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 § 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 13-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sha (US 20230128173) in view of Fink (US 20240386684).
Regarding claim 13, Sha teaches a method comprising:
Obtaining a set of configuration parameters for a data center (Paragraph 42, parameters are set in each digital twin template to simulate and customize the digital twins for the physical IT infrastructure);
Rendering a virtual representation of the data center, based on the set of configuration parameters (Paragraph 5, a model component which is configured to represent one or more parameters of the corresponding physical component);
Outputting the virtual representation of the data center to a display (Paragraph 90, an output unit 607 including various kinds of displays);
Saving the virtual representation of the data center in response to receiving a signal to finalize the virtual representation (Paragraph 32, Historical data components 214 can be data received during previous online/real time operations or otherwise obtained by the assembled digital twin; Note: Sha teaches accessing previously assembled digital twins which have been stored) of the data center in response to receiving a signal to finalize the virtual representation (Paragraph 57, With this data path tested thoroughly, the engine can conclude the integration is fully complete).
While Sha fails to disclose the following, Fink teaches:
Obtaining a set of configuration parameters that is to be installed (Paragraph 29, digital model 104 may be initially created from plans for a proposed structure 106 prior to structure 106 being physically built… structure 106 may not exist, except as a predetermined location, and digital model 104 may provide a virtual representation or rendering of the yet-to-be-built structure 106);
The virtual representation emulates how physical components would look, behave, and interact if installed according to the set of configuration parameters (Paragraph 28, Digital model 104 may include information about various aspects of structure 106, such as structural information on framing, windows, and doors, information on plumbing, HVAC, electrical wiring, insulation, finishes, siding, landscaping, and/or any other aspects relevant to structure 106 and its construction).
Fink and Sha are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of augmented reality and digital twins. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sha to incorporate the teachings of Fink and create a digital twin prior to the physical representation being built. Doing so would allow for understanding how the physical representation should look before building.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Sha and Fink teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising:
Receiving a modification to the set of configuration parameters, subsequent to the outputting but prior to the saving (Sha, Paragraph 53, digital twin creation methodology 300 returns to off-line development lifecycle part 310 where, in step 316, a rebuild is performed to create a re-assembled digital twin (at which point, the methodology returns to step 313 and iterates); Note: Sha teaches that a modification to the parameters will modify the output. It does not save the previous output at this step.
Re-rendering the virtual representation to incorporate the modification to the set of configuration parameters (Sha, Paragraph 53, digital twin creation methodology 300 returns to off-line development lifecycle part 310 where, in step 316, a rebuild is performed to create a re-assembled digital twin (at which point, the methodology returns to step 313 and iterates).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Sha and Fink teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the virtual representation comprises a digital twin of the data center (Sha, Paragraph 2, A digital twin typically refers to a virtual representation (e.g., virtual copy) of a physical (e.g., actual or real) product, process, and/or system).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Sha and Fink teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the physical components of the data center include racks (Sha, Paragraph 34, 3D models for electronic equipment racks), hardware modules (Sha, Paragraph 33, digital twin templates for some generic hardware in the IT infrastructure (such as, but not limited to, a server, storage, a network switch, etc.)), and cables (Sha, Paragraph 20, digital twins of each physical component can be integrated together (combined) to form a digital twin of a complex physical system that includes the physical components; Note: the physical components are combined with cables), and wherein the virtual representation of the data center comprises virtual representations of the racks, hardware modules, and cables. Note: Sha teaches both the physical and digital representations.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Sha and Fink teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the set of configuration parameters comprises at least one of: physical dimensions of the data center, a layout of the data center Sha, (Paragraph 34, building information modeling (BIM) models including building structure and layouts, etc.), a number of racks in the data center (Sha, Paragraph 34, 3D models for electronic equipment racks, 3D models for sensors, 3D models for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems), a number of hardware modules in the data center, types of the hardware modules, locations of the hardware modules in the data center (Sha, Paragraph 37, hardware can include, but are not limited to, real time system data, environment data, hardware configurations or parameters (e.g., CPU/virtual machine parameters), a number of cables connecting the hardware modules, types of the cables, locations of the cables, or lengths of the cables.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Sha and Fink teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the set of configuration parameters is obtained as a set of actions performed by a user on a set of templates (Sha, Paragraph 81, The engine then enables selection of different levels of digital twin templates intelligently based on user inputs/requirements, performance requirements, computation cost, etc. with automatic optimization and tradeoff between different parameters based on use cases or scenarios. The various digital twin templates can be categorized for selection based on fidelity).
Claims 1, 7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sha in view of Fink and further in view of Peacock (US 10366521).
Regarding claim 1, the Sha teaches a method comprising:
Receiving an input indicating an installation status of the first physical component (Paragraph 22, the status of interconnected systems in a more interactive and real-time manner during digital twin integration and development);
While Sha fails to disclose the following, Fink teaches:
Rendering a virtual representation of a prototyping system to be installed, wherein the prototyping system is to include a plurality of physical components, and wherein the virtual representation of the prototyping system includes a virtual representation of each physical component of the plurality of physical components (Paragraph 29, digital model 104 may be initially created from plans for a proposed structure 106 prior to structure 106 being physically built… structure 106 may not exist, except as a predetermined location, and digital model 104 may provide a virtual representation or rendering of the yet-to-be-built structure 106);
Outputting a virtual representation of a first physical component of the plurality of physical components during an installation of the prototyping system, wherein the virtual representation of the first physical component is retrieved from the virtual representation of the prototyping system (Paragraph 38, where device 202 is used to access a digital twin of a structure that is still being built, some features may not yet be installed, depending upon what point the building is in the construction process… generation of a 3D space from data from the device 202 and correlation with the digital twin);
Fink and Sha are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of augmented reality and digital twins. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sha to incorporate the teachings of Fink and create a digital twin prior to the physical representation being built. Doing so would allow for understanding how the physical representation should look before building.
While the combination of Sha and Fink fails to disclose the following, Peacock teaches:
Determining that the installation status of the first physical component does not match the virtual representation of the first physical component (Column 11, Lines 31-33, If it is determined that the assembly task was not correctly completed, corrective action is determined and presented to the user, as in 320);
Outputting, by a processing device, an indicator to show where the installation status fails to match the virtual representation of the first physical component (Column 11, Lines 54-57, the error and the corrective action, “Incorrect Color Wire. Use Solid Color Wire” may be presented on the display of the AR glasses to augment the view of the worker).
Peacock and the combination of Sha and Fink are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of augmented reality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Sha and Fink to incorporate the teachings of Peacock and determine where the installation of a physical component has failed and display an indication to the user. Doing so would allow for the user to easily understand where an error has occurred and how to correct it.
CRM claim 12 corresponds to method claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sha, Fink, and Peacock teaches the method of claim 1. While the combination as presented previously fails to disclose the following, Peacock further teaches:
Wherein the input comprises a signal initiated by a user indicating that the first physical component has been installed (Column 14, Lines 55-57, a worker may be required to provide an interaction or other input upon completion of each assembly task).
Peacock and the combination of Sha and Fink are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of augmented reality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Sha and Fink to incorporate the teachings of Peacock and user a user input to indicate that the physical component has been installed. Doing so would allow manually updating the virtual representation if it is not automatically updated.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Sha, Fink, and Peacock teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the virtual representation of the first physical component comprises a digital twin of the physical component (Sha, Paragraph 2, A digital twin typically refers to a virtual representation (e.g., virtual copy) of a physical (e.g., actual or real) product, process, and/or system).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sha in view of Fink and further in view of Peacock as applied to claims 1, 7, and 11-12 and further in view of Hubal (US 20100195289).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sha, Fink, and Peacock teaches the method of claim 1. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Hubal teaches:
Wherein the first physical component is at least one of: a rack (Paragraph 35, rack-mount server system), a field programmable gate array, an extension board (Paragraph 36, expansion board), or a cable (Paragraph 36, high speed serial cable).
Hubal and the combination of Sha, Fink, Peacock are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of augmented reality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Sha, Fink, and Peacock to incorporate the teachings of Hubal and include a physical component of rack, field programmable gate array, extension board, or cable. Doing so would allow for visualizing important physical components of data centers.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sha, Fink, Peacock, and Hubal teach the method of claim 2. While the combination as presented previously fails to disclose the following, Hubal further teaches:
Wherein the plurality of physical components to be installed in an order in which a rack is installed first (Paragraph 36, rack-mount server system), at least one hardware module is installed in the rack after the rack is installed (Paragraph 36, couples the line interface module 430a to the motherboard 414 via the backplane), an intra-module cabling is installed on the at least one hardware module after the at least one hardware module is installed (Paragraph 36, high speed serial cable that uses PCIe technology or any other suitable cabling technology), and an inter-module cabling between the at least one hardware module and another hardware module is installed after the intra-module cabling is installed (Paragraph 37, the expansion box 400b includes a third transmission medium 476 contained within the housing 401b, and electrical interface circuitry on an electrical interface board 449 that operates to interface the first transmission medium 475 to the third transmission medium 476 via a connector).
Note: MPEP 2144.04 states “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.” The outcome of performing the steps outlined in claim 3 would be the same if performed in a different order.
Hubal and the combination of Sha, Fink, Peacock are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of augmented reality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Sha, Fink, and Peacock to incorporate the teachings of Hubal and include a physical component of rack, field programmable gate array, extension board, or cable. Doing so would allow for visualizing important physical components of data centers.
Claims 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sha and Peacock as applied to claims 1, 7, and 11-12 and further in view of Balfour (US 20220262271).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sha, Fink, and Peacock teaches the method of claim 1. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Balfour teaches:
Receiving, after the outputting, a subsequent input indicating an updated installation status of the first physical component (Paragraph 20, the processor 100 may wait for confirmation from the installer that the first installation step is complete).
Balfour and the combination of Sha, Fink, and Peacock are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of augmented reality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Sha, Fink, and Peacock to incorporate the teachings of Balfour and receive an updated installation status. Doing so would allow for knowledge of intermediate steps of the installation and rending process.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sha, Fink, Peacock, and Balfour teach the method of claim 4. While the combination as previously presented fails to disclose the following, Balfour further teaches:
Determining that the updated installation status of the first physical component matches the virtual representation of the first physical component (Paragraph 20, the processor 100 may determine that the first installation step is complete based on an object recognition algorithm);
Determining, after the determining that the updated installation status of the first physical component matches the virtual representation of the first physical component (Paragraph 20, determines an actual wire harness component occupies a space corresponding to the first installation step 3D model), that the installation of the prototyping system is incomplete based on a review of the virtual representation of the prototyping system (Paragraph 20, Then the processor 100 de-renders the first installation step 3D model and iteratively performs the same process with subsequent installation step 3D models until the installation process is complete); Note: Balfour teaches recognizing when steps are completed and that there are subsequent steps to complete.
Outputting, to the display, a virtual representation of a next physical component of the prototyping system to be installed, wherein the virtual representation of the next physical component is retrieved from the virtual representation of the prototyping system (Paragraph 19, renders the first installation step 3D model as an overlay to the image streams on the one or more displays).
Note: As presented in claim 1, Fink teaches reviewing the virtual representation of the prototyping system.
Balfour and the combination of Sha, Fink, and Peacock are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of augmented reality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Sha, Fink, and Peacock to incorporate the teachings of Balfour and determine an updated installation status. Doing so would allow for knowledge of intermediate steps of the installation and rending process.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sha, Fink, Peacock, and Balfour teaches the method of claim 5. While the combination as presented previously fails to disclose the following, Balfour further teaches:
Receiving, after the outputting the virtual representation of the next physical component of the prototyping system to be installed, an input indicating an installation status of the next physical component (Paragraph 20, iteratively performs the same process with subsequent installation step 3D models until the installation process is complete);
Determining that the installation status of the next physical component matches the virtual representation of the next physical component (Paragraph 20, iteratively performs the same process with subsequent installation step 3D models until the installation process is complete);
Determining, after the determining that the installation status of the next physical component matches the virtual representation of the next physical component, that the installation of the prototyping system is complete based on a review of the virtual representation of the prototyping system (Paragraph 20, iteratively performs the same process with subsequent installation step 3D models until the installation process is complete); and
Outputting, to the display, an indicator to show that the installation of the prototyping system is complete (Paragraph 20, iteratively performs the same process with subsequent installation step 3D models until the installation process is complete).
Note: As presented in claim 1, Fink teaches reviewing the virtual representation of the prototyping system.
Balfour and the combination of Sha, Fink, and Peacock are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of augmented reality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Sha, Fink, and Peacock to incorporate the teachings of Balfour and determine an updated installation status. Doing so would allow for knowledge of intermediate steps of the installation and rending process.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sha, Fink, and Peacock teaches the method of claim 7. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Balfour teaches:
Modifying an appearance of the virtual representation of the first physical component on the display to show that the first physical component has been installed (Paragraph 32, then render 406 a subsequent installation step).
Balfour and the combination of Sha, Fink, and Peacock are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of augmented reality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Sha, Fink, and Peacock to incorporate the teachings of Balfour and modify the virtual representation to show that the physical component has been installed. Doing so would allow for visualization of the newly added physical component.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sha in view of Fink and further in view of Peacock as applied to claims 1, 7, and 11-12 and further in view of Emeis (US 20170091607).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sha, Fink, and Peacock teaches the method of claim 1. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Emeis teaches:
Wherein the input comprises a value transmitted by the first physical component (Paragraph 5, such systems and methods may include determining, using the configuration information, a positional relationship between the first tag and a second tag of the plurality of tags in response to the sensor detecting the first tag; Paragraph 33, may be used to identify the location of components within data center environment 3 and any changes in the position of such components. The process also may detect anomalous events within data center environment 3, such as network latency or downtime, broken or malfunctioning infrastructure components, and/or other unusual behavior). Note: Emeis teaches using sensors to determine proximity of physical components to each other within a datacenter. The tags on the physical components are able to communicate to the processor.
Emeis and the combination of Sha, Fink, and Peacock are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of visualizing data centers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Sha, Fink, and Peacock to incorporate the teachings of Emeis and use a value transmitted by a physical component as input. Doing so would allow for the processor to know the status of the installed physical component.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sha in view of Fink and further in view of Peacock and further in view of Emeis as applied to claim 9 and further in view of Balfour.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Sha, Fink, Peacock, and Emeis teaches the method of claim 9. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Balfour teaches:
Wherein the indicator comprises a modification to an appearance of the virtual representation of the first physical component on the display (Paragraph 23, A 3D model of the aircraft seat frame 202 defines proper locations 206 of the installed wire harness, allowing the 3D models 204 to be positioned and oriented with respect to the aircraft seat frame 3D model; the 3D models 204 are continuously re-rendered).
Balfour and the combination of Sha, Fink, Peacock, and Emeis are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of visualizing data centers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Sha, Fink, Peacock, and Emeis to incorporate the teachings of Balfour and modify the appearance of the virtual representation of the physical component on the display. Doing so would allow for up to date visualization of the installation of the physical component.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sha in view of Fink as applied to claims 13-17 and 19 and further in view of Balfour.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Sha and Fink teaches the method of claim 13. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Balfour teaches:
Wherein the set of configuration parameters is obtained as an input file that is imported from an external application (Paragraph 17, 3D models may be directly derived from engineering models such as Jupiter Tessellation (JT) files).
Balfour and the combination of Sha and Fink are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of augmented reality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Sha and Fink to incorporate the teachings of Balfour and retrieve configuration parameters as an input file from an external application. Doing so would allow for more standardization in the parameters and require the current application to use less storage.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sha in view of Fink as applied to claims 13-17 and 19 and further in view of Spruell (US 9809416).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Sha and Fink teaches the method of claim 13. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Spruell teaches:
Wherein the rendering comprises calculating a length of cable of the data center (Column 3, Lines 5-7, computer program application menu schematic diagram for obtaining and calculating a remaining cable length on a cable reel).
Spruell and the combination of Sha and Fink are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer modeling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Sha and Fink to incorporate the teachings of Spruell and calculate the length of a cable. Doing so would allow for the user to more easily understand where and how different hardware modules are connected along a cable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 12 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Fink teaches the limitations of creating the virtual representation before the physical building is created and rendering a virtual representation of a prototyping system to be installed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SNIGDHA SINHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6618. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 12pm-8pm.
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, Jason Chan can be reached at 571-272-3022. 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.
/SNIGDHA SINHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2619
/JASON CHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2619