DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2-15, 22, 34, and 36-38 have been preliminarily 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 .
Examiner Comment
The examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication in response to the present action. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate with Applicant using Internet email to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03 for other methods of providing written authorization.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/29/23 has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 16-21, the examiner interprets the claimed “industrial device” as requiring hardware, as this is how the Applicant’s specification defines it. According to the specification, the industrial device may also comprise a memory and at least one processing unit (see applicant’s specification as filed; page 3 lines 24-26).
Further, since the “industrial device” is interpreted as hardware, then the claims are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Regarding claims 23-27, the examiner interprets the claimed “management entity” as requiring hardware, as this is how the Applicant’s specification defines it. According to the specification, the management entity furthermore comprises a processing unit which includes one or more processors (see applicant’s specification as filed; page 15 lines 24-28).
Regarding claims 29-32, the examiner interprets the claimed “digital twin” as requiring hardware, as this is how the Applicant’s specification defines it. According to the specification, the digital twin can furthermore comprise a memory and at least one processing unit (see applicant’s specification as filed; page 5 lines 27-29).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 communication identifier by which the industrial device is uniquely identified when communicating in the cellular network (see Sachs; paragraphs 0641 and 0642; Sachs discloses determining two identifiers, such as, an IMSI, a 15-digit identifier, i.e. “a communication identifier”, of the UE, as well as, an alternative identifier, such as a private identifier, e.g. a network address identifier, i.e. “a communication identifier”, for communicating on the 5G network, i.e. “uniquely identified when communicating in the cellular network”),
determining a type identifier identifying a type of device of the industrial device (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. 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 configured to manage digital twins of a plurality of industrial devices in the cellular network taking into account at least the network identifier and the communication identifier.
In analogous art, Mehrotra discloses determining a network address of a management entity configured to manage digital twins of a plurality of industrial devices in the cellular network taking into account at least the network identifier and the communication identifier (see Mehrotra; paragraphs 0050, 0093, 0096, 0098 and 0114; Mehrotra discloses examining, i.e. “determine”, network related information, e.g. IP address, i.e. “a network address”, of components of an industrial automation system for communication, i.e. using a “communication identifier”, with an asset management system, i.e. “management entity”, including assets in mobile networks, such as 4G and 5G, i.e. using a “network identifier”, in which the assets include industrial devices, i.e. “a plurality of industrial devices in the cellular network”. The asset management system creates and allows access to digital twins, i.e. “manage digital twins”, corresponding to the assets).
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 at least the communication 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 at least the communication identifier, and the type identifier (see Turrin; paragraphs 0026, 0031, 0032, 0036, 0038 and 0048; Turrin discloses a cellular network for communication between devices. Identification data of the devices include a location identifier, i.e. “communication identifier”, that indicates where on the network the device is located 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. location identifier and type, i.e. the “discover request comprising at least the communication 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 communication identifier by which the industrial device is uniquely identified when communicating in the cellular network (see Sachs; paragraphs 0641 and 0642; Sachs discloses determining two identifiers, such as, an IMSI, a 15-digit identifier, i.e. “a communication identifier”, of the UE, as well as, an alternative identifier, such as a private identifier, e.g. a network address identifier, i.e. “a communication identifier”, for communicating on the 5G network, i.e. “uniquely identified when communicating in the cellular network”),
determine a type identifier identifying a type of device of the industrial device (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. 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 configured to manage digital twins of a plurality of industrial devices in the cellular network taking into account at least the network identifier and the communication identifier.
In analogous art, Mehrotra determine a network address of a management entity configured to manage digital twins of a plurality of industrial devices in the cellular network taking into account at least the network identifier and the communication identifier (see Mehrotra; paragraphs 0050, 0093, 0096, 0098 and 0114; Mehrotra discloses examining, i.e. “determine”, network related information, e.g. IP address, i.e. “a network address”, of components of an industrial automation system for communication, i.e. using a “communication identifier”, with an asset management system, i.e. “management entity”, including assets in mobile networks, such as 4G and 5G, i.e. using a “network identifier”, in which the assets include industrial devices, i.e. “a plurality of industrial devices in the cellular network”. The asset management system creates and allows access to digital twins, i.e. “manage digital twins”, corresponding to the assets).
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 at least the communication 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 at least the communication identifier, and the type identifier (see Turrin; paragraphs 0026, 0031, 0032, 0036, 0038 and 0048; Turrin discloses a cellular network for communication between devices. Identification data of the devices include a location identifier, i.e. “communication identifier”, that indicates where on the network the device is located 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. location identifier and type, i.e. the “discover request comprising at least the communication 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 communication 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, the discover request comprising at least a communication identifier by which the industrial device is uniquely identified when communicating in the cellular network, and a type identifier identifying which type of device the industrial device is (see Turrin; paragraphs 0026, 0031, 0032, 0036, 0038 and 0048; Turrin discloses a cellular network for communication between devices. Identification data of the devices include a location identifier that indicates a location where the device is installed, i.e. “communication identifier by which the industrial device is uniquely identified”, and an identifier that identifies the type of device, i.e. “type identifier identifying which type of device the industrial device is”. 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 communication identifier of the first industrial device is already known to the management entity (see Turrin; paragraphs 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 the location identifier, i.e. “communication 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 communication identifier of the first industrial device is not already known to the management entity, determine whether the type identifier of the first industrial device 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, e.g. location identifier, i.e. “communication 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 “determining that the type identifier of the first industrial device is known to the management entity”, as discussed above, Turrin does not explicitly disclose as a result of determining that the type identifier of the first industrial device is 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 that the type identifier of the first industrial device is 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, 0098, 0125, 0128 and 0137; 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, 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 communication 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 include a location identifier that indicates a location where the device is installed, i.e. “communication 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 communication identifier of the first industrial device 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 and 0137; 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 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 communication identifier in connection with the new digital twin, when the communication identifier is not known to the management entity (see Turrin; paragraphs 0031-0036 and 0051; Turrin discloses identification data of the devices include a location identifier that indicates a location where the device is installed, i.e. “communication 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, the register message comprising a type identifier identifying which type of device the industrial device is, a communication identifier, by which the industrial device is uniquely identified when communicating in the cellular network, and a device identifier uniquely identifying the industrial device (see Turrin; paragraphs 0031, 0036, 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. The registration message includes identification data of the device, such as, a location identifier that indicates where the device is installed on the network, i.e. “a communication identifier”, and an identifier uniquely that uniquely identifies the device, i.e. “a device identifier”), and
determine whether the received device identifier and the received communication identifier correspond to an already stored device identifier and an already stored communication identifier, respectively, which are stored in connection with the digital twin of the industrial device (see Turrin; paragraphs 0031, 0032, 0036, 0038, 0048 and 0051; Turrin discloses the identification data of the device includes the location identifier, i.e. “communication identifier” and the identifier that uniquely identifies the device, e.g. serial number, 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 communication identifier corresponds to the already stored communication 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 communication identifier corresponds to the already stored communication 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, and 0128; 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, i.e. “communication identifier”, to a stored unique 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 communication identifier corresponds to the already stored communication 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 communication identifier corresponds to the already stored communication 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:
Cella et al. (U.S. 2023/0281527 A1) discloses industrial digital twins.
Marquez et al. (U.S. 2023/0393443 A1) discloses registering a device into a digital twin.
Ens et al. (U.S. 2022/0261490 A1) discloses assigning an IP address to a digital twin.
Miller et al. (U.S. 2022/0091591 A1) discloses digital representations of industrial devices.
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 03/18/26
/UMAR CHEEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2458