, processing a first component from a digital twin model combined with a third component from digital twin model;
Claims 4, 13, and 19:
Rakshit, Stocker, and Akyureklier teaches claims 1, 10, and 16. Rakshit further teaches the following:
wherein the first updated data workflow comprises: the data collector; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0003, capturing, by a processor, a real-time data feed from a data collection device that tracks changes and records the changes in real-time;
the digital twin located in a data center, the data center not being located in the second position in the data workflow; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0071, the digital twin module may comprise a data collection engine that may serve as the host system;
and the third data processing system; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0030, the data processing system may be representative of the one or more computing systems where the third data processing system may be included in the one or more computing systems.
Claims 5 and 14:
Rakshit, Stocker, and Akyureklier teaches claims 1, 10, and 16. Rakshit further teaches the following:
wherein there is a time delay between the occurrence of the event and the second data processing system becoming available for replacement of the first data processing system in the data workflow; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0068, multiple versions of the digital twin sequenced and subsequent changes of the asset based on time, where the changes to the digital twin model may be likened to the second data processing system becoming available for replacement of the first data processing system in the data workflow; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0069, Changes to the digital twin model that may result in the creation of a new digital twin model.
Claims 6 and 15:
Rakshit, Stocker, and Akyureklier teaches claims 1, 10, and 16. Rakshit further teaches the following:
wherein initiating the operation of the digital twin comprises: identifying a duration of the time delay; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0074, time stamping to new versions to reflect time differences or changes between newly created digital twins and previous versions of the digital twin;
and selecting characteristics of the digital twin based on the duration; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0074, a version management that may log version changes in digital twin files where log version may be likened to selecting characteristics of the digital twin;
and temporarily substituting the operation of the digital twin for the operation of the first data processing system in the first updated data workflow for the duration such that the digital twin provides the computer-implemented services to the downstream consumer during the duration instead of the first data processing system, wherein there is an expected difference in performance between the operation of the digital twin and the operation of the second data processing system; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0019, users may design the digital twin during simulation as preferred including substituting alternative components into the digital twin to customize the simulation and may be likened to temporarily substituting the operation of the digital twin for the operation of the first data processing system in the first updated data workflow for the duration. Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0074, indicating reason(s) for new digital twin model due to a replacement and indicating a reason a new model was created to reflect annual maintenance for a version and may provide an expected difference in performance; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0079, output from simulations executed using a hybrid model may include intermediate simulation results 610a, 610b, 610c which may feed into downstream simulations of other intermediate components before returning a final simulation result.
Claim 7:
Rakshit, Stocker, and Akyureklier teaches claims 1, 10, and 16. Rakshit further teaches the following:
wherein temporarily substituting the operation of the digital twin for the operation of the first data processing system comprises: obtaining the digital twin based on the selected characteristics; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0076, the user can select a version of the digital twin model and modify the digital model by replacing one or more components or configurations to simulate the results that could occur by making such replacements or configurations to the physical asset; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0080, selecting portions or components of the digital twin where select a version may be likened to based on the selected characteristics and replacing components or configurations for simulation may be likened to temporarily substituting the operation of the digital twin;
obtaining first input data for the digital twin from the data collector, the first input data being intended to be processed by the first data processing system in the data workflow; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0079, a simulation of hybrid model may be performed by first simulating a first component (or set of components) from digital twin model;
obtaining first output data using the first input data and the digital twin, the digital twin generating the first output data by processing the first input data instead of the first data processing system that has been substituted with the digital twin; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0079, a simulation engine outputting a simulation result of the first components and may be likened to first input data; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0080, multiple simulations may be performed using the same selected simulation model (i.e., a current model, previous model, hybrid, etc.), with the only change being the alternate components substituted for the bypassed component 701. Accordingly, as the bypassed component 701 is changed with the selected alternates, the outputted results of the simulations can provide insight into the effects of the bypassed component 701 on the simulation model and ultimately predict the effects substituting the bypassed component 701 for the alternate components within the physical asset
and providing the first output data to the third data processing system; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0079, using an initial input into the third simulation.
Claim 8:
Rakshit, Stocker, and Akyureklier teaches claims 1, 10, and 16. Rakshit further teaches the following:
wherein performing the analysis for the digital twin comprises: obtaining second output data using the second data processing system and the first input data; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0079, running a second simulation using first simulation’s components;
obtaining a difference between the second output data and the first output data; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0096, creating a digital twin model comprising of two or more versions of the digital twin, where the combining of digital twin models may be likened to obtaining a difference between the second output data and the first output data;
and obtaining the digital twin performance report using, at least in part, the difference; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0097, allowing the user to perform simulations and observe how changes to the components or configuration of components of interest affect the overall simulation results where a difference may be used when representing the overall simulation results. Rakshit further teaches in ¶ 0099, a reporting engine may display the outputted results of the simulation in one or more reports.
Claim 9:
Rakshit, Stocker, and Akyureklier teaches claims 1, 10, and 16. Rakshit further teaches the following:
wherein performing the analysis for the digital twin comprises: obtaining second output data using the second data processing system and second input data; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0019, The model may be most current digital twin model and using one digital twin model that may be likened to using just the second data processing system and second input data;
obtaining third output data generated by the digital twin through processing of the second input data by the digital twin; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0079, using intermediate simulation results as input into the third component simulation where intermediate simulation results represent second input data and third component simulation may be likened to third output data;
obtaining a difference between the second output data and the third output data; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0077, mixing digital twin models to produce a hybrid model, where the mixing of the digital twin models results in a hybrid model that may be likened to obtaining a difference between the second output data and the third output data;
and obtaining the digital twin performance report using, at least in part, the difference; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0097, allowing the user to perform simulations and observe how changes to the components or configuration of components of interest affect the overall simulation results where a difference may be used when representing the overall simulation results. Rakshit further teaches in ¶ 0099, a reporting engine may display the outputted results of the simulation in one or more reports.
Claims 11 and 17:
Rakshit, Stocker, and Akyureklier teaches claims 1, 10, and 16. Rakshit further teaches the following:
wherein the data workflow facilitates providing computer-implemented services to a downstream consumer and removing the first data processing system from the data workflow interrupts the computer-implemented services if the operation of the digital twin does not replace the operation of the first data processing system; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0004, a data processing system; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0022, a computer readable storage medium, as used herein, is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0090, performing a computer-implemented method for simulating the workflow and activities of a physical asset; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0090, selectively altering components of the digital twin model and/or inputting overriding values into the digital twin simulation and may be likened to removing the first data processing system from the data workflow interrupts the computer-implemented services if the operation of the digital twin does not replace the operation of the first data processing system; Rakshit further teaches in ¶ 0091, a transfer of ownership of the physical asset and may be likened to services to a downstream consumer;
Claims 12 and 18:
Rakshit, Stocker, and Akyureklier teaches claims 1, 10, and 16. Rakshit further teaches the following:
wherein the data workflow comprises: a data collector located in a first position in the data workflow; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0002, sensors and internet-of-things (IoT) devices connected to the physical asset collect data in real-time; the hybrid model is constructed from a first component from digital twin model where a first component may be likened to a first position in the data workflow;
the first data processing system located in a second position in the data workflow; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0077, processing a first component from a digital twin model combined with a second component from digital twin model;
and a third data processing system located in a third position in the data workflow; Rakshit teaches in ¶ 0077, processing a first component from a digital twin model combined with a third component from digital twin model.
Claim 22:
Rakshit, Stocker and Akyureklier teach claims 1, 10, and 16. Akyureklier further teaches the following:
wherein, upon replacing the first data processing system, the digital twin causes a hardware processor of a third data processing system that hosts the digital twin to execute processes to continue to provide, to the downstream consumer, the computer-implemented services being executed and provided by a hardware processor of the first data processing system; Akyureklier teaches in ¶ 0029, volume groups may be configured for the Hdisks of the virtual machines and a volume group can span two or more hard disks of a VM. The volume groups are configured by way of volume group configurations. For primary VM 212, a first volume group VG1, which is not replicated, is configured for Hdisk8 as VG1 configuration 230, a second volume group VG2, which is replicated, is configured for Hdisk2 as VG2 configuration 232, a third volume group VG3, which also is replicated, is configured for Hdisk3 and Hdisk5 as VG3 configuration 234 (the volume group spans these disks), and a fourth volume group rootVG 236 is configured for Hdisk1 and is not mirrored. A volume group can include/indicate one or more mount points for the associated Hdisks. The mount points are arranged hierarchically. Thus, mount point configuration information is also part of the volume group configuration. Volume group VG2 includes mount point MP1 and mount point MP2 at a common level of the hierarchy. Mount points MP20 and MP21 are children of mount point MP2. The mount point configuration information including file system, size, permissions, and possibly other configuration information is indicated for leaf mount points, in this case MP20 and MP21. The mirrored volume groups are configured also at the secondary site (see VG configurations 238 and 240 for VG2 and VG3, respectively, and thus their configurations are largely the exact same as the configurations at the primary site, except for the indicated Hdisks involved, which are specific to each site. The secondary site also has rootVG that is not mirrored but nonetheless configured. Akyureklier further teaches in ¶ 0030, Orchestrated disaster recovery described herein utilizes replication volume configuration information that identifies configurations for replication volumes, i.e. volumes that are replicated from replication source to replication target. Each replication volume has an associated source of the replicated data (Hdisk(s) of the replication source) and target of the replicated data (Hdisk(s) of the replication target). Data written to the primary site Hdisk is replicated to secondary site Hdisk. The replication volume configuration information indicates, among other information as described in further examples below, the volume group(s) involved in the data replication relationship(s) between the replication source site and the replication target site, and the parings of the Hdisks using their (partial) UUIDs. In also includes the mount point configuration information for each of the replicated volume groups.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine systems, methods and computer program products for simulating workflows and activities of physical assets using digital twin models with a robot design interface of Rakshit and tools for testing a robotic process automation (RPA) workflow of Stocker with a method for automatically configuring replication volumes as part of a failover procedure of Akyureklier to assist businesses in using workloads with replication volumes to represent replication relationships in failover procedures (Akyureklier, Spec. ¶ 0017).
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “being operated and used by a downstream consumer to complete a task for the downstream consumer and provides computer-implemented services for actual real-world completion of the task to the downstream consumer via the data workflow,” and “such that the downstream consumer now operates and uses the digital twin instead of the first data processing system to continue the actual real-world completion of the task;” and “the second data processing system now being operated and used by the downstream consumer to continue the actual real- world completion of the task.” Applicant cites support for these amendments may be found in ¶¶ 0012 – 0015, 0027 – 0028, and 0043 – 0052; however, there is no teaching nor support for “being operated and used by a downstream consumer to complete a task for the downstream consumer and provides computer-implemented services for actual real-world completion of the task to the downstream consumer via the data workflow,” and “such that the downstream consumer now operates and uses the digital twin instead of the first data processing system to continue the actual real-world completion of the task;” and “the second data processing system now being operated and used by the downstream consumer to continue the actual real- world completion of the task in these cited paragraphs nor within Applicant’s Specification. There is no teaching nor support for “being operated and used by a downstream consumer to complete a task for the downstream consumer;” and there is no teaching nor support “for actual real-world completion of the task to the downstream consumer via the data workflow;” and there is zero teaching or support for “such that the downstream consumer now operates and uses the digital twin instead of the first data processing system to continue the actual real-world completion of the task.” While Applicant’s Specification does recite from ¶ 0017, “The data workflow facilitates providing computer-implemented services to a downstream consumer;” Applicant’s Specification ¶ 0017, does not teach nor provide support for “such that the downstream consumer now operates and uses the digital twin instead of the first data processing system to continue the actual real-world completion of the task.” While Applicant’s Specification does recite from ¶ 0045, “Data processing system 208 may be located in a third position in data workflow 200 and may be responsible for performing actions in response to the processed data, such as providing computer-implemented services to a downstream consumer;” Applicant’s Specification ¶ 0045, does not teach nor provide support for “such that the downstream consumer now operates and uses the digital twin instead of the first data processing system to continue the actual real-world completion of the task.” Claims 10 and 16 recite the same rejected subject matter as claim 1 and thus are similarly rejected.
The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims they rely on and thus are similarly rejected.
Claim 2 recites “such that the actual real-world completion of the task cannot be continued by the downstream consumer until the digital twin has replaced the first data processing system within the data workflow.” Applicant cites support for this amendment may be found in ¶¶ 0012 – 0015, 0027 – 0028, and 0043 – 0052. While Applicant’s Specification does recite from ¶ 0017, “The data workflow facilitates providing computer-implemented services to a downstream consumer;” Applicant’s Specification ¶ 0017, does not teach nor provide support for “such that the actual real-world completion of the task cannot be continued by the downstream consumer until the digital twin has replaced the first data processing system within the data workflow.”
Accordingly, claims 1-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Note: these are additional references found but not used.
- Reference Brebner, David (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0285788) discloses an application system and server kit that create and serve digital twin-enabled applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank Alston whose telephone number is 703-756-4510. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM Monday - Friday. Examiner can be reached via Fax at 571-483-7338.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737.
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.
/FRANK MAURICE ALSTON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3625
03/26/2026
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625