DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Remarks
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In reference to claims 1-8 and 9-16, claims 1 and 9 comprise the limitations of, “for the virtual model being determined as existing…” and “for the event being detected…” (see lines 6 and 8 of claim 1 for example) of which the Examiner deems as indefinite as the claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which Applicant regards as the invention. In particular, these claims solely recite limitations that occur “if and only if” the “virtual model” “exists” and “if and only if” the “event” is “detected.” In other words, the claims recite limitations that are only performed when only certain conditions are met and fail to recite limitations that occur or don’t occur when those certain conditions are not met thereby making the claims indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention in the scenario that is not described by the “if-then” type language of the current claims 1 and 9. For example, if the “virtual model” does not “exist” and/or the “event” is not “detected” the claims recite limitations which incur issues such as antecedent basis or further 112 issues and ultimately do not describe that which is referred to as the invention as per the Applicant’s specification. Note, claims 2-8 and 10-16 depend upon claims 1 and 9 and are therefore also included in this rejection. Note, claims 3, 7, 11 and 14 recite limitations that describe the scenarios that the Examiner is referencing above however these claims depend upon claims 1 and 9 which are affected and are therefore inherently included in this rejection. Lastly, the Examiner suggests simply adding language of these claims or similar language thereto, to the independent claims in order to remedy this 35 USC 112 issue.
In reference to claims 17-20, claim 17 comprises the limitation of, “for the constraint being determined as existing…” (see lines 8-9 of the claim) of which the Examiner deems as indefinite as the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which Applicant regards as the invention. In particular, the claim solely recites limitations that occur “if and only if” the “constraint” is “detected.” In other words, the claim recites limitations that are only performed when only certain conditions are met and fail to recite limitations that occur or don’t occur when those certain conditions are not met thereby making the claim indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention in the scenario that is not described by the “if-then” type language of the current claim. For example, if the “constraint” does not “exist” the claim recites limitations which incur issues such as antecedent basis or further 112 issues and ultimately does not describe that which is referred to as the invention as per the Applicant’s specification. Note, claims 18-20 depend upon claim 17 and are therefore also included in this rejection. Note, claim 19 recites limitations that describe the scenario that the Examiner is referencing above however the claim depends upon claim 17 which is affected and is therefore inherently included in this rejection. Lastly, the Examiner suggests simply adding language of this claim or similar language thereto, to the independent claim in order to remedy this 35 USC 112 issue.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 9 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
In reference to claims 1 and 9, the Examiner makes note of a term/concept which, in combination and integration with the other limitations of the claims, is seen as the major novel aspect of the invention and which was not found in the prior art of record. The Examiner makes note of the term/concept of a distributed digital twin controlling method and system that determines a virtual model for controlling a predetermined process operated by a physical asset and performing fluctuation detection on fused data to detect occurrence of an event if the virtual model exists and updates the virtual model to an updated virtual model if the event is detected thereby controlling the physical asset based upon the updated virtual model.
In reference to claim 17, the Examiner makes note of a term/concept which, in combination and integration with the other limitations of the claims, is seen as the major novel aspect of the invention and which was not found in the prior art of record. The Examiner makes note of the term/concept of a distributed digital twin controlling method that identifies a physical asset sub-system for a physical asset based on generated fused data, determining whether a constrain in the user input exists and if so, reconfiguring a first virtual model corresponding to the physical asset based on the constraint to generate a second virtual model.
References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Liu et al. (U.S. Publication 2025/0170720)
Liu et al. discloses a method that includes a twin model management system presenting a video stream captured by a robot in an industrial facility and interacting with a target device using the video stream.
Smith et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0191648)
Smith et al. discloses systems and techniques for digital twin framework for next generation networks.
Sha et al. (U.S. Patent 11,463,322)
Sha et al. discloses techniques for generating a virtual representation of an internet-connected device computing environment and managing the device computing environment via virtual representation.
Zhou et al. (CN 118898206)
Zhou et al. discloses a system and method of data acquisition in a digital twin platform environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Antonio Caschera whose telephone number is (571) 272-7781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 6:30 AM and 2:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Said Broome, can be reached at (571) 272-2931.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____________
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
571-273-8300 (Central Fax)
See the listing of “Mail Stops” at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp and include the appropriate designation in the address above.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Antonio A Caschera/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
7/24/26
Prosecution Insights