DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 06/23/26.
Claims 1, 16, 21, 23, 25-27 and 29-31 have been amended.
Claims 2-15, 22, 34 and 36-38 were previously cancelled.
Claims 1, 16-21, 23-33 and 35 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/23/26 has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Argument A) – The applicant argues, in regards to the 103 rejection of claim 1, that Mehrotra does not disclose the limitation “determining a network address of a management entity based on the network identifier and the subscription identifier”. In particular, the applicant states that Mehrotra’s disclosure of identifying industrial automation components based on an IP address of the component is not determining a network address of a management entity based on the network identifier and the subscription identifier (see applicant’s remarks; pages 8 and 9).
Response to argument A) – The examiner respectfully disagrees. Mehrotra discloses examining network related information of a component based on network identifiers and a subscription service.
In particular, Mehrotra discloses identifying industrial automation components by examining network related information, e.g. IP address (see Mehrotra; paragraph 0050). The industrial component may periodically send the data according to a subscription service (see Mehrotra; paragraph 0071). The industrial automation component, such as an asset management system, connects to a network, such as 4G or 5G mobile network (see Mehrotra; paragraphs 0093 and 0096). Data is received via a subscription to the data output by a source, e.g. asset management, in the industrial automation system (see Mehrotra; paragraph 0172). In other words, identifying an IP address of an asset management system to receive data based on the subscription to the asset management system and the connected mobile network, e.g. 4G or 5G.
Therefore, in regards to the limitation, Mehrotra does in fact disclose “determining a network address of a management entity based on the network identifier and the subscription identifier” by examining the IP address, i.e. “network address”, for the asset management system to receive data based on the particular subscription, i.e. “subscription identifier”, and the connected 4G/5G, i.e. “network identifier”, mobile network. As such, the rejection has been maintained.
Argument B) – The applicant argues, in regards to the 103 rejection of claim 1, that Turrin does not disclose the limitation “transmitting a discover request to the management entity based on the determined network address, the discover request comprising the subscription identifier and the type identifier”. In particular, the applicant states that Turrin does not teach the discover request comprising the subscription identifier and the type identifier (see applicant’s remarks; pages 9-12).
Response to argument B) – The examiner respectfully disagrees. Turrin discloses a request is received that includes identification data.
In particular, Turrin discloses cellular network for communication between devices (see Turrin; paragraph 0026). Identification data of the devices includes a thing identifier that uniquely identifies the IoT device and a thing type that indicates a type of the device (see Turrin; paragraphs 0031 and 0032). A request is sent to an asset central service (see Turrin; paragraphs 0036 and 0038). The request includes the identification data (see Turrin; paragraph 0048). In other words, a request is sent to an asset central service, in which the request includes identification data, such as, uniquely identifying the device on the cellular network and the type of device.
Therefore, in regards to the limitation, Turrin does in fact disclose “transmitting a discover request to the management entity based on the determined network address, the discover request comprising the subscription identifier and the type identifier” by sending identification data identifying the device on the cellular network and the type of the device in a request to the asset central service. As such, the rejection has been maintained.
The applicant states that the same arguments regarding claim 1 apply to claim 16 (see applicant’s remarks; page 12). As such, the same rationale discussed above regarding claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 16.
The applicant’s arguments regarding claims 23 and 29 are similar to the arguments regarding claim 1, in particular regarding the subscription identifier (see applicant’s remarks; pages 12-21). As such, the same rationale discussed above regarding claim 1 applies equally as well to claims 23 and 29.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 16-21, 23-33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 16, 23 and 29, the limitations “determining a subscription identifier…” (claim 1), “determine a subscription identifier…” (claim 16), “the discover request comprises: a subscription identifier…” (claim 23), and “the register message comprises: a subscription identifier…” (claim 29) are recited.
While the applicant’s specification states a “UE may be equipped with a Subscriber Identity Module, SIM comprising unique identities such as the IMSI…TMSI…or GUTI…The presence of a SIM within the UE customizes the UE uniquely with a subscription of a user” (see applicant’s specification as filed; page 8 lines 10-14), no support can be found for determining a subscription identifier, i.e. how is the subscription identifier determined (emphasis added). In other words, a UE may be (emphasis added) equipped with a SIM, but there is no support for determining an identifier of the SIM.
Further, the examiner notes that the applicant’s specification is completely silent in regards to a discover request and register message comprising a subscription identifier (emphasis added). In fact, the applicant’s specification states that “wherein the discover request comprises at least the communication identifier and the type identifier” (see applicant’s specification as filed; page 3 lines 6 and 7) and “the register message comprises a type identifier identifying which type of device the industrial device is…a communication identifier by which the industry device is uniquely identified when communicating in the cellular network…a device identifier uniquely identifying the industrial device” (see applicant’s specification as filed; page 4 line 36 – page 5 line 4). In other words, while the communication identifier uniquely identifies the industry device when it communicates in the network, it does not uniquely identify or tag a subscriber on the network (emphasis added). As such, a communication identifier is different than a subscription identifier.
Therefore, the claims appear to make an attempt at covering a way to determine a subscription identifier and include it in a discover request and register request, while there is no indication in the applicant’s specification that the inventors had possession of the details for “determining a subscription identifier…”, “the discover request comprises: a subscription identifier…” and “the register message comprises: a subscription identifier…”, as claimed.
Dependent claims 17-21, 24-28, 30-33 and 35 are also rejected for the same reason based on their dependencies to claims 1, 16, 23 and 29.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1, 16-21 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Sachs et al. (U.S. 2020/0259896 A1) in view of Mehrotra et al. (U.S. 2022/0100182 A1) and further in view of Turrin et al. (U.S. 2021/0193334 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sachs discloses a method for operating an industrial device connected to a cellular network (see Sachs; paragraphs 1276, 1532 and 2413; Sachs discloses devices, also referred to as user equipment, UE, such as a machine, i.e. “industrial device”, connected to a 5G network, i.e. “cellular network”), the method comprising:
determining a network identifier identifying the cellular network (see Sachs; paragraph 0281 and 0290; Sachs discloses determining, via an announcement, a PLMN ID, i.e. “network identifier”, for a UE to be routed to the right core network, such as 4G or 5G network, i.e. “identifying the cellular network”),
determining a subscription identifier (see Sachs; paragraphs 0641 and 0642; Sachs discloses determining an identifier, such as, an IMSI, a 15-digit identifier, i.e. “a subscription identifier”, of the UE, as well as other identifiers such as a SUCI and SUPI, i.e. “a subscription identifier”, for communicating on the 5G network),
determining a type identifier identifying a device type (see Sachs; paragraphs 0294 and 0635; Sachs discloses ensuring different types of UE are served by different slices and an identity is used to identify the device, i.e. “identifying a device type”. Therefore, a “type identifier” is used in order to make sure the correct slice serves the UE based on the type of UE).
While Sachs discloses the use of digital twins in cyber-physical production systems, such as in an industry setting (see Sachs; paragraph 0360, 0365 and 0710), Sachs does not explicitly disclose determining a network address of a management entity based on the network identifier and the subscription identifier.
In analogous art, Mehrotra discloses determining a network address of a management entity based on the network identifier and the subscription identifier (see Mehrotra; paragraphs 0050, 0071, 0093, 0096 and 0172; Mehrotra discloses examining the IP address, i.e. “network address”, for the asset management system, i.e. “management entity”, to receive data based on the particular subscription, i.e. “subscription identifier”, and the connected 4G/5G, i.e. “network identifier”, mobile network).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sachs and Mehrotra because they both disclose features of industrial automation, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the feature of managing digital twins in an asset management system as taught by Mehrotra into the system of Sachs in order to provide the benefit of scalability by allowing digital twins to be managed in an industry setting and future network management (see Sachs; paragraphs 0710 and 0717).
While Sachs discloses a “communication identifier” and “type identifier”, as well as, Mehrotra discloses a “communication identifier” and “management entity”, as discussed above, the combination of Sachs and Mehrotra does not explicitly disclose transmitting a discover request to the management entity based on the determined network address, the discover request comprising the subscription identifier and the type identifier.
In analogous art, Turrin discloses transmitting a discover request to the management entity based on the determined network address, the discover request comprising the subscription identifier and the type identifier (see Turrin; paragraphs 0026, 0031, 0032, 0036, 0038, 0046 and 0048; Turrin discloses a cellular network for communication between devices. Identification data of the devices include a thing identifier that uniquely identifies the IoT device, i.e. identifies the IoT device on the cellular network and therefore a “subscription identifier”, and an identifier that identifies the type of device, i.e. “type identifier”. Further, upon registration of a device on the network, a digital twin connector of an edge gateway sends a request, i.e. “discover request”, to an asset central service, i.e. “management entity”, that maintains digital twins in a cloud platform. The request received at the cloud platform includes the identification data, e.g. thing identifier and type, i.e. the “discover request comprising the subscription identifier, and the type identifier”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sachs, Mehrotra and Turrin because they all disclose features of digital twin management, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the feature of requesting digital twins as taught by Turrin into the combined system of Sachs and Mehrotra in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by determining whether devices on a network have been registered and have corresponding digital twins (see Turrin; paragraphs 0049 and 0051) for an industry setting and future network management (see Sachs; paragraphs 0710 and 0717).
Regarding claim 16, Sachs discloses an industrial device connected to a cellular network (see Sachs; paragraphs 1276, 1532 and 2413; Sachs discloses devices, also referred to as user equipment, UE, such as a machine, i.e. “industrial device”, connected to a 5G network, i.e. “cellular network”), the industrial device being operative to:
determine a network identifier identifying the cellular network (see Sachs; paragraph 0281 and 0290; Sachs discloses determining, via an announcement, a PLMN ID, i.e. “network identifier”, for a UE to be routed to the right core network, such as 4G or 5G network, i.e. “identifying the cellular network”),
determine a subscription identifier (see Sachs; paragraphs 0641 and 0642; Sachs discloses determining an identifier, such as, an IMSI, a 15-digit identifier, i.e. “a subscription identifier”, of the UE, as well as other identifiers such as a SUCI and SUPI, i.e. “a subscription identifier”, for communicating on the 5G network),
determine a type identifier identifying a device type (see Sachs; paragraphs 0294 and 0635; Sachs discloses ensuring different types of UE are served by different slices and an identity is used to identify the device, i.e. “identifying a device type”. Therefore, a “type identifier” is used in order to make sure the correct slice serves the UE based on the type of UE).
While Sachs discloses the use of digital twins in cyber-physical production systems, such as in an industry setting (see Sachs; paragraph 0360, 0365 and 0710), Sachs does not explicitly disclose determine a network address of a management entity based on the network identifier and the subscription identifier.
In analogous art, Mehrotra discloses determine a network address of a management entity based on the network identifier and the subscription identifier (see Mehrotra; paragraphs 0050, 0071, 0093, 0096 and 0172; Mehrotra discloses examining the IP address, i.e. “network address”, for the asset management system, i.e. “management entity”, to receive data based on the particular subscription, i.e. “subscription identifier”, and the connected 4G/5G, i.e. “network identifier”, mobile network).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sachs and Mehrotra because they both disclose features of industrial automation, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the feature of managing digital twins in an asset management system as taught by Mehrotra into the system of Sachs in order to provide the benefit of scalability by allowing digital twins to be managed in an industry setting and future network management (see Sachs; paragraphs 0710 and 0717).
While Sachs discloses a “communication identifier” and “type identifier”, as well as, Mehrotra discloses a “communication identifier” and “management entity”, as discussed above, the combination of Sachs and Mehrotra does not explicitly disclose transmit a discover request to the management entity based on the determined network address, the discover request comprising the subscription identifier, and the type identifier.
In analogous art, Turrin transmit a discover request to the management entity based on the determined network address, the discover request comprising the subscription identifier, and the type identifier (see Turrin; paragraphs 0026, 0031, 0032, 0036, 0038, 0046 and 0048; Turrin discloses a cellular network for communication between devices. Identification data of the devices include a thing identifier that uniquely identifies the IoT device, i.e. identifies the IoT device on the cellular network and therefore a “subscription identifier”, and an identifier that identifies the type of device, i.e. “type identifier”. Further, upon registration of a device on the network, a digital twin connector of an edge gateway sends a request, i.e. “discover request”, to an asset central service, i.e. “management entity”, that maintains digital twins in a cloud platform. The request received at the cloud platform includes the identification data, e.g. thing identifier and type, i.e. the “discover request comprising the subscription identifier, and the type identifier”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sachs, Mehrotra and Turrin because they all disclose features of digital twin management, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the feature of requesting digital twins as taught by Turrin into the combined system of Sachs and Mehrotra in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by determining whether devices on a network have been registered and have corresponding digital twins (see Turrin; paragraphs 0049 and 0051) for an industry setting and future network management (see Sachs; paragraphs 0710 and 0717).
Regarding claim 17, Sachs, Mehrotra and Turrin disclose all the limitations of claim 16, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sachs, Mehrotra and Turrin clearly discloses determine an access network identifier identifying an access network by which the industrial device is connected to the cellular network, and to determine the network address taking into account the access network identifier (see Sachs; paragraphs 0290-0292; Sachs discloses an access point name, e.g. APN, i.e. “access network identifier”, in a RAN is used so that traffic corresponding to the device is routed to the right core network, i.e. “identifying an access network by which the industrial device is connected to the cellular network”, based on the APN, and further an IP address, i.e. “determine the network address”, is determined based on the APN).
Regarding claim 18, Sachs, Mehrotra and Turrin disclose all the limitations of claim 16, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sachs, Mehrotra and Turrin clearly discloses determine a device identifier uniquely identifying the industrial device, and to include the device identifier in the discover request (see Turrin; paragraphs 0031, 0032, 0036, 0038 and 0048; Turrin discloses identification data of the devices include an identifier that uniquely identifies the device, such as a serial number, i.e. “a device identifier uniquely identifying the industrial device”. Upon registration of a device on the network, a digital twin connector of an edge gateway sends a request, i.e. “discover request”, to an asset central service, i.e. “management entity”, that maintains digital twins in a cloud platform. The request received at the cloud platform includes the identification data, e.g. serial number, i.e. the “include the device identifier in the discover request”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 16.
Regarding claim 19, Sachs, Mehrotra and Turrin disclose all the limitations of claim 16, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sachs, Mehrotra and Turrin clearly discloses receive a discover response from the management entity in response to the discover request, the response message comprising a network address of a digital twin of the industrial device (see Turrin; paragraphs 0036 and 0038; Turrin discloses the asset central service provides, in response to a request, the location and access to a digital twin of the device, i.e. “the response message comprising a network address of a digital twin of the industrial device …”),
transmit a register message to the digital twin of the industrial device based on the received network address (see Turrin; paragraphs 0039, 0046 and 0051; Turrin discloses initiating registration, i.e. “transmit a register message”, of a device when it is added to the network to a digital twin that is onboarded on a cloud platform),
receive a register response from the digital twin indicating that the industrial device is now connected to its digital twin (see Turrin; paragraphs 0046, 0051 and 0052; Turrin discloses receiving a response that the digital twin is onboarded and assigned to the device, i.e. “industrial device is now connected to its digital twin”),
initiate a synchronization of operating parameters of the industrial device with its digital twin (see Turrin; paragraph 0024; Turrin discloses the digital twin is synchronized with information, such as time series data, i.e. “operating parameters…”, of the device, i.e. “of the industrial device”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 16.
Regarding claim 20, Sachs, Mehrotra and Turrin disclose all the limitations of claim 19, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sachs, Mehrotra and Turrin clearly discloses inform the digital twin when the industrial device is going to disconnect from the cellular network (see Sachs; paragraphs 0365, 1131, 1276; Sachs discloses for a digital twin identifying where the UE, i.e. “industrial device”, disconnects from the cellular network).
Regarding claim 21, Sachs, Mehrotra and Turrin disclose all the limitations of claim 19, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sachs, Mehrotra and Turrin clearly discloses wherein the register message comprises the type identifier, the subscription identifier and a device identifier uniquely identifying the industrial device (see Turrin; paragraphs 0031, 0032, 0036, 0038 and 0048; Turrin discloses identification data of the devices include an identifier that uniquely identifies the device, such as a serial number, i.e. “a device identifier uniquely identifying the industrial device”, an identifier indicating the type of device, i.e. “device identifier”, and location identifier, i.e. “communication identifier”, indicating where the device is on the network. Upon registration of a device on the network, a digital twin connector of an edge gateway sends a request, i.e. “register message”, to an asset central service, i.e. “management entity”, that maintains digital twins in a cloud platform. The request received at the cloud platform includes the identification data).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 16.
Regarding claim 35, Sachs, Mehrotra and Turrin disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Sachs, Mehrotra and Turrin clearly discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer program comprising program code to by executed by at least one processing unit of an industrial device, wherein execution of the program code causes the at least one processing unit to carry out the method of claim 1 (see Sachs; paragraph 1288; Sachs discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium for storing a computer program including instructions executed by at least one processor).
Claims 23-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turrin et al. (U.S. 2021/0193334 A1) in view of Mehrotra et al. (U.S. 2022/0100182 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Turrin discloses a management entity configured to manage digital twins of a plurality of industrial devices (see Turrin; paragraph 0038; Turrin discloses maintaining digital twins of physical assets), the management entity being operative to:
receive a discover request from a first industrial device of the plurality of industrial devices, wherein the discover request comprises: i) a subscription identifier; and ii) a type identifier identifying a device type (see Turrin; paragraphs 0026, 0031, 0032, 0036, 0038, 0046 and 0048; Turrin discloses a cellular network for communication between devices. Identification data of the devices include a thing identifier that uniquely identifies the IoT device, i.e. identifies the IoT device on the cellular network and therefore a “subscription identifier”, and an identifier that identifies the type of device, i.e. “type identifier identifying a device type”. Further, upon registration of a device on the network, a digital twin connector of an edge gateway sends a request, i.e. “discover request”, to an asset central service, i.e. “management entity”, that maintains digital twins in a cloud platform. The request received at the cloud platform includes the identification data, e.g. location identifier and type, i.e. the “discover request comprising at least the communication identifier, and the type identifier”),
determine whether the subscription identifier is already known to the management entity (see Turrin; paragraphs 0026, 0032, 0038 and 0048; Turrin discloses the asset central service, i.e. “management entity”, performing a search for the device, i.e. “first industrial device”, based on identification data, such as a thing identifier that uniquely identifies the IoT device, i.e. identifies the IoT device on the cellular network and therefore a “subscription identifier”, to determine whether the device is included in an account maintained by the asset central service, i.e. “determine… the first industrial device is already known to the management entity”, in the cloud platform),
as a result of determining that the subscription identifier is not already known to the management entity, determine whether the type identifier is known to the management entity (see Turrin; paragraphs 0031, 0032, 0038 and 0048-0050; Turrin discloses the asset central service, i.e. “management entity”, receives identification data of the device and returns a search result on whether the device is maintained based on the identification data that includes a thing identifier that uniquely identifies the IoT device, i.e. identifies the IoT device on the cellular network and therefore a “subscription identifier”, and if not, determines if the device is maintained based on other portion of the identification data, e.g. model number, i.e. “type identifier of the first industrial device”).
While Turrin discloses “manage digital twins of a plurality of industrial devices” and “determines whether the type identifier is known to the management entity”, as discussed above, Turrin does not explicitly disclose as a result of determining i) that the type identifier is known to the management entity, and ii) that the subscription identifier is not already known to the management entity, performing a method that comprises: instantiating a new digital twin for the first industrial device based on the device type of the first industrial device, obtaining a new network address for the new digital twin, and transmitting a discover response comprising the new network address to the first industrial device.
In analogous art, Mehrotra discloses as a result of determining i) that the type identifier is known to the management entity, and ii) that the subscription identifier is not already known to the management entity, performing a method that comprises: instantiating a new digital twin for the first industrial device based on the device type of the first industrial device (see Mehrotra; paragraphs 0029, 0093, 0098, 0125, 0128, 0137 and 0172; Mehrotra discloses the asset management system, i.e. “management entity”, creating a digital twin based on determining a type of the asset, e.g. industrial device, i.e. “determining i) that the type identifier is known to the management entity”, and not knowing the particular subscription, i.e. “the subscription identifier is not already known to the management entity”, and assign the digital twin to the asset/device, i.e. “instantiating a new digital twin for the industrial device”),
obtaining a new network address for the new digital twin (see Mehrotra; paragraphs 0050 and 0125; Mehrotra discloses examining IP addresses for components, such as the digital twin. In particular, the newly created digital twin is assigned to the specific asset. Therefore, in order to assign the digital twin to a specific asset a “network address”, such as an IP address, would have to be obtained), and
transmitting a discover response comprising the new network address to the first industrial device (see Mehrotra; paragraphs 0125 and 0138-0140; Mehrotra discloses assigning a new digital twin to the asset, i.e. “first industrial device”, and in response, i.e. “discover response”, to an access request for the digital twin granting permission to access the digital twin. In other words, the “network address” of the digital twin would be included in the grant/permission response, i.e. “discover response”, in order for the asset to have access).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Turrin and Mehrotra because they both disclose features of digital twin management, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the feature of managing digital twins in an asset management system as taught by Mehrotra into the system of Turrin in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by determining whether devices on a network have been registered and have corresponding digital twins (see Turrin; paragraphs 0049 and 0051), and if not, creating digital twins for an asset (see Mehrotra; paragraph 0125).
Regarding claim 24, Turrin and Mehrotra disclose all the limitations of claim 23, as discussed above, and further the combination of Turrin and Mehrotra clearly discloses wherein the received discover request additionally comprises a device identifier uniquely identifying the first industrial device, the management entity being operative to store the device identifier in connection with the new digital twin (see Turrin; paragraphs 0031, 0032, 0036, 0038 and 0048; Turrin discloses identification data of the devices include an identifier that uniquely identifies the device, such as a serial number, i.e. “a device identifier uniquely identifying the industrial device”. Upon registration of a device on the network, a digital twin connector of an edge gateway sends a request, i.e. “discover request”, to an asset central service, i.e. “management entity”, that maintains digital twins in a cloud platform, i.e. “the management entity being operative to store the device identifier…”. The request received at the cloud platform includes the identification data, e.g. serial number, i.e. the “include the device identifier in the discover request”).
Regarding claim 25, Turrin and Mehrotra disclose all the limitations of claim 23, as discussed above, and further the combination of Turrin and Mehrotra clearly discloses further being operative, if the subscription identifier is already known, to determine an already existing digital twin together with an existing network address where the already existing digital twin is stored, and to transmit the existing network address with the discover response (see Turrin; paragraphs 0031, 0032, 0036, 0038 and 0051; Turrin discloses identification data of the devices includes a thing identifier that uniquely identifies the IoT device, i.e. identifies the IoT device on the cellular network and therefore a “subscription identifier”. A request for a digital twin, based on the location identifier of the device, is sent. When it is determined that the digital twin is already registered, i.e. “already existing digital twin”, information, i.e. “network address”, of the digital twin is sent in response, i.e. “discover response”, in order to access/utilize the digital twin).
Regarding claim 26, Turrin and Mehrotra disclose all the limitations of claim 23, as discussed above, and further the combination of Turrin and Mehrotra clearly discloses further being operative, for checking whether the subscription identifier is already known to the management entity, to query a database for a digital twin type matching the received type identifier, and to instantiate the new digital twin based on the matching digital twin type if a digital twin type matching the received type identifier is found (see Mehrotra; paragraphs 0029, 0095, 0106, 0125, 0128, 0137 and 0172; Mehrotra discloses the asset management system, i.e. “management entity”, searching a database for a digital twin based on determining a type of the asset, e.g. industrial device, and not knowing the particular subscription, i.e. “the subscription identifier is not already known to the management entity”, and assign the type of digital twin to the type of asset/device, i.e. “instantiate the new digital twin based on the matching digital twin type…”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 23.
Regarding claim 27, Turrin and Mehrotra disclose all the limitations of claim 23, as discussed above, and further the combination of Turrin and Mehrotra clearly discloses further being operative to store the subscription identifier in connection with the new digital twin, when the subscription identifier is not known to the management entity (see Turrin; paragraphs 0031-0036 and 0051; Turrin discloses identification data of the devices include a thing identifier that uniquely identifies the IoT device, i.e. identifies the IoT device on the cellular network and therefore a “subscription identifier”, in which the identification data is stored and creating a digital twin based on the stored identification data, i.e. “store the communication identifier in connection with the new digital twin…”).
Regarding claim 28, Turrin and Mehrotra disclose all the limitations of claim 23, as discussed above, and further the combination of Turrin and Mehrotra clearly discloses the management entity further comprising a memory and at least one processing unit (see Turrin; paragraph 0053; Turrin discloses the system used for the operations includes a processor and memory).
Regarding claim 29, Turrin discloses a digital twin of an industrial device, wherein the digital twin and the industrial device are connected to a cellular network (see Turrin; paragraphs 0024, 0026 and 0038; Turrin discloses communication in a cellular network between an asset and its digital twin), the digital twin being operative to:
receive a register message from the industrial device, wherein the register message comprises: i) a subscription identifier; and ii) a type identifier identifying a device type and iii) a device identifier identifying the first industrial device (see Turrin; paragraphs 0026, 0031, 0032, 0036, 0039, 0046 and 0051; Turrin discloses a cellular network for communication between devices and initiating registration, i.e. “transmit a register message”, of a device when it is added to the network to a digital twin that is onboarded on a cloud platform. The registration message includes identification data of the device, such as, a thing identifier that uniquely identifies the IoT device, i.e. identifies the IoT device on the cellular network and therefore a “subscription identifier”, and a thing type that indicates a type of the device, i.e. “a type identifier”, and model, i.e. “device identifier identifying the first industrial device”), and
determine whether the received device identifier and the received subscription identifier correspond to an already stored device identifier and an already stored subscription identifier, respectively, which are stored in connection with the digital twin of the industrial device (see Turrin; paragraphs 0026, 0031, 0032, 0036, 0038, 0048 and 0051; Turrin discloses a cellular network for communication between devices. Identification data of the device includes a thing identifier that uniquely identifies the IoT device, i.e. identifies the IoT device on the cellular network and therefore a “subscription identifier” and a thing type identifier, i.e. “device identifier”. A request for a digital twin, based on the location identifier and serial number of the device, is sent. And it is determined that the digital twin, along with the identification data of the device, is already registered, and is maintained at asset central service, i.e. “…are stored in connection with the digital twin of the industrial device”).
While Turrin discloses a “digital twin”, as discussed above, Turrin does not explicitly disclose the digital twin is configured such that if digital twin determines that the received device identifier does not correspond to the already stored device identifier and the received subscription identifier corresponds to the already stored subscription identifier, the digital twin initiates a transmission of operating parameters of the industrial device to the industrial device.
In analogous art, Mehrotra discloses the digital twin is configured such that if digital twin determines that the received device identifier does not correspond to the already stored device identifier and the received subscription identifier corresponds to the already stored subscription identifier, the digital twin initiates a transmission of operating parameters of the industrial device to the industrial device (see Mehrotra; paragraphs 0029, 0095, 0105, 0106, 0114, 0125, 0128 and 0172; Mehrotra discloses searching a database for a digital twin based on determining a type, which is not stored, of the asset and comparing a unique identifier to a stored unique identifier, based on a particular subscription, i.e. “subscription identifier”, then operational parameters of the asset are sent, i.e. “transmission of operating parameters of the industrial device”, so that the type of digital twin is assigned to the type of asset/device).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Turrin and Mehrotra because they both disclose features of digital twin management, and as such are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the feature of managing digital twins in an asset management system as taught by Mehrotra into the system of Turrin in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by determining whether devices on a network have been registered and have corresponding digital twins (see Turrin; paragraphs 0049 and 0051), and if not, creating digital twins for an asset (see Mehrotra; paragraph 0125).
Regarding claim 30, Turrin and Mehrotra disclose all the limitations of claim 29, as discussed above, and further the combination of Turrin and Mehrotra clearly discloses further being operative, if the received device identifier does not correspond to the already stored device identifier and the received subscription identifier corresponds to the already stored subscription identifier, to: transmit an acknowledgment response in response to the register message (see Turrin; paragraphs 0038, 0039, 0046 and 0049; Turrin discloses initiating registration, i.e. “transmit a register message”, of a device when it is added to the network to a digital twin that is onboarded on a cloud platform. The registration message includes identification data of the device and a result is transmitted back in response to the registration, i.e. “an acknowledgment response in response to the register message”), and
initiate the transmission of the operating parameter, to generate a list of the operating parameters, and to transmit an update request including the list to the industrial device requesting the industrial device to update its operating parameters (see Mehrotra; paragraphs 0093, 0106, 0121, 0125 and 0137; Mehrotra discloses updating the code for the device to enable appropriate solutions to issues based on operational parameters, i.e. “generate a list of the operating parameters”, that are sent, i.e. “transmit an update request including…its operating parameters”)
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 29.
Regarding claim 31, Turrin and Mehrotra disclose all the limitations of claim 29, as discussed above, and further the combination of Turrin and Mehrotra clearly discloses further being operative, if the received device identifier corresponds to the already stored device identifier and the received subscription identifier corresponds to the already stored subscription identifier, to set a connection status of the industrial device indicating a connection status of the industrial device to its digital twin to connected and to determine that an update of the operating parameters is not necessary (see Turrin; paragraphs 0024, 0030, 0046, and 0051; Turrin discloses in response to connection, i.e. “set a connection status”, of the device, i.e. “industrial device”, to the digital twin, receiving data and determining whether an update is needed).
Regarding claim 32, Turrin and Mehrotra disclose all the limitations of claim 29, as discussed above, and further the combination of Turrin and Mehrotra clearly discloses further being operative to receive an information that the industrial device is going to disconnect from the cellular network and to set a connection status of the industrial device indicating a connection status of the industrial device to its digital twin to disconnected (see Turrin; paragraphs 0024, 0030, 0046, and 0051; Turrin discloses receiving data corresponding to the connection status of the device and digital twin, via onboarding, and whether the device is connected or added to the network, i.e. has or will be “disconnected”).
Regarding claim 33, Turrin and Mehrotra disclose all the limitations of claim 29, as discussed above, and further the combination of Turrin and Mehrotra clearly discloses further comprising a memory and at least one processing unit (see Turrin; paragraph 0053; Turrin discloses the system used for the operations includes a processor and memory).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mukhopadhyay et al. (U.S. 2021/0306416 A1) discloses a digital twin of an IT infrastructure is created to identify a group of critical servers.
Autry et al. (U.S. 2023/0045486 A1) discloses creating a digital twin in order to allow a new asset to be deployed.
Brikis et al. (U.S. 2023/0315073 A1) discloses updating a digital twin.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ADAM A COONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm (every other Fri off).
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/A.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2458 09/03/26
/UMAR CHEEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights