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 Interpretation
The following terms have required interpretation:
Process areas: departments in an organization (Based on paragraph 7 of the applicant’s specification);
Enterprise: organization (Based on paragraphs 6-7 of the applicant’s specification);
Model: operational model that is a digital representation of an organization (Based on paragraph 14 of the applicant’s specification); and
Play: digital twin (Based on paragraph 15 of the applicant’s specification).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,288,178. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-2 of the instant application merely removes limitations, broadens limitations, further narrows limitations, and/or recites obvious variants of claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,288,178.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per the “Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications” issued on January 21, 2011 and MPEP 2161.01, the first paragraph of § 112 contains a written description requirement that is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. The written description requirement of § 112, ¶ 1 applies to all claims including original claims that are part of the disclosure as filed. Claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function.
Originally filed claim 1 recites only functional limitations describing a genus of the applicant invention. Said genus not limiting to who or what device is performing any of the claimed steps. For example, claim 1 recites: “(I) identifying process areas (302) in the enterprise and selecting process areas (302) for creation of model;(II) identifying and listing objects and entities participating in the process area (302);(III) identifying holonic entities (402 n) from the list and merging all non-holonic entities as properties of one or more holonic entities (402 n);(IV) qualifying holonic entities (402 n), based on attributes of the holonic entities (402 n)”. These limitations recite functional limitations directed to a genus of “identifying in any manner by any person or any computer, process areas…”; selecting, in any manner by any person or by any computer, process areas…”; “identifying, in any manner by any person or any computer, holonic entities…”; “merging, in any manner by any person or any computer, all non-holonic entities as properties…” and “qualifying, in any manner by any person or any computer…, based on any attributes of the holonic entities”. The functional language of claim 1 requires the specification to sufficiently identify enough species of said limitations to prove the applicant had possession of the claimed genus of said limitations. The only species of identifying process areas, selecting process areas, identifying and listing objects based on properties, associating (merging) non-holonic entities as properties of holonic entities, qualifying holonic entities based on their properties (attributes) that the examiner has been able to find in the applicant’s disclosure is in paragraphs 109-112 of the applicant’s specification where multiple stakeholders such as process owners collaborate to perform these steps. There is no disclosure in the applicant’s specification that discloses performing these steps by another means such as by a client device, server, or other device. As such, the applicant’s disclosure does not support performing these steps in any other fashion than a human being performing the steps. These steps are only exemplary, the same can be said for each and every limitation of claim 1.
The test for sufficiency, under the first paragraph of 35 USC 112(a) written description, is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. In order to find support for the claimed genus, there must be sufficient species of performing the claimed step to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the applicant has possession of the claimed genus of claim 1. However, the single species of performing the claimed steps by human beings disclosed in the specification is not a sufficient number of species for performing the claims steps to convince one of ordinary skill in the art that the applicant has possession of performing the claimed steps in another manner such as performing them by a computer based on raw data about an organization. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could not determine that the applicant had possession of such genus of the invention being claimed.
While, the level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology. Computer-implemented inventions are often disclosed and claimed in terms of their functionality. This is because writing computer programming code for software to perform specific functions is normally within the skill of the art once those functions have been adequately disclosed. Nevertheless, for computer-implemented inventions, the determination of the sufficiency of disclosure will require an inquiry into both the sufficiency of the disclosed hardware as well as the disclosed software due to the interrelationship and interdependence of computer hardware and software. When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. Specifically, if one skilled in the art would know how to program the disclosed computer to perform the necessary steps described in the specification to achieve the claimed function and the inventor was in possession of that knowledge, the written description requirement would be satisfied. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under § 112, ¶ 1 for lack of written description must be made. In the instant case, the claims are an amalgam of limitations, that based on the applicant’s disclosure, include steps performed only by human being, steps involving a human being inputting data into software executing on a computer, steps performed only by the software executing on the computer, and/or steps that require a human to perform a function before a computer can perform the claimed function. There are no algorithms that describe the how the applicant’s invention performs each of the claimed steps. Additionally, there are no flow charts that describe how the applicant’s invention performs each of the claimed steps. While one can glean from the applicant’s disclosure who or what device is performing each step there is no specific embodiment that discloses the entire process being claimed being performed and what entity or devices is expected to perform each step. For example, paragraph 68 indicates that a first user device is configure to receive user inputs required to create a play, such as, identity lifecycle definitions, performance specifications, visibility requirements, and intervention requirements, which the first user device transmits to the “model builder” of the system. The model builder also receives organization configuration and specifications of other models from somewhere which is presumably also the first user device. Paragraph 81 supports such an interpretation as it recites “The first user device 206 enables users to input all the characteristics of the process as well as organization needed to create the play in to the model builder”. Thus, it appears that the first user device receives all of the claimed information as user input and transmits it to the “model builder”. There is no disclosure of a user interface with specific functionality that is part of the first user device that would enable it receive such input in some specific manner. Neither is there a disclosure of the user merely upload the data or typing it into an application such as an email, wherein the model builder parses the data in some manner to obtain the required information. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to program either the first user device and/or second user device to obtain the required information in a manner consistent with the applicant’s disclosure. Additionally, paragraph 39 indicates the “model builder” allows a user to define a state machine for the entity lifecycle, define the steps within each state, associate systems with steps, define transition conditions, and allows a user to create executable logic. The model builder can prompt the user for information such as comprehensive data requirements based on lifecycle model and tag lists, and allows the user to configure individual data exchanges with various system. The only indication that the model builder includes some type of a graphical user interface is that the user is able to configure a widget to display client-side visualizations. Based on paragraph 41, the information of the model creator, the logic builder, the data fetching configuration model, the results configuration module, and the model manager are all merely user inputs which are validated by the compiler and output formatter. The applicant’s invention then uses a computer to validate the information and generate a play. Based on paragraphs 109-112, the resultant output of generating the play is a digital twin definition which is then deployed on a server as per paragraph 114. However, even this deployment appears to require the intervention of a system administrator and not performed by the system. indicates that receives he applicant’s invention performs this process using a single processor executing instructions on a single device. As such, it is clear that the claims 1 is to a genus invention that is broad enough to encompass a method performed by an autonomous computer system, yet the applicant’s specification only discloses a single species where specific claimed being performed by a human, specific claimed steps being performed by a system, and specific claimed steps being performed by a system with the aid of a human. Said single species is not sufficient to prove the applicant had possession of the claimed genus. Thus, claim 1 fails to satisfy the written description requirement of § 112, ¶ 1.
Claim 2 fails to correct the deficiencies of the claim from which it depends and, as such, is rejected by virtue of dependency.
Additionally, claim 2 recites a number of limitations that fall into the same categories as recited above such as the identifying of lifecycle states, creating of a state machine, and identifying transitions of states which are all performed humans and merely input to the system. The claim indicates a species of invention in which some of the steps are performed by modules despite the fact that the applicant’s specification does not describe such a species, much less provide algorithms or flow charts regarding such a species, while other steps such as the output compiler compiling the information into a digital twin would be performed by the system. Additionally, some of the limitations would require, based on the applicant’s specification human interactions such as the deploying of the digital twin. Thus, the limitations of claim 2 recite a species of invention for which the specification does not describe enough other species to prove the applicant had support for such a species. Thus, claim 2 fails to satisfy the written description requirement of § 112, ¶ 1.
For the purpose of prosecuting the claims, the examiner is going to interpret claims 1-2, as if they recited:
Claim 1: Thomsen discloses a method for modeling and monitoring at least one department in an organization, using a digital twin comprising:
receiving, by a computer and from a first user device, first user input, wherein the first user input comprises: identifications of selecting the departments (i.e. process areas) for creation of an operational model (e.g., a digital representation of the organization); a listing of objects (i.e. entities) participating in the departments (i.e. process areas) and the objects specific attributes, wherein the listing of objects identifies a plurality of prioritized qualified halonic objects and a plurality of non-halonic objects, wherein the attributes include an indication of the plurality of non-halonic objects association with the plurality of prioritized qualified halonic objects, and predefined performance measures and alert conditions.
creating, by the computer, the digital twin for at least one of the prioritized qualified holonic objects (i.e. entities) of the plurality of prioritized qualified holonic objects (i.e. entities), wherein the digital twin includes the predefined performance measures and alert conditions;
receiving, by the computer and from the first user device, second user input that allows for the establishment of a communication session with an existing transaction system;
deploying, by a system administrator, the digital twin on a server
establishing, by the computer, the communication session with the existing transaction system based on the second user input;
executing, by the server, the digital twin in supervisory mode, in parallel with the existing transactions system, such that transactions received from the existing transaction system are used as inputs to the digital twin; and
monitoring, by the computer, the operation of the digital twin.
Claim 2. The method of claim 1,
wherein receiving the first user input further comprises: receiving lifecycle states for holonic objects; receiving a finite state machine for the object; receiving transitions from each state and the resultant states associated with the transitions; and receiving an identification of process steps involved within each state and actions associated with said process steps;
wherein the method further comprises receiving, from the transaction system, first transaction information identifying and tagging parameters for inclusion in the model;
wherein the first user input further comprises: data defining and programming various model conditions for the transitions, data defining completion and other conditions for the process steps; data defining programming parameters and invention parameters;
wherein establishing, by the computer, the communication session further comprises generating communication session requirements based on the second user input;
wherein the first user input data further comprises:
configuration data for displaying a client-side visualization of the digital twin in a widget of the client device;
organizational contexts, matters, roles, systems, organization structure, employee information, or employee roles);
wherein creating the digital twin further comprises integrating other operational models, should said other operational models be received as part of the first user input, with the digital twin; and
wherein monitoring the operation of the digital twin further comprises analyzing the digital twin based on a model evaluation schedule, should said model evaluation schedule be received as part of the first user input.
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 1-2 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.
Claim 1-2 are replete with antecedent basis issues. When a claim term is first introduced it should be proceeded with an article such as “a” or “an” if it is singular. Every subsequent time a term is used it should be proceeded with either “the” or “said”. Additionally, once a claim term is introduced, it should be used in the remainder of the claim. Thus, one cannot introduce a synonymous term later in the claim when they are referring to the first claimed term. Following is a exemplary list of antecedent basis issues and using different claim terms when referring to a different term previously claimed, but is by no means an exhaustive list of each end every such issue in the claims. The applicant should carefully review each and every limitation of the claim to ensure that all such issues are corrected in the future. The examiner has provided a claim interpretation above in the 35 USC 112(a) rejection that is believed to correct such issues. Examples of antecedent basis issues, changing claim terms, and using synonymous terms in claim 1 are:
Claim 1 recites: A method for modeling and monitoring processes (Does the applicant intend the remainder of the claim describe how the method models a plurality of processes and monitors a plurality of processes as claimed in the preamble? Or does the applicant intend for the remainder of the claim to describe how the method models a single process and monitors a single process?) in organizations (Does the applicant intend the claimed method to describe its use across a plurality of organizations as claimed in the preamble? Or does the applicant intend the claimed method to be directed towards it use in a single organization?), using digital twins (Does the applicant intend the claimed method to use a plurality of digital twins as recited in the preamble? Or does the applicant intend the claimed method to use a single digital twin?) comprising steps for creating dynamic model (Should recite “a dynamic model” as this is the first time the singular term is introduced. Is the creating of a dynamic model intended to refer to the previously claimed modeling of processes? Does the applicant intend the created dynamic model to perform modeling on a plurality of processes or does the applicant intend the created dynamic model to perform modeling for a single process? Perhaps the created dynamic model performs some other function unrelated to the previously claimed modeling processes?) and monitoring business process (Should recite “a business process” as this is the first time the term is introduced. Additionally, earlier in the claim the applicant indicated that a plurality of “processes” were going to be monitored by the method. Is this a new process different from the previously claimed processes? Or is this intended to be at least one process of the plurality of processes previously mentioned? If so, where the previously claimed processes supposed to be business processes?) using digital twin (Should recite “a digital twin” as this is the first time the term in the singular is recited. Does the applicant intend this digital twin to have antecedent basis to the previously claim “digital twins” or is this a new digital twin separate and distinct from the previously claimed digital twin? If the first recitation indicated “digital twins” and this one indicates “digital twin”, will another digital twin be recited later in the claim so that the claim has digital twins or does the applicant’s invention only use a single digital twin?):
identifying process areas in the enterprise (Lacks proper antecedent basis because an enterprise has not been previously recited in the claim. Does the applicant intend “the enterprise” to have antecedent basis to the previously claimed “organizations”? If so the claim should recite “an organization of the organizations. Perhaps this intended to be an enterprise separate and distinct from the previously claimed organizations as currently required by the claim term? If so, the examiner cannot find any reference to the previously claimed organizations in the remainder of the claim which renders the claim indefinite as the preamble indicates that the method is for modeling and monitoring processes of organizations but the claims do not recite any such organizations); and selecting process areas (Lacks proper antecedent basis to the previously claimed process areas that are identified. If the applicant intends the invention to select the process areas that were identified, this limitation should recite “the process areas”. If the applicant intends the selected process areas to be different from the identified process areas, the claim should recite an different adjective before both of the claimed process areas such as identifying first process areas and selecting second process areas. Without such adjectives it will be impossible to tell one of the claimed process areas from the other claimed process areas.) for creation of model (Lacks proper antecedent basis to the previously claimed creating and the previously claimed dynamic model. If the applicant intends this phrase to have antecedent basis to the previously claimed “creating a dynamic model”, the limitation should recite “for the creating of the dynamic model”. Perhaps the applicant intends this to a new model that will be created? If so, the limitation should recite “for creation of a model”. However, the examiner has been unable to find a separate recitation in the claims describing how both the previously claimed “for creating a dynamic model” and the currently claimed “for creation of a model” are actually created. Thus, the claims would be indefinite because the applicant intends two models to be created but the claim only actual describes how a single model is created.)
identifying and listing objects and entities participating in the process area (Lacks proper antecedent basis. The claim never previously recited “a process area”. Instead, it identified a plurality of process areas and selected a plurality of process areas. Does the applicant intend the limitation to have antecedent basis to the previously claimed process areas? If so the claim should recite “a process area of the process areas”. Does the applicant intend the identification and listing or objects and entities to have antecedent basis to the identified “process areas” or the selected “process areas” or does the applicant intend that there only be a single process area that is identified and then selected, and intend for this step to have antecedent basis to that single process area?);
identifying holonic entities from the list and merging all non-holonic entities as properties of one or more holonic entities (Lacks proper antecedent basis to the previously claimed “holonic entities”. If the applicant intends the “one or more holonic entities” to have antecedent basis to previously claimed “holonic entities”, either “identifying holonic entities” needs to be amended to recite “identifying one or more holonic entities” and the “one or more holonic entities” should recite “the one or more holonic entities, or the claimed “one or more holonic entities” needs to be amended to recite “the holonic entities”);
qualifying holonic entities (Lacks antecedent basis to the previously identified holonic entities. If the qualified holonic entities are intended to have antecedent basis to the identified holonic entities, the claim needs to be amended to recite “the holonic entities”.), based on attributes of the holonic entities;
merging non-qualified entities within one or more qualified holonic entities (Lacks proper antecedent basis to previously claimed “holonic entities”.) as properties, the aforementioned process steps III, IV and current step allowing user to flexibly define boundaries of plays and link them with holarchical relationships;
prioritizing and ordering the qualified entities for actual creation and deployment of Plays (Based on the applicant’s specification, as indicated in the Claim Interpretation section above, a play is a digital twin and vise versa. Since the claim already recites a digital twin, plays should instead recite “the digital twin”).
In addition to the above identified antecedent basis issues, the following limitations of claim 1 are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention:
“identifying and listing objects and entities participating in the process area”:
One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the intended difference between the claimed objects and the claimed entities within a process area that are being identified and listed. According to paragraph 72 of the applicant’s specification, entities in an organization include business entities and system entities. Business entities are business objects or transaction artifacts being created. System entities are configuration items such as IT system or physical system. The applicant’s disclosure provides no examples of “objects” that are different from business objects. Thus, a business entity is a business object. However, the claim provides no adjective with respect to the term “objects” or “entities”. Additionally, according to paragraph 8 of the applicant’s disclosure, a system refers to Physical or virtual platforms or platform components on which actions or transactions are performed. (Examples may include software systems like ERP, Email software, or platforms like Oracle database, storage systems, or hardware servers or even manufacturing machines and workstations), and according to paragraph 9 of the applicant’s specification, an entity refers to a system level object or transaction level object that has Specific characteristics, Identifiable lifecycle, and is considered to have significant impact on or to play a significant role in overall operation of the process area. Thus, system entities encompass objects as well such as software and hardware. Therefore, it would appear, based on the cited sections above that objects are entities and entities are objects. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the intended distinction between “objects” and “entities” in the limitation or how using both terms is intended to affect the scope of the applicant’s invention, thereby, making claim 1 indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. As the applicant never recites the term “objects” again in the claims, and instead only refers to the term “entity” and/or “entities” as if they are synonymous with the terms “object” and/or “objects”. Thus, the instant limitation will be interpreted as “identifying and listing objects (i.e., entities) participating in the process area”. Every other limitation that recites the terms entities or entity will be interpreted as if they had antecedent basis to the identified and listed objects and recited “the objects” (i.e., the entities).
“identifying holonic entities from the list and merging all non-holonic entities as properties of one or more holonic entities”:
One of ordinary skill in the are would neither be able to determine how the applicant’s invention is intended to identify the holonic objects (i.e. entities) from the list of objects in the departments (i.e., process areas) nor how non-holonic objects could be identified from the list so that they can be merged as properties of the one or more holonic objects (i.e., entities).
First, based on the applicant’s specification in paragraph 12-13, the identification of holonic objects (i.e. entities) from the list of objects (i.e., entities) would require that the list of objects already be arranged in a Holarchy or at least associated with containers of some type, because one must be able to make a determination as to whether the object can exist or continue to fulfil its role in the absence of its holarchical parent object or container object. Thus, based on the applicant specification, one cannot identify a holonic object without said object having already been arrange in a holarchical relationship or in a container of some type. However, the claim never recites generating such a relationship prior to the identification of holonic entities from the list. As such, claim 1 indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Furthermore, it would appear, based on paragraphs 12-13, that a that a non-holonic object would be defined as an object that cannot have an existence or cannot continue to fulfill its role in the absence of its holarchical parent or container entity. This would require the non-holonic objects to have been previously arranged in a holigarchy or in containers as well. One of ordinary skill in the art would know how this is possible. The applicant’s disclosure does not define the terms holarchical parent or holigarchy, but the online Collins dictionary defines a holarchy as “a system composed of interacting parts”, and the applicant’s specification does define a holon as something that exists simultaneously as self-contained wholes in relation to their subordinate parts and as dependent parts when considered from the inverse directions. Thus, all parts of the holarchy must be holons and all holons must be self-contained systems able to exist in the absence of its holarchical parent. So, it would not appear possible for non-holonic objects to be part of a holigarchy and have a holarchical parent or container as they are not holons. As such, claim 1 indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. While the claim includes a number of other 35 USC 112(b) issues, the examiner believes that correcting the 35 USC 112(a) issues will correct these other issues if the applicant amends the claims in a manner consistent with the examiner’s interpretation of the claims in the 35 USC 112(a) section above.
Claim 2 fails to correct the deficiencies of the claim from which it depends and, as such, is rejected by virtue of dependency.
For the purpose of prosecuting the claim the examiner is going to interpret claims 1-2 in the manner identified in the 35 USC 112(a) section above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-2, as interpreted by the examiner in the 35 USC 112(a) section above, have not been rejected under 35 USC 101 because they positively recite an arrangement of devices that result in an improvement that is considered significantly more under Step 2b. Namely, the claim positively recites within the scope of the claimed method the “additional elements” of a computer and its functions, a system administrator and his/her functions, and a server and its functions. When considered as a whole these “additional elements” and their functions result in an improvement in the use of digital twins for monitoring the operational processes of an organization.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomsen et al. (PGPUB: 2020/0012265) in view of Wang et al. (PGPUB: 2018/0300333).
Claim 1: Thomsen discloses a method for modeling and monitoring at least one department in an organization, using a digital twin comprising:
receiving, by a computer and from a first user device, first user input, wherein the first user input comprises: identifications of selecting the departments (i.e. process areas) for creation of an operational model (e.g., a digital representation of the organization); a listing of objects (i.e. entities) participating in the departments (i.e. process areas) and the objects specific attributes, wherein the listing of objects identifies a plurality of prioritized qualified halonic objects and a plurality of non-halonic objects, wherein the attributes include an indication of the plurality of non-halonic objects association with the plurality of prioritized qualified halonic objects, and predefined performance measures and alert conditions.
Thomsen discloses receiving, by a computer and from a first user device, first user input, wherein the first user input comprises:
identifications of selected departments (i.e. process areas) for creation of an operational model; (Paragraph 63: asset models assign groups of BIDT data tags to respective hierarchical elements of the asset models (e.g., a production facility, a production area or line, and industrial asset, a unit of equipment, an industrial device, etc.; Paragraph 64: the asset model integrates an automation model of the assets with a non-automation model of the asset such as a financial model: Paragraph 72: the asset model is a user-defined asset model; Paragraph 73: asset models can represent an industrial asset or collection of industrial assets in terms of hierarchical elements of an industrial facility or collection of facilities, where these hierarchical element can include, but are not limited to, a plant, a production area or line, an industrial machine or other industrial asset, a unit of equipment that makes up an industrial asset, an industrial device (e.g., a controller, a motor drive, a vision system device, a safety device, etc.) associated with an industrial asset; asset models can also assign groups of BIDTs to respective elements of the hierarchical model and customized to suit the information requirements of various types of information consumers (e.g., line operators, engineers, plant managers, etc.));
a listing of objects (i.e. entities) participating in the departments (i.e. process areas) and the objects specific attributes, wherein the listing of objects identifies a plurality of prioritized qualified halonic objects and a plurality of non-halonic objects, wherein the attributes include an indication of the plurality of non-halonic objects association with the plurality of prioritized qualified halonic objects, and predefined performance measures and alert conditions;
Thomsen discloses:
a listing of objects (i.e. entities) participating in the departments (i.e. process areas) and the objects specific attributes, wherein the listing of objects identifies a plurality of qualified halonic objects and a plurality of non-halonic objects, wherein the attributes include an indication of the plurality of non-halonic objects association with the plurality of qualified halonic objects, and predefined performance measures and alert conditions (Paragraph 73: asset models can represent an industrial asset or collection of industrial assets in terms of hierarchical elements of an industrial facility or collection of facilities, where these hierarchical element can include, but are not limited to, a plant, a production area or line, an industrial machine or other industrial asset, a unit of equipment that makes up an industrial asset, an industrial device (e.g., a controller, a motor drive, a vision system device, a safety device, etc.) associated with an industrial asset; asset models can also assign groups of BIDTs to respective elements of the hierarchical model and customized to suit the information requirements of various types of information consumers (e.g., line operators, engineers, plant managers, etc.)); Paragraphs 62: a user can define associations between respective physical assets (e.g., holonic objects) and one or more of the basic information data types (non-halonic objects) including 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.); Paragraph 69: Data tags associated with these basic information data types have associated metadata that can be configured by the user via BIDT configuration component 308 in order to customize the data tags for a given industrial application; Paragraph 89: rate conditions defined performance metrics such as minimum and maximum allowable values; Paragraphs 91: event configuration can include alert conditions; Paragraph 170: the presentation component can display overlays representing the performance metrics or alarms),
Thomsen does not disclose the listing of qualified halonic objects are prioritized.
However, the analogous art of Wang discloses that it is known to rank features that are to be used in a digital twin in at least paragraph 22.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Thomes to include the ranking as disclosed by Wang.
The rationale for doing so is that it merely requires combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It can be seen that each element claimed is taught in either Thomsen or Wang. Ranking the assets as disclosed by Wang, does not change nor affect the normal functions of providing and using an asset model to generate a digital twin to provide real-time performance monitoring as taught by Thomsen. The operation of Thomsen would still be performed in the same manner, even if the assets were ranked. Since the functionalities of the elements in Thomsen and Wang do not interfere with each other the results of the combination would be predictable.
creating, by the computer, the digital twin for at least one of the prioritized qualified holonic objects (i.e. entities) of the plurality of prioritized qualified holonic objects (i.e. entities), wherein the digital twin includes the predefined performance measures and alert conditions (Thomsen - Paragraphs 152 and 155: a digital twin is created by linking the industrial asset model with a mechanical model, business model and/or financial model);
receiving, by the computer and from the first user device, second user input that allows for the establishment of a communication session with an existing transaction system (Thomsen - Paragraph 91: the user configurable metadata includes fields that define communication or discovery parameters; Paragraph 158-162: a gateway configuration application is used to configure communications with the mechanical model);
deploying, by a system administrator, the digital twin on a server (Thomsen - Paragraphs 187-191 and 168: digital twin resides on a server (Examiner note: Since the twin is on a server, it inherently had to be put there in some manner. Whether the digital twin was put on the server by a system administrator or some other person is merely a design feature that has no bearing of the functioning of the invention and, as such, is given little if any patentable weight.)
establishing, by the computer, the communication session with the existing transaction system based on the second user input (Thomsen - Paragraph 163: the digital twin communication with the physical assets to obtain real-time data from the BIDTs during operation of the industrial asset)
executing, by the server, the digital twin in supervisory mode, in parallel with the existing transactions system, such that transactions received from the existing transaction system are used as inputs to the digital twin (Thomsen - Paragraphs 187-191 and 168: , digital twin, residing on a server, can be analyzed in parallel with its corresponding real-world industrial asset and the results of this analysis can be used to perform supplemental supervisory control of the asset or for reporting purposes; to facilitate substantially real-time analysis and supplemental control, the device interface component collects these BIDT data values (e.g. transactions) substantially continuously or at a high update frequency. ; and
monitoring, by the computer, the operation of the digital twin. (Thomsen - Paragraphs 107, 153, and 187: the BIDTs correspond to monitored values, events, states, rats, or other dynamic properties associated with the various machines and devices):
Claim 2. The method of claim 1,
wherein receiving the first user input further comprises: receiving lifecycle states for holonic objects; receiving a finite state machine for the object; receiving transitions from each state and the resultant states associated with the transitions; and receiving an identification of process steps involved within each state and actions associated with said process steps (Thomsen - Paragraph 85-92: the state BIDTs include lifecycle states such as open, closed, running, idle, faulted etc); the user-configurable metadata associated with the state BIDT may define a state machine and the detected conditions that occurs to invoke said states; each defined state may be linked via the metadata tags to other tags defining states; the metadata of a rate BIDT may define maximum and minimum values for a corresponding rate value and the data sources that determine an event; the event includes user-configurable metadata that identifies other data tags whose states, in aggregation, detime the event to be represented by the event BIDT);
wherein the method further comprises receiving, from the transaction system, first transaction information identifying and tagging parameters for inclusion in the model (Thomsen - Paragraph 92: updated values (e.g., transaction information) associated with the BIDT tag parameters can be received from the devices in real-time;
wherein the first user input further comprises: data defining and programming various model conditions for the transitions, data defining completion and other conditions for the process steps; data defining programming parameters and invention parameters (Thomsen - Paragraph 85-92: the state BIDTs include lifecycle states such as open, closed, running, idle, faulted etc); the user-configurable metadata associated with the state BIDT may define a state machine and the detected conditions that occurs to invoke said states; each defined state may be linked via the metadata tags to other tags defining states; the metadata of a rate BIDT may define maximum and minimum values for a corresponding rate value and the data sources that determine an event; the event includes user-configurable metadata that identifies other data tags whose states, in aggregation, determine the event to be represented by the event BIDT; event conditions include starting, executing, complete, etc.; the user configurable metadata includes fields that define communication or discovery parameters);
wherein establishing, by the computer, the communication session further comprises generating communication session requirements based on the second user input (Thomsen - Paragraph 91: the user configurable metadata includes fields that define communication or discovery parameters; Paragraph 92: the rate at which data is communicate to the system can be configured by the user using an update rate metadata parameter; Paragraph 158-162: a gateway configuration application is used to configure communications with the mechanical model;)
wherein the first user input data further comprises:
configuration data for displaying a client-side visualization of the digital twin in a widget of the client device (Thomsen – Paragraph 80: presentation component can be configured to generate a data presentation—e.g., in the form of a graphical display layout, a collection of widgets, etc.—that renders selected subsets of data received from the gateway devices in accordance with one or more of the plant models; the presentation component can be configured to render data associated with a basic information data type tag using a suitable BIDT-specific widget (or other graphical display element) selected from a set of predefined widgets. ;
organizational contexts, matters, roles, systems, organization structure, employee information, or employee roles (Thomsen - Paragraph 125: different asset models and/or plant models can be associated with different user roles; for example, a production asset model may be defined for use by plant operators, while a design asset model (can be defined for plant engineers or OEMs);
wherein creating the digital twin further comprises integrating other operational models, should said other operational models be received as part of the first user input, with the digital twin (Thomsen – Paragraph 118: plant model generated by application server system by integrating multiple asset models received from respective multiple gateway devices; and
wherein monitoring the operation of the digital twin further comprises analyzing the digital twin based on a model evaluation schedule, should said model evaluation schedule be received as part of the first user input. (Thomsen - Paragraph 97: The Odometer BIDT can be set to monitor the operation of the digital twin based on shift schedules such that monitored values are reset at the end of shifts)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sharma. (PGPUB: 2020/0082630) which discloses a digital twin representing physical assets, wherein the physical assets are associated with various categories including departments of an organization such as accounts, business development, operations, engineering, finance, human resources, as well as, project specific categories.
Song et al. (PGPUB: 2016/0247129) which discloses using digital twins for scalable, model-based machine predictive maintenance using a plurality of digital twins correspond to physical machines, wherein performance of the machines can be monitored in real-time using the digital twins.
Burd et al. (PGPUB: 2018/0210436) which discloses providing an integrated facility digital twin (DT) implemented by a computer system which implements an aggregation algorithm that utilizes models including a plurality of inter-related static models for the industrial facility including an asset model that describes devices and systems in the industrial facility including sensors coupled to processing equipment and a flowsheet model, and dynamic models of the industrial facility including calculation models, symptom and fault models, dynamic simulation models, and machine learning models, wherein the aggregation algorithm using outputs from the static models and dynamic model, generates an aggregated view including performance alerts for at least one of the process equipment and industrial process based on a current performance of the industrial process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN W VAN BRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-8198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30 am - 4 pm EST.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. 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.
/John Van Bramer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621