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 .
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.
The Information Disclosure Statement, filed 15 November 2023 has been fully considered by the examiner. A signed copy is attached.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected, grounds follow.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges that instant application is a Continuation in Part of Application 17/820,976 (now US patent # 11,856,723) and has been accorded the benefit of the earliest priority date for those portions which find support in the earlier filed application(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the data already known to the selected device" in Claim 14 line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that were Claim 14 amended to depend upon Claim 13 (and not claim 8 as recited) this rejection would be overcome.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song et al., US Pg-Pub 2016/0247129.
Regarding Claim 1, Song discloses:
A method for performing a distributed computation (see e.g. fig. 4) comprising: identifying a chunk of computer code from a larger process to be executed as a distributed computation; ([0039] “the master instance is responsible for dividing the simulation tasks and making the most efficient scheduling to load tasks onto different worker instances.”)
creating a job request specifying the chunk of computer code (e.g. [0040] the simulation model) and data (e.g. [0040] the model configuration data) on which the chunk of computer code is to operate; ([0040] “Each communication channel comprises two data caching services. A storage service is used to store the simulation model, while a queue service is used to store model configuration data.”)
selecting a device (e.g. worker 410) from a plurality of devices (e.g. workers 410, 415, 420) to process the job request; ([0039] “using the master instance as an image, a certain number of worker instances are launched with the same configurations as the master.” See also [0040] “For each Work Computer 410, 415, 420, a special communication channel is constructed and reserved only for that worker.” And [0043] “The amounts of minimal cloud computing resources needed for model simulation that satisfies user's needs should be calculated and allocated before launching model simulation.”)
transmitting the job request to the selected device; ([0042] “Once each of the Work Computers 410, 415, 420 has been configured, the Master Computer 405 launches model simulation on the Work Computers 410, 415, 420.”)
receiving a job result from the selected device; ([0042] “Each Work Computer 410, 415, 420 executes the simulation and sends back results to its corresponding storage service. The Master Computer 405 then collects all the simulation results from each Work Computer 410, 415, 420 through their storage service.”)
and continuing the larger process based on the job result. ([0042] “Finally, the Master Computer 405 aggregates and evaluates the final results.” Nb. such as calculating a condition index of monitored machines in an HVAC system, see [0048], [0025], etc.)
Regarding Claim 8 and 15, these claims recite substantively the same subject matter discussed with respect to claim 1, Song further discloses the additional features of “a device” (fig. 4, master 405 “comprising a communication interface; a memory storing code” (see fig. 11, particularly 1130 system memory) “a processor”, (fig. 11, 1120 processors) and “a non-transitory computer readable medium” (fig. 11, hard disk 1141, removable media 1142, and system memory 1130). Mutatis mutandis, these claims are likewise anticipated by Song for the same reasons articulated with respect to claim 1 above.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Chatterjee et al., US Pg-Pub 2020/0110337.
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16, Song teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively;
Song differs from the claimed invention in that:
Song does not clearly articulate (claim 2 representative): [wherein the job request specifies the chunk of computer code] with a function name known to the selected device as being associated with the chunk of computer code.
However Chatterjee teaches an HVAC building management system (see figs 1-5) which communicates between components of the building management system, including distributed computing resources, by use of remote procedure calls to callable code functions which may be named in the call (see [0095] “some or all components of the BMS 400 and/or BEMS 540 of FIG. 5 may include circuits structured to access and exchange data, via the interface engine 460 of the BEMS gateway 450, using a suitable remote procedure call protocol… The callable code functions may be structured according to a predefined format, which may include a service name (interface name), an operation name (e.g., read, write, initialize a class, etc.)” )
Chatterjee is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of distributed computing, and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities, such as HVAC systems and remote execution of code over communication networks between servers.
Accordingly, examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components – the teachings of Song, which differ from the claimed invention by the substitution of named function calls in the remote job request; 2) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art – as exemplified by the teachings of Chatterjee, which uses named function calls to execute remote processes over a network; 3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable at least because Chatterjee teaches that remote procedure calls using named functions are a suitable means of communication between distributed computing components of HVAC supervisory systems (see Chatterjee [0095]) and the system of song is an HVAC industrial monitoring system (see e.g. Song [0003]) and accordingly, the substitution would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application. (See MPEP 2143.I.B).
Claim(s) 3-7, 10-14, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Cheng et al., US Pg-Pub 2019/0163215.
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 17, Song teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively;
Song further teaches:
(Claim 3 representative) receiving a request to execute a group of jobs as a distributed computation, ([0039] “The process of launching a model simulation on such a platform generally comprises four steps. First, the user selects the appropriate instance type that meets the minimum resources requirements for the simulation and configures the instance with an appropriate simulation environment.”
wherein: the group of jobs are associated with the chunk of computer code and respective ([0038] “Model simulation with different configurations can be executed in parallel as they are independent tasks.”) […] data; ([0039] “the master instance is responsible for dividing the simulation tasks and making the most efficient scheduling to load tasks onto different worker instances.”)
creating the job request comprises creating a plurality of job requests specifying the chunk of computer code and the respective […] data; ([0040] “For each Work Computer 410, 415, 420, a special communication channel is constructed and reserved only for that worker. Each communication channel comprises two data caching services. A storage service is used to store the simulation model, while a queue service is used to store model configuration data.”)
selecting a device comprises selecting one or more devices from the plurality of devices to process respective ones of the plurality of job requests; ([0039] “using the master instance as an image, a certain number of worker instances are launched with the same configurations as the master.” See also [0040] “For each Work Computer 410, 415, 420, a special communication channel is constructed and reserved only for that worker.” And [0043] “The amounts of minimal cloud computing resources needed for model simulation that satisfies user's needs should be calculated and allocated before launching model simulation.”)
and transmitting the job request comprises transmitting the plurality of job requests to respective ones of the one or more selected devices. ([0042] “Once each of the Work Computers 410, 415, 420 has been configured, the Master Computer 405 launches model simulation on the Work Computers 410, 415, 420.”)
Song differs from the claimed invention in that:
song does not clearly articulate the data is variations of the same data.
However, Cheng teaches an HVAC supervisory system (see e.g. figs. 1, 9, etc.) which operates a plurality of digital twins in parallel ([0062] “the digital twin environment 925 can be divided into multiple virtual spaces 940-944… each virtual space 940-944 can be used to perform a different analysis, simulation, etc. of the same digital twin 920”) in order to test variations of setting/configuration data ([0065] “an operator, technician, HVAC control 110-114, etc. can then understand how the facility 102-106 may react to a variety of settings/configurations in a variety of scenarios, for example.”) in parallel ([0039] “Unlike a manual process, hundreds of simulations can be run in parallel between the simulator 410 and modeler 408 in minutes rather than serially waiting for other simulations to finish.”)
Cheng is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of distributed computing, and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities, such as HVAC systems and remote execution of code over communication networks between servers.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Song to include testing a plurality of control scenarios using the parallel executing remote digital twins of Song, as suggested by Cheng.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to inexpensively and efficiently test a plurality of control scenarios while preserving building HVAC integrity, as suggested by Cheng. ([0062] “Using the multiple virtual spaces 940-944, the digital twin 920 can be tested inexpensively and efficiently in a plurality of ways while preserving building HVAC integrity.”)
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18, Song in view of Cheng teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 3, 10, and 17, respectively;
Song further teaches:
(Claim 4 representative) [receiving a job result comprises] receiving a plurality of job results that are fewer than the plurality of job requests, ([0046] “To be safe, some embodiments, additional instances may be launched to guarantee or at least closely approach the satisfaction of the user specified time.”)
and continuing the larger process based on the job result comprises determining, based on a policy for the group of jobs, that the plurality of job results are sufficient to continue the larger process. ([0043] “The amounts of minimal cloud computing resources needed for model simulation that satisfies user's needs should be calculated and allocated before launching model simulation. In the above section, we give a formula to calculate the minimum number of servers to achieve the goal of finishing model simulation within time T.sub.ok.”)
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 19, Song in view of Cheng teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 3, 10, and 17, respectively;
Song further teaches:
(Claim 5 representative) [receiving a job result comprises] receiving a plurality of job results, ([0046] According to the user specified simulation time T.sub.ok. and guessed values of t.sub.2 and t.sub.3 by sampling, we can calculate the minimum number of instances to launch according to formula N*(t.sub.2+t.sub.3)/T.sub.ok. To be safe, some embodiments, additional instances may be launched to guarantee or at least closely approach the satisfaction of the user specified time.”)
and continuing the larger process based on the job result comprises: determining, based on a policy for the group of jobs, a time limit, ([0043] “we give a formula to calculate the minimum number of servers to achieve the goal of finishing model simulation within time T.sub.ok.”) and when the time limit is reached, continuing the larger process ([0042] “The Master Computer 405 then collects all the simulation results from each Work Computer 410, 415, 420 through their storage service. Finally, the Master Computer 405 aggregates and evaluates the final results.”)
with the plurality of job results received before the time limit was reached. ([0046] “To be safe, some embodiments, additional instances may be launched to guarantee or at least closely approach the satisfaction of the user specified time.”)
Regarding Claims 6,and 13, Song teaches all of the limitations of parents claim 1 and 8, respectively;
Song differs from the claimed invention in that:
Song does not appear to clearly articulate (claim 6 representative) [wherein the data comprises] a delta value describing a change to data already known to the selected device.
However, Cheng teaches an HVAC supervisory system (see e.g. figs. 1, 9, etc.) which operates a plurality of digital twins in parallel ([0062] “the digital twin environment 925 can be divided into multiple virtual spaces 940-944… each virtual space 940-944 can be used to perform a different analysis, simulation, etc. of the same digital twin 920”) in order to test variations of setting/configuration data ([0065] “an operator, technician, HVAC control 110-114, etc. can then understand how the facility 102-106 may react to a variety of settings/configurations in a variety of scenarios, for example.”) which may be delta values describing a change to data already known to the digital twin (i.e. selected device) ([0066] “The scenarios can be simulated with respect to the model 408 and corresponding outcomes evaluated to identify similarities, differences, issues, etc. For example, a scenario can be simulated to evaluate whether changing an unoccupied cooling setpoint from 75F to 78F and/or changing an occupied cooling setpoint from 68F to 72F can lead to a 2% energy savings on a hot summer day, etc.”)
Cheng is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of distributed computing, and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities, such as HVAC systems and remote execution of code over communication networks between servers.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Song to include testing a plurality of control scenarios using the parallel executing remote digital twins of Song, as suggested by Cheng.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to inexpensively and efficiently test a plurality of control scenarios while preserving building HVAC integrity, as suggested by Cheng. ([0062] “Using the multiple virtual spaces 940-944, the digital twin 920 can be tested inexpensively and efficiently in a plurality of ways while preserving building HVAC integrity.”)
Regarding Claims 7, and 14 Song in view of Park teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 6 and 13,* respectively,
Both Song and Park further teach:
(claim 7 representative) wherein the data already known to the selected device comprises a digital twin of a real-world system. (Song [0026] “Briefly, a DT is a digital version of a machine. Once created, the DT can be used to represent the machine in a digital representation of a real world system.”) (Park [0055] “Thus, rather than a generic model, the digital twin 920 is a collection of actual physics-based models reflecting the building 102 and/or its associated systems (e.g., HVAC, HVAC control 110, etc.), parameters, conditions, etc.”)
(* see 35 USC 112b rejection of claim 14, supra.)
Regarding Claim 20, Song teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 15,
Song further teaches:
a digital twin of a real-world system. (Song [0026] “Briefly, a DT is a digital version of a machine. Once created, the DT can be used to represent the machine in a digital representation of a real world system.”)
Song differs from the claimed invention in that:
wherein the data comprises a delta value describing a change to [a digital twin of a real-world system.]
However, Cheng teaches an HVAC supervisory system (see e.g. figs. 1, 9, etc.) which operates a plurality of digital twins in parallel ([0062] “the digital twin environment 925 can be divided into multiple virtual spaces 940-944… each virtual space 940-944 can be used to perform a different analysis, simulation, etc. of the same digital twin 920”) in order to test variations of setting/configuration data ([0065] “an operator, technician, HVAC control 110-114, etc. can then understand how the facility 102-106 may react to a variety of settings/configurations in a variety of scenarios, for example.”) which may be delta values describing a change to data already known to the digital twin (i.e. selected device) ([0066] “The scenarios can be simulated with respect to the model 408 and corresponding outcomes evaluated to identify similarities, differences, issues, etc. For example, a scenario can be simulated to evaluate whether changing an unoccupied cooling setpoint from 75F to 78F and/or changing an occupied cooling setpoint from 68F to 72F can lead to a 2% energy savings on a hot summer day, etc.”)
Cheng is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of distributed computing, and contains overlapping structural and functional similarities, such as HVAC systems and remote execution of code over communication networks between servers.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Song to include testing a plurality of control scenarios using the parallel executing remote digital twins of Song, as suggested by Cheng.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to inexpensively and efficiently test a plurality of control scenarios while preserving building HVAC integrity, as suggested by Cheng. ([0062] “Using the multiple virtual spaces 940-944, the digital twin 920 can be tested inexpensively and efficiently in a plurality of ways while preserving building HVAC integrity.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park et al., US Pg-Pub 2020/0125053 – particularly [0151] and [0195] describing interaction with a distributed computing resource comprising a digital twin of an HVAC system using an API protocol such as a RESTful protocol.
Eder et al., US Pg-Pub 2016/0196587 – particularly [0154] describing the general background knowledge of one of ordinary skill regarding network communication protocols using Remote Procedure Calls.(RPC)
Fadell et al., US Pg-Pub 2012/0130548 – particularly [0028]-[0030] describing distributing computational sub-tasks in a process across a plurality of systems based on balancing energy requirements (e.g. battery level) of the tasked devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5591. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday through Friday.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/J.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights