DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
PRIORITY
3. Acknowledgment is made that this application is a continuation in part of 17/722115 filed 4/15/22.
Response to Arguments
4. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/20/26 has been entered.
i) Applicants argue “Cella does not disclose, and provides no motivation for, a user or process forming a combined digital twin by connecting the normalized interface of one independently-defined, independently-simulatable digital twin to the normalized interface of a second independently- defined, independently-simulatable digital twin.” In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “independently-defined, independently-simulatable digital twin”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With respect to the claimed “normalized interfaces” the Examiner reiterates that (i.e., their intended definition of “normalized interface”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Examiner notes that Applicants previously suggested a definition of the “at least one normalized interface” by citing the specification of the instant application paragraph 111, however this section of the specification does not present an explicit definition of the phrase and neither does the claim itself. Absent such an explicit definition in the specification, or a definition in the claims the Examiner has and continues to define the term in view of its broadest reasonable interpretation. Specifically, the prior art teaches an interface in at least the same paragraph as cited previously, “[0025] In embodiments, the connection with the sensor system is established via one of a webhook and an application programming interface (API).” Assuming for the sake of argument that a definition of “normalized interface” were taken from Applicants specification it is noted that at least [0112] recites a definition of “providing normalized interfaces, input or output data from a digital twin conforms to particular expectations across the model (e.g., data types, required properties, constraints, or other expectations), providing a common "language" for communication and interoperation” would be further read on by the API interface recited in the prior art. Applicants are encouraged to explicitly recite their intended definitions of the claimed terms in order to address the broadest reasonable interpretations presented by the Examiner.
In addition, in view of Applicants arguments and amendments Cella discloses in at least Figure 286, elements 13734 multiple digital twins which are each interconnected in the data handling platform system. See also “[2958] In embodiments, the platform 13700 may generate, host, integrate, link to, include, integrate, or otherwise interact with a set of industrial entity digital twins 13734, which may comprise digital representations or replicas of real world states of a set of industrial entities 13736, such as workers 13712, fixed assets 13712 (such as machines, systems, devices, fixtures, and the like), infrastructure 13710 (such as floors, walls, ceilings, loading docks, foundations, and many others), and moving assets 13708 (such as vehicles, forklifts, autonomous vehicles, drones, assembly lines, fans, rotors, turbines, pumps, valves, fluids, and many others), among many others that reside in or about an industrial environment 13704.” See also “[2973] In embodiments, the end-to-end real time or periodic connection between a set of industrial digital twins 13734 through the platform 13700, the edge system 13718, control systems 13742, data collectors 13702, SLAM systems 13714, SLAMDC systems 13740 and sensors 13722 to industrial entities 13736 and their various onboard sensors, data collection systems, diagnostic systems, buses, and the like may facilitate control over the various elements of these systems via manipulation of elements in interfaces and dashboards 13738 of the digital twins 13734, including ones that are linked to, included in, or integrated with one or more applications 13732, such as via APIs.” As such the prior art rejection is MAINTAINED.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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.
5. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210157312, hereafter Cella.
Regarding Claim 1: The reference discloses A method performed by a processor for performing a simulation of a system, the method comprising:
accessing a digital twin stored in memory, wherein the digital twin comprises:
a plurality of nodes, each node having at least one normalized interface associated with data having a respective data type, and ([0025] “In embodiments, the present disclosure includes instantiating a graph database having a set of nodes connected by edges, wherein a first node of the set of nodes contains data defining the environment digital twin and one or more entity nodes respectively contain respective data defining a respective discrete digital twin of the set of discrete digital twins. In embodiments, each edge represents a relationship between two respective digital twins. In embodiments, embedding a discrete digital twin includes connecting an entity node corresponding to a respective discrete digital twin to the first node with an edge representing a respective relationship between a respective industrial entity represented by the respective discrete digital twin and the industrial environment. In embodiments, each edge represents a spatial relationship between two respective digital twins, and an operational relationship between two respective digital twins. In embodiments, each edge stores metadata corresponding to the relationship between the two respective digital twins.”)
a plurality of edges connecting respective normalized interfaces associated with like data types among the plurality of nodes; ([0025] “In embodiments, the present disclosure includes instantiating a graph database having a set of nodes connected by edges, wherein a first node of the set of nodes contains data defining the environment digital twin and one or more entity nodes respectively contain respective data defining a respective discrete digital twin of the set of discrete digital twins. In embodiments, each edge represents a relationship between two respective digital twins. In embodiments, embedding a discrete digital twin includes connecting an entity node corresponding to a respective discrete digital twin to the first node with an edge representing a respective relationship between a respective industrial entity represented by the respective discrete digital twin and the industrial environment. In embodiments, each edge represents a spatial relationship between two respective digital twins, and an operational relationship between two respective digital twins. In embodiments, each edge stores metadata corresponding to the relationship between the two respective digital twins.”)
wherein the digital twin is formed by connecting a first digital twin, comprising a first subset of the plurality of nodes, to a second digital twin, comprising a second subset of the plurality of nodes, by connecting a normalized interface of the first digital twin to a normalized interface of the second digital twin; (Figure 286, elements 13734 multiple digital twins which are each interconnected in the data handling platform system. “[2958] In embodiments, the platform 13700 may generate, host, integrate, link to, include, integrate, or otherwise interact with a set of industrial entity digital twins 13734, which may comprise digital representations or replicas of real world states of a set of industrial entities 13736, such as workers 13712, fixed assets 13712 (such as machines, systems, devices, fixtures, and the like), infrastructure 13710 (such as floors, walls, ceilings, loading docks, foundations, and many others), and moving assets 13708 (such as vehicles, forklifts, autonomous vehicles, drones, assembly lines, fans, rotors, turbines, pumps, valves, fluids, and many others), among many others that reside in or about an industrial environment 13704.” See also “[2973] In embodiments, the end-to-end real time or periodic connection between a set of industrial digital twins 13734 through the platform 13700, the edge system 13718, control systems 13742, data collectors 13702, SLAM systems 13714, SLAMDC systems 13740 and sensors 13722 to industrial entities 13736 and their various onboard sensors, data collection systems, diagnostic systems, buses, and the like may facilitate control over the various elements of these systems via manipulation of elements in interfaces and dashboards 13738 of the digital twins 13734, including ones that are linked to, included in, or integrated with one or more applications 13732, such as via APIs.”)
propagating data having a first data type through the plurality of nodes along edges of the plurality of edges connected to normalized interfaces associated with the first data type; and ([0025] “In embodiments, the present disclosure includes instantiating a graph database having a set of nodes connected by edges, wherein a first node of the set of nodes contains data defining the environment digital twin and one or more entity nodes respectively contain respective data defining a respective discrete digital twin of the set of discrete digital twins. In embodiments, each edge represents a relationship between two respective digital twins. In embodiments, embedding a discrete digital twin includes connecting an entity node corresponding to a respective discrete digital twin to the first node with an edge representing a respective relationship between a respective industrial entity represented by the respective discrete digital twin and the industrial environment. In embodiments, each edge represents a spatial relationship between two respective digital twins, and an operational relationship between two respective digital twins. In embodiments, each edge stores metadata corresponding to the relationship between the two respective digital twins.”)
extracting data from at least one node of the plurality of nodes to be used as simulation output. (“[0026] In embodiments, the present disclosure includes executing a simulation based on the environment digital twin and the one or more discrete digital twins. In embodiments, the simulation simulates one of an operation of a machine in the industrial environment that produces an output based on a set of inputs and movement of workers in the industrial environment.”)
Regarding Claim 2: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: propagating data having a second data type through the plurality of nodes along edges of the plurality of edges connected to normalized interfaces associated with the second data type. ([0025] “In embodiments, each edge stores metadata corresponding to the relationship between the two respective digital twins. In embodiments, each entity node of the one or more entity nodes includes one or more properties of a respective properties of the respective industrial entity represented by the entity node. In embodiments, each entity node of the one or more entity nodes includes one or more behaviors of a respective properties of the respective industrial entity represented by the entity node. In embodiments, the environment node includes one or more properties of the environment. In embodiments, the environment node includes one or more behaviors of the environment.”)
Regarding Claim 3: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein: each node of the plurality of nodes comprises an activation function, and the step of propagating data comprises applying the activation function of a node to the data as the data is propagated through the node. (“[1246] In embodiments, a system for data collection in an industrial environment may include a trigger signal and at least one data signal that share a common output of a signal multiplexer and upon detection of a condition in the industrial environment, such as a state of the trigger signal, the common output is switched to propagate either the data signal or the trigger signal. Sharing an output between a data signal and a trigger signal may also facilitate reducing a number of individually routed signals in an industrial environment.”)
Regarding Claim 5: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying at least one node of the plurality of nodes that will provide simulation output, and the step of propagating data comprises propagating data from other nodes of the plurality of nodes toward the at least one node that will provide simulation output. (“[1246] In embodiments, a system for data collection in an industrial environment may include a trigger signal and at least one data signal that share a common output of a signal multiplexer and upon detection of a condition in the industrial environment, such as a state of the trigger signal, the common output is switched to propagate either the data signal or the trigger signal. Sharing an output between a data signal and a trigger signal may also facilitate reducing a number of individually routed signals in an industrial environment.”)
Regarding Claim 6: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein each node of the plurality of nodes is associated with a property, the method further comprising: updating the property of at least one node of the plurality of nodes based on propagating the data, wherein extracting data from the at least one node comprises reading the property of the at least one node. ([0025] “In embodiments, each edge stores metadata corresponding to the relationship between the two respective digital twins. In embodiments, each entity node of the one or more entity nodes includes one or more properties of a respective properties of the respective industrial entity represented by the entity node. In embodiments, each entity node of the one or more entity nodes includes one or more behaviors of a respective properties of the respective industrial entity represented by the entity node. In embodiments, the environment node includes one or more properties of the environment. In embodiments, the environment node includes one or more behaviors of the environment.”)
Regarding Claim 7: The reference discloses The method of claim 1, wherein: each node of the plurality of nodes is labeled according to an ontology to represent an actor within the system, and each data type is labeled according to the ontology to represent a quanta acted on by the system. ([0025] “In embodiments, each edge stores metadata corresponding to the relationship between the two respective digital twins. In embodiments, each entity node of the one or more entity nodes includes one or more properties of a respective properties of the respective industrial entity represented by the entity node. In embodiments, each entity node of the one or more entity nodes includes one or more behaviors of a respective properties of the respective industrial entity represented by the entity node. In embodiments, the environment node includes one or more properties of the environment. In embodiments, the environment node includes one or more behaviors of the environment.” “[1673] In embodiments, a recurrent neural network may have a time-varying, real-valued (more than just zero or one) activation (output). Each connection may have a modifiable real-valued weight. Some of the nodes are called labeled nodes, some output nodes, and others hidden nodes.”)
Regarding Claim 8: See rejection for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9: The reference discloses The apparatus of claim 8, wherein, in performing the simulation, the processor is further configured to: propagate data having a second data type through the plurality of nodes along edges of the plurality of edges connected to normalized interfaces associated with the second data type. (See rejection for claim 2)
Regarding Claim 10: The reference discloses The apparatus of claim 8, wherein: each node of the plurality of nodes comprises an activation function, and in propagating data, the processor is configured to apply the activation function of a node to the data as the data is propagated through the node. (See rejection for claim 3)
Regarding Claim 12: The reference discloses The apparatus of claim 8, wherein: in performing the simulation, the processor is configured to identify at least one node of the plurality of nodes that will provide simulation output, and in propagating data, the processor is configured to propagate data from other nodes of the plurality of nodes toward the at least one node that will provide simulation output. (See rejection for claim 5)
Regarding Claim 13: The reference discloses The apparatus of claim 8, wherein: each node of the plurality of nodes is associated with a property; in performing the simulation, the processor is configured to: update the property of at least one node of the plurality of nodes based on propagating the data, and read a value of the property of the at least one node; utilize at least the value as output of the simulation. (“[1246] In embodiments, a system for data collection in an industrial environment may include a trigger signal and at least one data signal that share a common output of a signal multiplexer and upon detection of a condition in the industrial environment, such as a state of the trigger signal, the common output is switched to propagate either the data signal or the trigger signal. Sharing an output between a data signal and a trigger signal may also facilitate reducing a number of individually routed signals in an industrial environment.”)
Regarding Claim 14: The reference discloses The apparatus of claim 8, wherein: each node of the plurality of nodes is labeled according to an ontology to represent an actor within the system, and each data type is labeled according to the ontology to represent a quanta acted on by the system. (See rejection for claim 7)
Regarding Claim 15: See rejection for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16: The reference discloses The machine-readable non-transitory medium of claim 15, further comprising: instructions for propagating data having a second data type through the plurality of nodes along edges of the plurality of edges connected to normalized interfaces associated with the second data type. (See rejection for claim 2)
Regarding Claim 17: The reference discloses The machine-readable non-transitory medium of claim 15, wherein: each node of the plurality of nodes comprises an activation function, and the instructions for propagating data comprise instructions for applying the activation function of a node to the data as the data is propagated through the node. (See rejection for claim 3)
Regarding Claim 19: The reference discloses The machine-readable non-transitory medium of claim 15, further comprising: instructions for identifying at least one node of the plurality of nodes that will provide simulation output, and the instructions for of propagating data comprise instructions for propagating data from other nodes of the plurality of nodes toward the at least one node that will provide simulation output. (See rejection for claim 5)
Regarding Claim 20: The reference discloses The machine-readable non-transitory medium of claim 15, wherein each node of the plurality of nodes is associated with a property, the medium further comprising: instructions for updating the property of at least one node of the plurality of nodes based on propagating the data, wherein the instructions for extracting data from the at least one node comprise instructions for reading the property of the at least one node. (See rejection for claim 6)
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.
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 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.
6. Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella in view of de Siqueira, José Carlos G., et al. "Optimum time step size and maximum simulation time in EMTP-based programs." 2014 Power Systems Computation Conference. IEEE, 2014, hereafter de Siqueira.
Regarding Claim 4: Cella does not explicitly recite The method of claim 1, further comprising repeating the step of propagating data for a number timesteps, wherein the number of timesteps is selected based on a period of time for which simulation is to be performed.
However de Siqueira discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising repeating the step of propagating data for a number timesteps, wherein the number of timesteps is selected based on a period of time for which simulation is to be performed. (de Siqueira, page 1, right column, top, “It is possible, however, to establish “ranges” in which the time step size and the maximum simulation time must be contained. This may help new and experienced EMTP-based program users to minimize the simulation time without compromising the accuracy of the results. In this case, the main focus of the study can remain on the analysis of the transient system response, rather than on a trial and error approach to adjust the time step size and the maximum simulation time by running multiple simulations.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the time step calculations of de Siqueira for the time periods in Cella in order to “minimize the simulation time without compromising the accuracy of the results” as per top right of page 1, and to develop the “optimal estimate of the time step size (∆ݐ (to be used for a given simulation case” as per top left of page 1.
Regarding Claim 11: The reference discloses The apparatus of claim 8, wherein, in performing the simulation, the processor is configured to repeat the step of propagating data for a number of timesteps, wherein the number of timesteps is selected based on a period of time for which simulation is to be performed. (See rejection for claim 4)
Regarding Claim 18: The reference discloses The machine-readable non-transitory medium of claim 15, further comprising instructions for repeating the instructions for propagating data for a number of timesteps, wherein the number of timesteps is selected based on a period of time for which simulation is to be performed. (See rejection for claim 4)
Conclusion
7. All Claims are rejected.
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
i) U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210182996
ii) U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220108262
iii) U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210133670
v) Juarez, Maria G., Vicente J. Botti, and Adriana S. Giret. "Digital twins: Review and challenges." Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 21.3 (2021): 030802.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10:00-6:00.
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. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SAA
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights