DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because paragraph [0014] contains embedded hyperlinks and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
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.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, pages, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sameer Phadke, (Phadke hereinafter), U.S. Pre–Grant publication 20220237532, taken in view of Ned M. Smith, (Smith hereinafter), U.S. Pre–Grant publication 20220191648.
As to claim 1, Phadke discloses a method, comprising: accessing a definition document that defines a digital twin (see “[0147] The model builder 112 is configured to communicate with the first user device 206 to receive inputs needed to create various models of a process and is further configured to compile and format all these input into a complete definition of a play 202 hereinafter referred to as ‘digital twin definition’ stored on a first data storage”); generating, based on the definition document, a substrate channel component that is configured to be used by the digital twin to (see “[0168] … data fetching schedules 702 manage communications with transaction systems”) communicate with a plurality of physical entities that provide data to the digital twin (see “[0145]… digital twin 114 interacts in a bidirectional way with the transaction systems 104 and auxiliary systems… digital twin 114 reads from transaction systems… digital twin 114 is configured to send pre-defined actuation commands to transaction systems 104 and auxiliary systems… [0147]… digital twin definition 202, is deployed on the server 210 of the system 100, the live interfaces are set up with necessary transaction systems 104 and its output is to be viewed on the second user device 208. The digital twin 114 comprises a server component 210 and a client module”)…
Phadke does not disclose, but Smith discloses generating, based on the definition document, a dynamic substrate manager component that is configured to dynamically select which of the plurality of physical entities that the digital twin is to be in active communication with so that the selected physical entity can provide data to the digital twin (see “dynamically select“ as “create a path to another“, “[0188]… a digital twin framework… identify an error of the physical node or the digital twin for the physical node; update the digital twin model to halt communication with the physical node or the digital twin of the physical node; and create a path to another physical node or a digital twin of the another physical node in the digital twin model”).
About Examiner's interpretation of "generating… a substrate channel component" and "generating… a dynamic substrate manager component", the Examiner notes that the Application description merely repeats the term generating. Merely repeating a term does not rise to a level of a definition of a term. In the absence of an elaboration of any special meanings for such term in the claims and Application description, there are no distinguishing features claimed.
Phadke and Smith are analogous art because they are related to digital twins.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Smith with Phadke, because Smith discloses that "[0030] Digital Twins (DTs) may be used as an approach for maintenance and scalable intelligent analytics of workloads in an international mobile telecommunications (IMT) network characterized by hybrid distributed/centralized architecture for reliable operations", and as a result, Smith reports that "[0031] Advanced simulations and artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) may allow VPs to generate utilities that may be used to optimize product performance and boost efficiency of the production system".
As to claim 2, Phadke discloses logging, by the substrate channel component (see “[0168] … data fetching schedules 702 manage communications with transaction systems”), a last data value for each of the plurality of physical entities, the last data value representing a most recent data received by the substrate channel component from each of the plurality of physical entities (see “[0167]… server 210 continuously interfaces with and fetches data from transaction systems 104 or auxiliary systems… server 210 interprets the data in terms of defined models and updates and manages the state”).
As to claim 8, Phadke discloses generating code in a programming language from the definition document by a code generator (see “[0162]… logic builder 604 enables a scripting interface and code to be generated”).
As to claims 11, 12, and 18, these claims recite a storage medium having stored therein instructions for performing the method of claims 1, 2, and 8. Phadke discloses a “[0031]… system” for performing a method that teaches claims 1, 2, and 8. Therefore, claims 11, 12, and 18 are rejected for the same reasons given above.
Claims 3-7, 9, 10, 13-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Phadke taken in view of Smith as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Dirk Karsten Beth, (Beth hereinafter), U.S. Pre–Grant publication 2022015665.
As to claim 3, Phadke and Smith do not disclose, but Beth discloses generating, by the substrate channel component (see “[0130] … sentry node relaying one or more tasks in a secure manner to each agent of the workflow, such communication may occur over one or more secure channels”), a confidence score for each of the last data values received from each of the plurality of physical entities (see “confidence“ as “trusted“, “[0102]… data security and availability may be enhanced by deploying a distributed ledger technology such as blockchain for verification of mission commands across fleets of trusted nodes… by providing for trusted engagement… an agent, e.g., a worker, can be sure that if they are instructed to leave a forklift and/or a container (with valuable cargo) at a particular location, that the instructions to do so came from a trusted source”).
Phadke, Smith, Beth are analogous art because they are related to digital twins.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Beth with Phadke and Smith because Beth discloses that "[0072]… [i]n an example where a simulated mission is indicated… digital twins for each selected vehicle may be generated… i.e., having the characteristics of the selected vehicles, for… a simulation", and as a result, Beth reports to "[0072]… operate as a simulator for mission planning, troubleshooting and optimization, prior to requiring the user to invest in vehicles, maps or models of the location(s), etc.".
As to claim 4, Phadke discloses logging, by the substrate channel component (see “[0168] … data fetching schedules 702 manage communications with transaction systems”), historical last data values in a persistent data repository (see “[0167]… server 210 continuously interfaces with and fetches data from transaction systems 104 or auxiliary systems… server 210 interprets the data in terms of defined models and updates and manages the state… [0168]… data fetching schedules 702 manage communications with transaction systems whereas the model evaluation schedules 708 are set up as per time scale criticality considerations of the models and operations of the digital twins. The transaction data buffer 706 holds transaction and master data received from transaction systems and actuation data”).
As to claim 5, Smith discloses wherein dynamically selecting, by the dynamic substrate channel component, which of the plurality of physical entities that the digital twin is to be in active communication with the digital twin comprises: receiving a confidence score for each of the plurality of physical entities from the substrate channel component, the confidence scores being a measure of a reliability of data received from the plurality of physical entities (see “[0200]… upon detection of the error, perform attestation of the physical node or the digital twin for the physical node using a root-of-trust… transfer execution of a workload to another physical node or another digital twin”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Smith with Phadke, (see supra).
Beth discloses using the confidence scores to select which physical entity is to be in active communication with the digital twin (see “using the confidence scores to select“ as “agents with… QOS) may be made reliable“, “[0130]… assignment core may then be launched at 3146 with one or more sentry services… sentry may begin to listen for consensus transaction events… Digital twins (with schedules, location(s), compute space(s) storage space(s), optimization input(s), etc.) may be queried at 3154 with task management optimization… At 3162, per stage and task DDS0_agents with quality of service (QOS) may be made reliable, e.g., the message configuration, quality of the service demanding receipt, and/or confirmation of the message… process 3162 may include the sentry node relaying one or more tasks in a secure manner to each agent of the workflow, such communication may occur over one or more secure channels”; “[0109]… Each of the one or more digital twins 2642, 2644, and/or 2646 may correspond to a different agent of the plurality of agents”; “[0130] … sentry node relaying one or more tasks in a secure manner to each agent of the workflow, such communication may occur over one or more secure channels”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Beth with Phadke and Smith, (see supra).
As to claim 6, Beth discloses wherein the dynamic substrate manager component selects the physical entity having a highest confidence score (see “confidence“ as “trusted“, “[0102]… by providing for trusted engagement… an agent, e.g., a worker, can be sure that if they are instructed to leave a forklift and/or a container (with valuable cargo) at a particular location, that the instructions to do so came from a trusted source”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Beth with Phadke and Smith, (see supra).
As to claim 7, Smith discloses … causing the substrate channel component to change the active communication with the digital twin from the first one of the plurality of physical entities to the second one of the plurality of second entities (see “change“ as “create a path to another“, “[0188]… a digital twin framework… identify an error of the physical node or the digital twin for the physical node; update the digital twin model to halt communication with the physical node or the digital twin of the physical node; and create a path to another physical node or a digital twin of the another physical node in the digital twin model”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Smith with Phadke, (see supra).
Beth discloses … selecting by dynamic substrate channel component (see “[0130] … sentry node relaying one or more tasks in a secure manner to each agent of the workflow, such communication may occur over one or more secure channels”) a first one of the plurality of physical entities based on the confidence scores to be in active communication with the digital twin during a first time period (see “[0092]… unmanned vehicle may validate the mission data by identifying a trusted source at 602, e.g., a trusted unmanned vehicle or external system. Trust may be established in a variety of ways, e.g., use of a proprietary communication protocol utilized by a device type and not used by platform, via certificate, etc.”; “[0057]… simulate missions or mission parts using digital twins of available vehicles or new vehicles not yet available to an end user”); determining, based on the confidence scores, during a second time period that a second one of the plurality of physical entities should be in active communication with the digital twin (see “[0093]… the unmanned vehicle may transmit a query to the trusted source at 604, e.g., communicate with another unmanned vehicle, e.g., inquiring as to whether the mission data is valid and has been received by that vehicle as well… [0094]… the trusted source may take a variety of forms, e.g., a blockchain or distributed ledger that holds authentic mission data and is maintained by a fleet of unmanned vehicles, a source mission information, such as an external ERP system, etc. The mission data stored in such a trusted source may be encrypted to protect it from visibility by unauthorized sources… the trusted source may also be used to validate updates to agents, e.g., vehicles, robots, etc”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Beth with Phadke and Smith, (see supra).
As to claim 9, Beth discloses wherein the programming language is an object oriented programming language (see “[0180]… processes may be realized as a computer executable code capable of being executed on a machine readable medium.[0181] The computer executable code may be created using a structured programming language such as… an object oriented programming language such as C++”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Beth with Phadke and Smith, (see supra).
As to claim 10, Beth discloses wherein the generated code is based in part on a binding relationship that binds one object to another object (see “[0180]… processes may be realized as a computer executable code capable of being executed on a machine readable medium.[0181] The computer executable code may be created using a structured programming language such as… an object oriented programming language such as C++”), wherein code for the binding relationship is generated using rules that are different from rules used to generate code from other types of relationships and properties in the definition document (see “[0011]… generate a plurality of coordinated agent command values configured to operate the first and the second agents based at least in part on the configured shared maneuver, the first agent data, and the second agent data”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Beth with Phadke and Smith, (see supra).
As to claims 13-17, 19, and 20, these claims recite a storage medium having stored therein instructions for performing the method of claims 3-7, 9, and 10. Phadke discloses a “[0031]… system” for performing a method that teaches claims 3-7, 9, and 10. Therefore, claims 13-17, 19, and 20 are rejected for the same reasons given above.
Conclusion
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, pages, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN CARLOS OCHOA whose telephone number is (571)272-2625. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays 9:30AM - 8:00 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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/JUAN C OCHOA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights