DETAILED ACTION
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
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomsen et al. (US20200265329A1 -hereinafter Thomsen) in view of Cella et al. (US20210157312A1 -hereinafter Cella).
Regarding Claim 1, Thomsen teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, via a processing system, one or more datasets associated with one or more industrial devices within an industrial system; (see [0080]; Thomsen: “Discovery component 406 can be configured to discover BIDTs (e.g., BIDTs 322) defined on industrial devices (e.g., industrial device 302) that are communicatively connected to the gateway device 402. Discovery component 406 can also be configured to retrieve data and metadata associated with the BIDTs for use in generating industrial data presentations.”) [BIDTs read on ‘one or more datasets’.]
identifying, via the processing system, one or more positions for the one or more visualization tools based on one or more available spaces within the digital representation; and (see [0185]; Thomsen: “For each industrial asset, the plant model 2818 can define physical dimensions and colors for the asset, as well as any animation supported by the graphical representation (e.g., color change animations, position animations that reflect movement of the asset, etc.). The plant models 2818 also define additional physical relationships between the industrial assets that may not be defined by the asset model 422, including relative positions and orientations of the assets on the plant floor, conduit or plumbing that runs between the assets, and other physical definitions.”)
overlaying, via the processing system, the one or more visualization tools at the one or more positions. (see [0186]; Thomsen: “Presentation component 508 can generate the VR presentation such that alphanumeric items of the BIDT data (e.g., speeds, pressures, flows, voltages, etc.) are overlaid on or near graphical representations of the industrial assets to which the items of data relate.”)
However, Thomsen does not explicitly teach:
simulating, via the processing system, one or more processes performed by the one or more industrial devices based on the one or more datasets;
presenting, via the processing system, a digital representation of the industrial system based on the one or more processes;
receiving, via the processing system, a request for one or more visualization tools associated with one or more digital assets corresponding to the one or more industrial devices within the digital representation;
Cella from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
simulating, via the processing system, one or more processes performed by the one or more industrial devices based on the one or more datasets; (see [0026]; Cella: “the simulation simulates one of an operation of a machine in the industrial environment that produces an output based on a set of inputs and movement of workers in the industrial environment.”)
presenting, via the processing system, a digital representation of the industrial system based on the one or more processes; (see [5282]; Cella: “A digital twin may refer to a digital representation of one or more industrial entities, such as an industrial environment 40020, a physical object 40022, a device 40024, a sensor 40026, a human 40028, or any combination thereof. Examples of industrial environments 40020 include, but are not limited to, a factory, a power plant, a food production facility (which may include an inspection facility), a commercial kitchen, an indoor growing facility, a natural resources excavation site (e.g., a mine, an oil field, etc.), and the like.”)
receiving, via the processing system, a request for one or more visualization tools associated with one or more digital assets corresponding to the one or more industrial devices within the digital representation; (see [5304]; Cella: “the digital twin system 40000 may use a graph database to generate a digital twin that may be rendered and displayed and/or may be represented in a data representation. In the former scenario, the digital twin system 40000 may receive a request to render a digital twin, whereby the request includes one or more parameters that are indicative of a view that will be depicted.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Thomsen to include Cella’s features of simulating, via the processing system, one or more processes performed by the one or more industrial devices based on the one or more datasets; presenting, via the processing system, a digital representation of the industrial system based on the one or more processes; receiving, via the processing system, a request for one or more visualization tools associated with one or more digital assets corresponding to the one or more industrial devices within the digital representation. Doing so would quickly and efficiently determine costs and/or benefits flowing from inclusion, exclusion, or substitution of real-world elements within the environment. (Cella, [5340])
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Thomsen and Cella teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Thomsen further teaches wherein the one or more visualization tools comprise one or more time-series charts. (see [0130]; Thomsen: “The presentation component 508 can also generate and display auxiliary data based on the BIDT data. For example, when a node of the navigation menu 1602 having an associated rate BIDT is selected, the presentation component 508 can display the current rate value using an appropriate graphical widget, as well as a time-based trend graph showing the value of the rate BIDT over time.”)
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Thomsen and Cella teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above, Thomsen further teaches wherein the one or more time-series charts are generated based on real-time data associated with the one or more digital assets. (see [0067]; Thomsen: “industrial devices 204 serve as inputs and outputs for industrial controllers 202, which control their output industrial devices in accordance with user-defined control routines (e.g., ladder logic programs, sequential function chart programs, etc.) and the current values and statuses of the input industrial devices. Data generated by industrial devise 204 reflect the current statuses of the industrial assets 206.”)
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Thomsen and Cella teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Thomsen further teaches wherein each of the one or more time-series charts comprise a period of time determined based on a detected trend within the one or more datasets. (see [0130]; Thomsen: “when a node of the navigation menu 1602 having an associated rate BIDT is selected, the presentation component 508 can display the current rate value using an appropriate graphical widget, as well as a time-based trend graph showing the value of the rate BIDT over time.”)
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Thomsen and Cella teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Thomsen further teaches comprising:
receiving one or more inputs via the one or more visualization tools (see [0068]; Thomsen: “At the user level, customized applications—e.g., reporting applications, visualization applications, enterprise resource planning applications, manufacturing execution systems, etc.—can collect selected subsets of information available in industrial controllers 206 and present this information as formatted data 210 to a user in accordance with data presentation formats defined in the applications 208.”), wherein the one or more inputs correspond to one or more target set points for the one or more digital assets; and (see [0070]; Thomsen: “ Within an industrial device or controller configuration, a user can define associations between respective physical assets (e.g., a machine, a production line, etc.) and one or more of the basic information data types. This can include, for example, defining one or more data tags representing a metric or status of the physical asset and associating each tag with one of the basic information data types. Each basic information data type has associated metadata that can be configured by a user to customize the data tag for a given industrial application (e.g., maximum and minimum values for rate data types, roll-over values for odometer data types, event or state names for event and state data types, any parent-child relationships between data tags, etc.).”)
sending one or more commands to one or more industrial devices based on the one or more inputs. (see [0067]; Thomsen: “Industrial controllers 202 perform supervisory monitoring and control of the industrial assets 206 via industrial devices 204. In this regard, industrial devices 204 serve as inputs and outputs for industrial controllers 202, which control their output industrial devices in accordance with user-defined control routines (e.g., ladder logic programs, sequential function chart programs, etc.) and the current values and statuses of the input industrial devices.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitations in this claim are taught by the combination of Thomsen and Cella as discussed connection with claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitations in this claim are taught by the combination of Thomsen and Cella as discussed connection with claim 2.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitations in this claim are taught by the combination of Thomsen and Cella as discussed connection with claim 3.
Regarding Claim 11, the limitations in this claim are taught by the combination of Thomsen and Cella as discussed connection with claim 4.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitations in this claim are taught by the combination of Thomsen and Cella as discussed connection with claim 5.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations in this claim are taught by the combination of Thomsen and Cella as discussed connection with claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16, the limitations in this claim are taught by the combination of Thomsen and Cella as discussed connection with claim 2.
Regarding Claim 17, the limitations in this claim are taught by the combination of Thomsen and Cella as discussed connection with claim 3.
Regarding Claim 18, the limitations in this claim are taught by the combination of Thomsen and Cella as discussed connection with claim 4.
Regarding Claim 19, the limitations in this claim are taught by the combination of Thomsen and Cella as discussed connection with claim 5.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomsen in view of Cella in view of Ramanasankaran et al. (US20240086740A1 -hereinafter Ramanasankaran).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Thomsen teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more commands are sent after verifying that one or more parameters associated with the digital representation is less than a threshold.
Ramanasankaran from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the one or more commands are sent after verifying that one or more parameters associated with the digital representation is less than a threshold. (see [0210]; Ramanasankaran: “the building data platform 100 can identify the operations for the triggers and/or actions. For example, the operation could be comparing a measurement to a threshold, determining whether a measurement is less than a threshold, determining whether a measurement is greater than the threshold, determining whether the measurement is not equal to the threshold, etc.” See [0054]: “The information data store can store the information describing the entity that the digital twin operates for (e.g., attributes of the entity, measurements associated with the entity, control points or commands of the entity, etc.).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Thomsen and Cella to include Ramanasankaran’s features of the one or more commands are sent after verifying that one or more parameters associated with the digital representation is less than a threshold. Doing so would optimize the identified relationships between the measurements and the actions by maximizing a reward or minimizing a penalty. (Ramanasankaran, [0212])
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations in this claim are taught by the combination of Thomsen, Cella, and Ramanasankaran as discussed connection with claim 6.
Regarding Claim 20, the limitations in this claim are taught by the combination of Thomsen, Cella, and Ramanasankaran as discussed connection with claim 6.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomsen in view of Cella in view of Zarur et al. (US20220027529A1 -hereinafter Zarur).
Regarding Claim 7, Thomsen and Cella teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more visualization tools are generated by a container.
Zarur from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the one or more visualization tools are generated by a container. (see [0324]; Zarur: “operating system 5330 can support containers, and application programs 5332 can be in the form of containers, which are lightweight, standalone, executable packages of software that include, e.g., code, runtime, system tools, system libraries and settings for an application.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Thomsen and Cella to include Zarur’s features of a container generating the one or more visualization tools. Doing so would improve the design process, perform digital simulations of the assets prior to deployment, collect metrics, and perform analytics on both the simulated assets and the physical assets. (Zarur, [0220])
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations in this claim are taught by the combination of Thomsen and Cella as discussed connection with claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Havey (US20250139313) discloses committing a data representation of the physical structure to a digital twin; transmitting the digital twin to a remote device; receiving an update to the digital twin from the remote device, producing an updated digital twin; and rendering, via a second user interface scene, a graphical representation of the updated digital twin.
Davis (US 12523999 B2) discloses the cross-correlated information may then be visually represented within the graphical model by displaying the cross-correlated information near the corresponding virtual asset or by utilizing the cross-correlated information to alter a visual representation of the virtual asset itself.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VI N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1108. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, ROBERT FENNEMA can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/V.N.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/Christopher E. Everett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
