DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Prosecutorial Standing
Election/Restrictions
2. Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups 2 and 3, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12.01.025.
3. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 (which corresponds to claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 12.01.025 is acknowledged.
4. Therefore, claims 1-8 will be subject to further examination and evaluation in due course, and will be presented for examination, as detailed below.
Oath/Declaration
5. The Applicants’ oath/declaration has been reviewed by the Examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the Applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 11.19.2025 is acknowledged by the Examiner. The cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C (2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed, signed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Statutory Category: claims 1-8 are directed to the abstract idea, as they relate to systems and methods for inventory management and digital twin synchronization. The claims appear to fall under the grouping of abstract idea related to certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claim 1 recites a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as it relates to monitoring a machine, notifying a client, and synchronizing a digital twin. Therefore, the claim falls under certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes.
Exemplary independent claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas:
an active monitoring service;
detect active triggering events;
notify a client of active triggering events;
initiate a partial or full inventory collection;
collecting data from partial or full inventory collection.
These limitations collectively recite collecting information, analyzing information, and transmitting information (monitoring/detecting events, notifying another party, initiating data/inventory collection/maintaining, and synchronizing a digital record of an asset). The claim constitutes an abstract idea, e.g., mental processes and/or methods of organizing human activity and information management, including monitoring conditions, detecting events, notifying a recipient, collecting inventory, and updating a record to reflect current status. These are concepts that can be performed by humans using pen and paper, and accordingly claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations, and including systems and methods for inventory management and digital twin synchronization, therefore it would fall under sales activities or behaviors, therefore it would fall under commercial or legal interactions, which falls under certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely describes the concept for inventory management and digital twin synchronization using generally recited computer elements such as a machine, an active monitoring service, a client, a server, an OTA connection, and a digital twin. These additional elements of a machine, an active monitoring service, a client, a server, an OTA connection, and a digital twin, in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and are merely invoked as tools for inventory management and digital twin synchronization. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the Commercial or Business Practices or Legal Interactions subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. These elements (monitoring, detection, notification functionality, data collection, updating a digital record, and information management function) are generic computer components performing well-understood, routine, and conventional functions (e.g., data gathering, collecting and analyzing data).
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. The claim merely uses a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea of inventory management and digital twin synchronization, which fails to add an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Therefore claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., systems and methods for inventory management and digital twin synchronization) without significantly more. Accordingly, claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Furthermore, claims 2-8 define the same abstract idea noted above for independent claim 1, are considered to be part of the abstract idea above and merely act to further limit it. In the dependent claims, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer functioning in a standard mode of operation or matters that are routine and conventional in the field. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Additionally, claims 2-8 do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Therefore, the limitations of the claimed invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter. To address this rejection, the examiner suggests reviewing the recent Federal Circuit Court decisions and USPTO guidelines related to U.S.C. 101 for guidance on what is considered statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramnani et al., Pub. No.: US 2023/0169805 in view of Sharma et al., Pub. No.: US 2023/0094805.
As per claim 1, Ramnani discloses a system, comprising: a machine [see at least ¶0037 (e.g., machine learning service)];
an active monitoring service configured to monitor the machine [see at least ¶0042 (e.g., trigger monitoring 160), and as illustrated in FIG. 1 (e.g., block 160)], detect active triggering events [see at least ¶0033 (e.g., a trigger event)], and notify a client of the machine of active triggering events [see at least ¶0063 (e.g., communications interface 422 configured to issue notifications to the customer)], wherein the client is configured to initiate a partial or full inventory collection in response to receiving notification of an active triggering event [see at least ¶0052 (e.g., the vehicle identity registry 110 may automatically maintain and update the fleet without customer instructions as the collection of vehicles (which are collected together based on common vehicle attributes) change), ¶0053 (e.g., data collection scheme controller 108 may receive from the customer various data collection schemes or configurations that instruct vehicles what data to collect from the vehicle, when to collect the data, and the frequency at which the data should be published to the vehicle communication interface 180 as well as various other parameters, including a data reduction factor that restricts vehicles in a fleet to sending only a percentage of the time based on total number of vehicles in the same region)]; and
a digital twin, wherein the digital twin is a digital replica of the machine synchronized [see at least ¶0060 (e.g., a designer canvas, such as designer canvas 402, includes a digital twin user interface 404, a fleet user interface 406, and a vehicle scheme user interface 408. The digital twin user interface 404 may enable an engineer of the customer to view and interact with a digital twin for a given real-world vehicle, wherein the digital twin comprises near-real time vehicle information extracted from the real-world vehicle. The fleet user interface 406 may enable an engineer of the customer to view and interface with a digital twin representing a class (or fleet) of vehicles. The fleet digital twin may include aggregated data representing near real-time states of a class of vehicles matching a fleet definition for the fleet. The fleet digital twin may include twins of vehicles belonging to various OEMs and may have differing in-vehicle formats. The digital fleet twins may be generated by using the vehicle decoder rules and vehicle model configuration to combine the various in-vehicle formats into a single fleet using a homogeneous vehicle signal format. Additionally, digital twin user interface 404 and fleet user interface 406 may enable an engineer of the customer to view and interact with historical data extracted from the real-world vehicle or the fleet of real-world vehicles. In some embodiments, a digital twin may be created for a vehicle using designer canvas 402 prior to the real-world vehicle being built), and as illustrated in FIG. 4].
Ramnani discloses all elements per claims invention as exclaimed above. Ramnani does not explicitly disclose a server external to the machine and communicatively coupled to the client via over the air (OTA) connection. However, Sharma discloses a server external to the machine and communicatively coupled to the client via over the air (OTA) connection [see at least ¶0013 (e.g., telematics server), and the abstract (e.g., over-the-air (OTA) update of electronic control units)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Sharma in order to provide telematics, and more specifically to systems and methods for safe over-the-air update of electronic control units [see Sharma: ¶0001].
As per claim 2, Ramnani discloses wherein the active triggering event comprises one or more changes in one or more of hardware, software, or containers of the machine [see at least ¶0120 (e.g., methods may be implemented manually, in software, in hardware, or in a combination)].
As per claim 3, Ramnani discloses wherein the system further comprises a machine learning component configured to learn from the active triggering events and provide a model for the active monitoring service to optimize monitoring according to a current state of the machine, bandwidth, and computing power [see at least the abstract of the invention].
As per claim 4, Ramnani discloses wherein the machine learning component is communicatively coupled to the server [see at least ¶0120 (e.g., the functionality of the data transfer tool, various services, databases, devices and/or other communication devices, etc.)].
As per claim 5, Ramnani discloses wherein the system further comprises a passive event service configured to await passive triggering events and notify the client of the passive triggering events, and wherein the client is further adapted to initiate a full inventory collection in response to receiving notification of a passive triggering event [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 5 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 5. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 6, Ramnani discloses wherein the system further comprises an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) system communicatively coupled to the client via OTA connection and configured to prepare a software update package for the machine according to the data [see at least ¶0060 (e.g., digital twin may include twins of vehicles belonging to various OEMs and may have differing in-vehicle formats), and see the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 6 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 6. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 7, Ramnani discloses wherein the digital twin is accessible by one or more original equipment manufacturers [see at least ¶0060 (e.g., digital twin may include twins of vehicles belonging to various OEMs and may have differing in-vehicle formats)].
As per claim 8, Ramnani discloses wherein a partial inventory collection collects a portion of available inventory and a full inventory collection collects all of the available inventory [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 8 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 8. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The PTO-1449 forms have been reviewed and considered.
US 2024/0362561, EZRIELEV: discloses methods and systems for managing data workflows performed by data processing systems throughout a distributed environment.
US 2022/0048468, Bucheleres: discloses systems and methods for vehicle inventory management.
US 2021/0390498, Ohlsson: discloses systems and methods that may advantageously apply machine learning to accurately manage and predict inventory variables with future uncertainty.
US 11,200,535, Greenbaum: discloses Systems, devices, and methods for automatically monitoring and managing inventory in real time within a retail environment.
US 2022/471658, COOPER SIMON: discloses machine learning system for processing incoming event data associated with a transaction.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Garcia Ade whose telephone number is (571)272-5586. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached at 517-272-6790. 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.
/Garcia Ade/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
GARCIA ADE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/GA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627