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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mong, et al., US 2020/0412813 A1.
As per Claim 1, Mong teaches an apparatus (¶ 128; communication system 800 of Figure 8), comprising:
one or more processing circuits comprising one or more memory devices coupled to one or more processors (¶¶ 125-126), the one or more memory devices configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive information from at least one sensor (¶ 130; “from sensors 802 and 804 of Figure 8);
control operation of a vehicle subsystem based on the information (¶ 133; “to achieve or maintain the QoS parameters of the devices at or above designated threshold limits”);
generate a digital twin output based on the information (¶ 266);
generate a prioritized list of faults based on the digital twin output (¶¶ 239-242); and
provide the prioritized list to a dashboard (¶ 246).
As per Claim 2, Mong teaches that the one or more processing circuits are located on-board a vehicle (¶¶ 113, 119; “a display device” from among a set of “vehicle devices”).
As per Claim 3, Mong teaches that the one or more processing circuits reside within an engine control module (¶¶ 113, 119; “an engine control unit”).
As per Claim 6, Mago teaches that the one or more memory devices are further configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to determine a plurality of faults from at least one prompt above a threshold correlation (¶¶ 241-242, 335-336).
As per Claim 7, Mago teaches that the one or more memory devices are further configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to communicate with a second digital twin on a remote control system (¶¶ 247-248, 254, 260-262, 288).
As per Claim 8, Mago teaches a system (¶ 128; communication system 800 of Figure 8), comprising:
a vehicle system (¶ 125; control system 818 of Figure 8); and
a controller coupled to the vehicle system, the controller having one or more processors coupled with at least one memory (¶ 139), the controller configured to:
receive information from at least one sensor (¶ 130; “from sensors 802 and 804 of Figure 8);
control operation of the vehicle system based on the information (¶ 133; “to achieve or maintain the QoS parameters of the devices at or above designated threshold limits”);
generate a digital twin output based on the information (¶ 266);
generate a prioritized list of faults based on the digital twin output (¶¶ 239-242); and
provide the prioritized list to a user interface on a computing device (¶ 246).
As per Claim 9, Mago teaches that the controller is further configured to:
compare the digital twin output to an output of the vehicle system to determine a correlation (¶¶ 233, 254, 260-261); and
generate the prioritized list of faults based on the correlation of the digital twin output to the actual output (¶¶ 260-261, 299).
As per Claim 10, Mago teaches that the controller is further configured to determine a plurality of faults based on prompts above a threshold correlation (¶¶ 241-242, 335-336).
As per Claim 11, Mago teaches that the controller is further configured to communicate with a second digital twin on a remote control system to send telematics data (¶¶ 247-248, 254, 260-262, 288).
As per Claim 14, Mago teaches that the controller resides on a vehicle (¶¶ 113, 119; “a display device” from among a set of “vehicle devices”), and that the vehicle system comprises at least one of an aftertreatment system, a transmission, or an engine (¶¶ 77, 205, 208).
As per Claim 15, Mago teaches a method of generating a prioritized list of faults using a digital twin (¶¶ 239-242, 266), the method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, information from at least one sensor (¶ 130; “from sensors 802 and 804 of Figure 8);
controlling, by the one or more processors, operation of a vehicle system based on the information (¶ 133; “to achieve or maintain the QoS parameters of the devices at or above designated threshold limits”);
generating, by the one or more processors, a digital twin output based on the information (¶ 266);
generating, by the one or more processors, a prioritized list of faults based on the digital twin output (¶¶ 239-242); and
providing, by the one or more processors, the prioritized list to an interface on a computing device (¶ 246).
As per Claim 16, Mago teaches:
comparing, by the one or more processors, the digital twin output to an output of the vehicle system to determine a correlation (¶¶ 233, 254, 260-261); and
generating, by the one or more processors, the prioritized list of faults based on the correlation of the digital twin output to the output (¶¶ 260-261, 299).
As per Claim 17, Mago teaches determining, by the one or more processors, a plurality of faults based on prompts above a threshold correlation (¶¶ 241-242, 335-336).
As per Claim 18, Mago teaches communicating, by the one or more processors, with a second digital twin on a remote control system (¶¶ 247-248, 254, 260-262, 288).
As per Claim 20, Mago teaches that the one or more processors are at least part of a controller residing on a vehicle (¶¶ 113, 119; “a display device” from among a set of “vehicle devices”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-5, 12-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mong, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Aso, et al., US 2021/0390412 A1.
As per Claim 4, Mong does not expressly teach that the digital twin output includes a fueling on-time- to-quantity indicator regarding a fuel injector. Aso teaches that the digital twin output includes a fueling on-time- to-quantity indicator regarding a fuel injector (¶¶ 44-45, 55, 74). At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to use the apparatus of Mong to measure fuel properties such as Aso teaches, in order to train the vehicle to run more efficiently and improve gas mileage.
As per Claim 5, Mago teaches that the one or more memory devices are further configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
compare the digital twin output to an actual output (¶¶ 233, 254, 260-261); and
generate the prioritized list of faults based on a correlation of the digital twin output to the actual output (¶¶ 260-261, 299).
As per Claim 12, Mago does not expressly teach that the controller is further configured to determine, using an artificial intelligence model of the digital twin, the digital twin output from the information. Aso teaches that the controller is further configured to determine, using an artificial intelligence model of the digital twin, the digital twin output from the information (¶¶ 47, 75). See Claim 4 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 13, Mago does not expressly teach that the digital twin output includes a fueling on-time-to- quantity indicator regarding a fuel injector. Aso teaches that the digital twin output includes a fueling on-time-to- quantity indicator regarding a fuel injector (¶¶ 44-45, 55, 74-75). See Claim 4 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 19, Mago does not expressly teach determining, by the one or more processors and using an artificial intelligence model of the digital twin, the digital twin output from the information. Aso teaches determining, by the one or more processors and using an artificial intelligence model of the digital twin, the digital twin output from the information (¶¶ 47, 75). See Claim 4 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATUL TRIVEDI whose telephone number is (313)446-4908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9:00 AM-5:00 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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
ATUL TRIVEDI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/ATUL TRIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
