DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to the claims filed 20 May 2024. Claims 1-12 are pending. Claim 1 is an independent claim.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2019/0286117 A1) hereinafter known as Tanaka in view of Baudisch (WO 2021/037498 A1, attached as pdf), hereinafter known as Baudisch.
Regarding independent claim 1, Tanaka teaches:
A computer-implemented method for monitoring or controlling a machine, wherein during operation of the machine (Tanaka: ¶[0006]-¶[0007]; Tanaka teaches monitoring a machine for abnormalities.)
a) present operating signals of the machine are continually recorded and a present operating state of the machine is continually measured, (Tanaka: ¶[0037], ¶[0052], and ¶[0055]; Tanaka teaches generating actual machine trace data, which includes time series data.)
b) a concurrent simulator takes the recorded operating signals as a basis for continually ascertaining a simulated operating state of the machine, (Tanaka: ¶[0041] and ¶[0061]-¶[0064]; Tanaka teaches a simulator which processes actual machine input data and generates time series data.)
c) detection of a difference between the simulated operating state and the measured operating state results in a difference pattern, which quantifies the difference or a change in the measured operating state, being compared with multiple predefined difference types that are characteristic of a modification of the machine or of machine operation ... , (Tanaka: ¶[0042] and ¶[0084]-¶[0086]; Tanaka teaches detecting a difference between the actual machine trace data and the simulation trace data and acquiring condition data. Figs. 4-7 and ¶[0091] and ¶[0094]-¶[0096] teach determining whether the differences exceed a permissible error.)
...
...
...
Tanaka does not explicitly teach but Baudisch teaches:
... and that each have an assigned difference-type-specific simulator variant (Baudisch: pgs. 3-4; Baudisch teaches step d – simulating the system status with the initialized digital twin. One of several predefined types of errors can be selected and the digital twin can be manipulated accordingly.)
d) the comparison result is taken as a basis for selecting one of the difference types, (Baudisch: pg. 3; Baudisch teaches that if the simulated system status and the real system do not match at the time of the error, the digital twin is reinitialized with the most recent error-free system status.)
e) the concurrent simulator is adapted on the basis of the simulator variant assigned to the selected difference type, and (Baudisch: pg. 3; Baudisch teaches that if the simulated system status and the real system do not match at the time of the error, the digital twin is reinitialized with the most recent error-free system status.)
f) the machine is monitored or controlled by the adapted concurrent simulator. (Baudisch: pg. 3; Baudisch teaches after the simulation, if the simulated system status and the real system status match, the cause of error can be deduced. In other words, the system iterates through types until a match is found.)
Tanaka and Baudisch Herger are in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as the references are directed to monitoring of industrial machines using a simulation model running in parallel with the real machine. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a monitoring of industrial machines using a simulation model running in parallel with the real machine and detect differences between the time series data that exceed permissible error amounts as taught in Tanaka with the simulator containing defined types of errors to identify the cause of the deviation as taught in Baudisch. Tanaka does teach determining whether the detected difference satisfies the predetermined condition but does not explicitly teach the difference types in the simulator variant. Baudisch provides this additional functionality. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Tanaka to include teachings of Baudisch, because the combination would allow reliable identification of the causes of errors in automated system, as suggested by Baudisch: pg. 3.
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka in view of Baudisch further teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
Tanaka further teaches:
the predefined difference types each have one or more assigned reference patterns, a respectively ascertained difference pattern is compared with the reference patterns, a measure of similarity being ascertained in each case, and the difference type is selected on the basis of the ascertained measures of similarity. (Tanaka: Fig. 4 and ¶[0091]; Tanaka teaches number of times a condition that the detected difference exceeds the permissible error is established. The conditions being associated with a specific variable, number of determination points, permissible error, and a count detection period.)
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka in view of Baudisch further teaches the method as claimed in claim 2.
Tanaka further teaches:
wherein a respectively predefined difference type has one or more assigned reference patterns that are characteristic of a replacement of machine components, of structural, topological and/or functional modifications of the machine, of a change of product in the case of a production plant, of a change in a user behavior or a work schedule, of maintenance work and/or of a change in a configuration of the machine. (Tanaka: Figs. 4 and 7 and ¶[0098] and ¶[0107]; Tanaka teaches a failure prediction system of components.)
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka in view of Baudisch further teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
Baudisch further teaches:
wherein the ascertained difference pattern is compared with a respective difference type by using the simulator variant assigned to the respective difference type to ascertain a further simulated operating state, comparing the further simulated operating state with the measured operating state, and selecting the difference type on the basis of the comparison result. (Baudisch: pg. 3; Baudisch teaches after the simulation, if the simulated system status and the real system status match, the cause of error can be deduced. In other words, the system iterates through types until a match is found.)
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka in view of Baudisch further teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
Tanaka further teaches:
wherein, the ascertained difference patterns are stored in a database, and the stored difference patterns are taken into consideration for a subsequent selection of the difference type. (Tanaka: ¶[0064]-¶[0067]; Tanaka teaches storing condition data relating to abnormalities in memory.)
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka in view of Baudisch further teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
Baudisch further teaches:
wherein, a respectively predefined difference type has an assigned item of cause information about a difference-causing machine component, and the concurrent simulator is adapted in a manner specific to the machine component on the basis of the cause information assigned to the selected difference type. (Baudisch: pg. 3; Baudisch teaches after the simulation, if the simulated system status and the real system status match, the cause of error can be deduced. In other words, the system iterates through types until a match is found.)
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka in view of Baudisch further teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
Baudisch further teaches:
wherein, a respectively predefined difference type has an assigned variant of the machine, and the concurrent simulator is adapted in a manner specific to the machine variant on the basis of the variant of the machine assigned to the selected difference type. (Baudisch: pg. 3; Baudisch teaches after the simulation, if the simulated system status and the real system status match, the cause of error can be deduced. In other words, the system iterates through types until a match is found.)
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka in view of Baudisch further teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
Baudisch further teaches:
wherein, the difference types and/or the assigned simulator variants are semantically specified by a knowledge graph. (Tanaka: Fig. 4 and ¶[0091]; Tanaka teaches a table, interpreted as the knowledge graph, which relates the different variables to permissible error, number of determination points, etc...)
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka in view of Baudisch further teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
Tanaka further teaches:
wherein, a sensitivity of a respective operating state to a respective operating signal is ascertained, the ascertained sensitivities are taken as a basis for selecting a group of operating states, and detection of the difference is limited to the group of selected operating states. (Tanaka: Fig. 4 and ¶[0091]; Tanaka teaches determining the number of determination points to see whether or not the detected difference exceeds the permissible error. The foregoing is interpreted as sensitivity. The operating signal is the data being received from the machine.)
Regarding claims 11 and 12, these claims recite a computer program product and a computer-readable storage medium that performs the function of the method of claim 1; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX OLSHANNIKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-0667. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALEKSEY OLSHANNIKOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights