DETAILED ACTION
A summary of this action:
Claims 22-40 have been presented for examination.
This action is non-Final.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Following Applicants amendments to the Claims, the objections of the Claims are Withdrawn.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant aims to obviate the 101 rejection by incorporating repeating steps of at least temporary storing, of carrying out the sensitivity analysis based on the first parameter group, of ascertaining the modified first parameter group, and incrementing the hierarchical level, until a predefinable abort criterion is met. Applicant argues that the office fails to explain why a human being could practically perform the claim limitations and that the amended claim limitation integrates the judicial exception into a practical application represented by an improvement in the technology of processing data associated with a simulation model designed to simulate at least one aspect of a technical system and that the additional elements represent an inventive concept.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees and notes that the limitation of at least temporary storing, of carrying out the sensitivity analysis based on the first parameter group, of ascertaining the modified first parameter group, and incrementing the hierarchical level, until a predefinable abort criterion is met is not limited in a way that prevents operation of the claim in the human mind or with pencil and paper.
Here, the claim limitation does not specify how the simulation model will vary which parameter to influence and in what manner. Secondly, the claim limitation states that it will eliminate an error in or related to the operation of the technical system. However, the claim limitation does not specify the manner in which it will execute such functions. Thirdly, the claim limitation broadly states that it will enable the operation of the technical system but does not state how and it what manner. The applicant cites that further support is found in at least [0011], [0013], [0050], and [0052]. However, specification section [0013] is a recitation of the claim limitation. Specification section [0011] merely provides a generic description of computer software used for simulating an operation at least one component of the operating system for a computing device such as an embedded system but does not provide a practical application of the operation that allows a person of ordinary skill in the art with the specific details needed where the operation is beyond what could be done in the human mind or with a pencil and paper. Accordingly, specific details that preclude operation in the human mind or with pencil and paper are not provided in this limitation. A simulation model can improve how safely the technical system works. However, because the claim limitations are broadly stated and does not provide specificity on how and what manner the claim limitation goes beyond being performed in the human mind or with a pencil and paper, the Examiner maintains the rejection.
Applicant’s Argument: “More to the point, by influencing the operation of the technical system, discovering its errors, or enabling the operation, the claimed simulation model can improve how safely the technical system works. Consequently, a technical system operated in accordance with the claimed simulation model is an improvement over a technical system not so influenced. Therefore, since the amendment to the claims represents a concrete, tangible improvement in the operation of a technical system, the amendment effectively represents a technological improvement and on this basis establishes that the claims are eligible for patenting under Section 101.”
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as MPEP 2106.05(a) states “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”. The limitation that was identified as an additional element is the varying, eliminating, and/or enabling limitation. The other argues limitations are abstract and cannot provide the improvement. The varying, eliminating, or enabling limitation was properly identified as mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not detail how the simulation model will vary parameters and in what manner, how and what type of errors are eliminated in the technical system, and/or how the simulation proposes to enable the operation of the technical system resulting in making this the idea of a solution or outcome. Also, the present claims do not reflect the purported improvements cited by the Applicant, with reference to the sections of the specification cited in the arguments. The present claims do not improve the functioning of the computer as well as any other technology or technical field. Therefore, the additional elements of the claim do not present an improvement to technology when looking at the steps of the claim and [0011], [0013], [0050], and [0052] of the published specification.
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 103 rejection of the claims is Maintained in part and Withdrawn in part.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed the 103 rejection are based on the premise that Toprac has nothing to do with the use of simulation models at all, much less the use of the substitute model recited in the claims.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner considers Applicant’s arguments persuasive and has removed the art rejection for claims 35-37 that previously included the TORPAC prior art reference. Accordingly, Examiner has withdrawn its art rejections for claims 35-37. However, Examiner’s prior art references used for claims 22-29, 31-34, and 38-40 are still appropriate and applicable. As an example, ZHANG does teach Applicant’s claim limitation of ascertaining a substitute model for the simulation model based on the first parameter group as explained above. Furthermore, the Examiner used the HEMMETT reference because Applicant’s claim limitation expands to consider “whose sensitivity exceeds a predefinable sensitivity limiting value.” Although ZHANG does not teach the expansive portion of the claim limitation, Examiner references HEMMETT to teach that expansive portion. Based on the Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation, HEMMETT is pertinent and does teach this expansion to the ascertainment portion of Applicant’s claim limitation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered HEMMETT’s teaching of maximum positive and negative output as a predefinable sensitivity limiting value because it is common knowledge that a maximum value is a not-to-exceed limiting value. Accordingly, the HEMMETT reference is relevant particularly in combination with the ZHANG reference to teach Applicant’s ascertaining a substitute model for the simulation model based on the first parameter group claim limitation because ZHANG pertains to simulation methods that pertain to minimizing errors and updating design parameters and not limited to mechanical engineering as Applicant indicates in its response. Furthermore, Applicant indicates that HEMMETT describes the sliding scale benefit in terms that a POSITA would not have recognized as applicable to the physical body mass/stiffness context of Zhang. However, Applicant fails to acknowledge that Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation applies here even in the benefit statement where a POSITA would have similarly recognized that the sliding scale benefit would also be applicable in the context of ZHANG.
Therefore, the 103 rejection is Maintained in part.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 22-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process or mathematical concept without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 22-29, 31-37, and claim 40 are directed to a computer implemented method, which is a process and is a statutory invention. Claim 38 is directed to a device, which is a machine, and is a statutory invention. Claim 39 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable memory medium which is a manufacture and is a statutory invention. Therefore, claims 22-40 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claims 22, 38, and 39 as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of computer components. That is, other than reciting “device” , “microprocessor”, “microcontroller”, “application-specific integrated circuit” , “system on chip (SoC)” , “programmable logic component” , “field programmable data array (FPGA)”, “hardware circuitry” , “graphics processor (GPU)” , “technical system”, and “non-transitory computer-readable memory medium” , nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Accordingly, independent claims 22, 38, and 39 similarly recite “ascertaining a first parameter group of parameters of the simulation model, whose sensitivity exceeds a predefinable sensitivity limiting value” covers mental processes including evaluating a dataset and judging what kind of parameters to put on it, as described on [page 1 | lines 11-13] of the specification as filed.
Additionally, the limitation of “ascertaining a substitute model for the simulation model based on the first parameter group, wherein the ascertainment of the substitute model for the simulation model includes: ascertaining a modified first parameter group based on the sensitivity analysis, the modified first parameter group corresponding to a second hierarchical level” covers mental processes including evaluating a dataset and judging the sensitivity analysis and comparing the first parameter group against a second hierarchical level, as described on [page 1 | lines 14 and 15], and [page 6 | Lines 16-18] of the specification as filed.
Additionally, the limitation of "assessing a quality of the substitute model to obtain a quality measure characterizing the quality of the substitute model” covers mental processes including evaluating at least one of the simulation models as described [on page 1 lines 16-17] of the specification as filed. Furthermore, a person can make quality determinations when the change in value of the quality measure falls below a predefinable threshold value and where a setpoint value for the quality measure is achieved as described in the specification [page 6 lines 1-5].
Dependent claims 23-29, 31-37, and 40 further narrow the abstract ideas identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Therefore, the claims recite either a Mental Process or a Mathematical Concept.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claims 22, 38, and 39 similarly recite the additional limitation “device” , “microprocessor”, “microcontroller”, “application-specific integrated circuit” , “system on chip (SoC)” , “programmable logic component” , “field programmable data array (FPGA)”, “hardware circuitry” , “graphics processor (GPU)” , “technical system”, “non-transitory computer-readable memory medium” and dependent claims 23-27 and 40 recite the addition elements of “technical systems” , claims 24-25 recite the additional element of a “computing device” , claim 24 recites “sensor”, b) “actuator”, c) “hardware circuitry”, d) “electrical and/or electronic and/or electromechanical component”, e) “electric machine”, f) “computing device” these limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, this additional element merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Thus, these limitations fail to provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
The additional limitation similarly recited in independent claims 22, 38, and 39 of at least temporarily store parameters of the first parameter group and assigning to a hierarchical level of a first hierarchical level only amounts to use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional limitation similarly recited in independent claims 22, 38, and 39 of carrying out a sensitivity analysis based on the first parameter group only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional limitation similarly recited in independent claims 22, 38, and 39 of repeating the steps of the at least temporary storing, of carrying out the sensitivity analysis based on the first parameter group, of ascertaining the modified first parameter group, and incrementing the hierarchical level, until a predefinable abort criterion is met only amounts to use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional limitation recited in dependent claim 28 of carrying out a sensitivity analysis based on a predefinable number of already present simulation evaluations of the simulation model only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional limitation recited in dependent claim 33 of repeating at least one of the following steps until the predefinable abort criterion is met only amounts to use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional limitation recited in dependent claim 34 of wherein at least some of the steps are automated and are carried out without interaction with a person only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional limitation recited in dependent claim 36 of carrying out at least one of the following steps based on the modified first parameter group of an instantaneous hierarchical level or repetition or e) repeating at least one of the following steps until the predefinable abort criterion is met: only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional limitation recited in dependent claim 37 of switching to a preceding higher hierarchical level and, repeating the step of carrying out the switching to a preceding higher hierarchical level based on pieces of information or data or results of at least one lower hierarchical level only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 23-29, 31-37, and 40 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, the dependent claims do not integrate the claimed invention into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
Independent claims 22, 38, and 39 similarly recite the additional limitation “device” , “microprocessor”, “microcontroller”, “application-specific integrated circuit” , “system on chip (SoC)” , “programmable logic component” , “field programmable data array (FPGA)”, “hardware circuitry” , “graphics processor (GPU)” , “technical system”, “non-transitory computer-readable memory medium” and dependent claims 23-27 and 40 recite the addition elements of “technical systems” , claims 24-25 recite the additional element of a “computing device” , claim 24 recites “sensor”, b) “actuator”, c) “hardware circuitry”, d) “electrical and/or electronic and/or electromechanical component”, e) “electric machine”, f) “computing device” these limitations do not amount to significantly more because they are nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, this additional element merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Thus, these limitations fail to amount to significantly more.
The additional limitation similarly recited in independent claims 22, 38, and 39 of at least temporarily store parameters of the first parameter group and assigning to a hierarchical level of a first hierarchical level only amounts to use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional limitation similarly recited in independent claims 22, 38, and 39 of carrying out a sensitivity analysis based on the first parameter group only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not amount to significantly more.
The additional limitation similarly recited in independent claims 22, 38, and 39 of repeating the steps of the at least temporary storing, of carrying out the sensitivity analysis based on the first parameter group, of ascertaining the modified first parameter group, and incrementing the hierarchical level, until a predefinable abort criterion is met only amounts to use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional limitation recited in dependent claims 28 of carrying out a sensitivity analysis based on a predefinable number of already present simulation evaluations of the simulation model only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not amount to significantly more.
The additional limitation recited in dependent claims 33 of repeating at least one of the following steps until the predefinable abort criterion is met o only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not amount to significantly more.
The additional limitation recited in dependent claim 34 of wherein at least some of the steps are automated and are carried out without interaction with a person only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not amount to significantly more.
The additional limitation recited in dependent claim 36 of carrying out at least one of the following steps based on the modified first parameter group of an instantaneous hierarchical level or repetition or e) repeating at least one of the following steps until the predefinable abort criterion is met only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not amount to significantly more.
The additional limitation recited in dependent claim 37 of switching to a preceding higher hierarchical level and, repeating the step of carrying out the switching to a preceding higher hierarchical level based on pieces of information or data or results of at least one lower hierarchical level only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not amount to significantly more.
Dependent claims 23-29, 31-37, and 40 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the dependent claims does not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are ineligible.
As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
Dependent claim 23 is directed to “wherein the technical system includes at least one of the following elements: a) hardware, b) software, or c) a combination of hardware and software”, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Process.”
Dependent claim 24 is directed to “wherein the technical system includes the hardware, and the hardware includes at least one of the following elements: a) a sensor, b) an actuator, c) a hardware circuitry, d) an electrical and/or electronic and/or electromechanical component, e) an electric machine, or f) a computing device”, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Process.”
Dependent claim 25 is directed to “wherein the technical system including the software, and the software includes at least one of the following elements: a) a computer program for operating or for an activation of hardware, b) a computer program for simulating at least one component of the technical system, or c) an operating system for a computing device”, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Process.”
Dependent claims 26 is directed to “wherein the simulation model is configured for at least one of the following elements: a) computer-implemented simulation of the technical system, b) computer-implemented simulation for researching and/or developing the technical system, c) computer-implemented simulation for discovering errors of the technical system or in the technical system or errors that are related to the technical system caused by the technical system, or d) simulation for validating and/or verifying a functional safety of the technical system”, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Process.”
Dependent claims 27 is directed to “based on the simulation model, varying the at least one parameter to influence the operation of the technical system”, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Process.”
Dependent claim 28 is directed to “ascertaining the first parameter group based on the sensitivity analysis, the first parameter group including at least one parameter, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Process.”
Dependent claims 29 are directed to “ascertaining a second parameter group of parameters of the simulation model, whose sensitivity does not exceed the predefinable sensitivity limiting value; and fixing a parameter of the second parameter group at a predefinable value”, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Process.”
Dependent claim 31 is directed to “wherein the assessment of the quality of the substitute model is carried out based on one or on a predefinable number of already present simulation evaluations of the simulation model”, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Process.”
Dependent claim 32 is directed to “ascertaining a third parameter group whose parameters influence a quality of the assessment of the quality of the substitute model; and expanding the substitute model based on at least one parameter of the third parameter group based on at least one evaluation of the simulation model for the at least one parameter of the third parameter group”, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Process.”
Dependent claim 33 is directed to “a) assessing the quality of the substitute model, b) ascertaining the third parameter group, c) expanding the substitute model based on at least one parameter of the third parameter group, and wherein the predefinable abort criterion includes at least one of the following elements: a) a change of a value of the quality measure falls below the predefinable threshold value, b) a setpoint value for the quality measure is achieved”, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Process.”
Dependent claim 35 is directed to “the predefinable abort criterion includes a predefinable number of repetitions corresponding to an instantaneous value of the hierarchical level”, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Process.”
Dependent claim 36 is directed to “a) simplifying the simulation model, b) assessing a quality of the substitute model, c) ascertaining the third parameter group, d) expanding the substitute model based on at least one parameter of the third parameter group, aa) assessing the quality of the substitute model, bb) ascertaining the third parameter group, cc) expanding the substitute model based on at least one parameter of the third parameter group, and wherein the predefinable abort criterion includes at least one of the following elements: a') a change of a value of the quality measure falls below the predefinable threshold value, or b') a setpoint value for the quality measure is achieved”, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Process” or alternatively to a Mathematical Concept.
Dependent claim 40 is directed to “using the method for at least one of the following elements: a) ascertaining a substitute model for the simulation model simplified as compared to the simulation model, b) automating work steps for assessing the quality of the substitute model, c) accelerating a quality ascertainment in simulation models by using the substitute model, d) quality enhancement of a quality assessment for a substitute model based on an evaluation of the substitute model in parameter regions not previously considered, e) enabling improved and/or timely prognoses of quality characteristics of a product associated with or corresponding to the technical system, f) increasing a reliability in a production of a product associated with or corresponding to the technical system, g) increasing a product quality of a product associated with or corresponding to a technical system, or h) shortening a development time of a product associated with or corresponding to the technical system” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Process” or alternatively to a Mathematical Concept.
Accordingly, claims 22-29 and 31-40 are ineligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 22, 38, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG (et al Experience with Different Procedures for updating Structural Parameters of Analytical Models Using Test Data), hereinafter ZHANG, in view of DOLL (US 8127060 B2), herein DOLL, in view of HALE (US 20150039278 A1), herein HALE, in view of HEMMETT (US 20090288051 A1), hereinafter HEMMETT, and in further view of PAN (US 20080127005 A1), hereinafter PAN.
Claim 22
Claim 22 is rejected because ZHANG teaches a computer-implemented method for processing data associated with a simulation model, the simulation model being configured to simulate at least one aspect of a technical system, the method comprising ZHANG ([Section 3 Solution Methods] “We used tol = 0.001 which is much larger than the value normally necessary to avoid unvalid solutions due to computer arithmetic errors.”)
ZHANG also teaches ascertaining a substitute model for the simulation model based on the first parameter group ZHANG ([Section 3 Solution Method] “The updated model plays the role of a substitute model which at least has to fulfill the requirement of reproducing the test data used for updating.”) See also ZHANG ([Section 3 Solutions Method | pdf page 5 of 10] “To solve the minimization problem (~) several numerical procedures may be applied together with different strategies to select the weighting matrices. It was shown elsewhere /S/ that under the assumption of the test data and the parameters being random variables with certain statistical properties the weighting matrices can be interpreted to represent their (inverse) covariance matrices. Since these assumption (e.g. zero mean, no systematic errors) are seldom valid and can generally not be determined in real applications one has to use other criteria for their selection. One criterion is to select the weighting factors according to the confidence one has in the accuracy of the residuals, for example, WL allows to give relative weight to each measured natural frequency.”) Here, ZHANG teaches that one has to use other criteria (substitute model) for their selection to solve (ascertain) the minimization problem through the application and use of numerical procedures together with different strategies to select the weighting matrices (first parameter group).
ZHANG also teaches assessing a quality of the substitute model to obtain a quality measure characterizing the quality of the substitute model. (ZHANG [Section 4.1 Simulated Test Data]) “Despite this scatter, it was found that each updated model was able to reproduce the effective model parameters used for updating within an acceptable accuracy as can be seen from the updated frequency deviations I Table 1.”)
ZHANG does not explicitly teach wherein the ascertainment of the substitute model for the simulation model includes at least temporarily storing parameters of the first parameter group and assigning to a hierarchical level of a first hierarchical level
However, DOLL teaches wherein the ascertainment of the substitute model for the simulation model includes at least temporarily storing parameters of the first parameter group and assigning to a hierarchical level of a first hierarchical level DOLL ([Column 2 | Lines 64-67: Column 3 |Lines 1: 6]“One well known process control system configurator is that provided with the I/A Series® (hereinafter, "IAS" or "I/A") systems, marketed by the assignee hereof. These provide a graphical interface (FoxCAE) permitting an engineer to model a process hierarchically and to define a control algorithm from that hierarchy. Multiple editors are provided for defining and modifying modules within the hierarchy. A change management system, FoxCMS®, also marketed by the assignee hereof, provides for logging of configuration changes downloaded to controllers by the I/A Series system.”)
DOLL teaches wherein the ascertainment of the substitute model for the simulation model includes the modified first parameter group corresponding to a second hierarchical level “FIG. 29 depicts the hierarchical relationships between instances of Process Areas, and Assignable Objects.”) See also DOLL ([Column 68 | Lines 20:31] “The first view displays all blocks (first parameter group) for a selected control level (corresponding to a second hierarchical level), as well as any child control levels of the selected control level which are assigned to the same CP as the selected control level. This view, which is referred to as the control level hierarchy view, is displayed when the Block Execution Editor is invoked from a control level in the Navigation Tree. The second view displays all control levels assigned to a selected CP. This view, which is referred to as the CP Hierarchy view, is displayed when the Block Execution Editor is invoked form a CP in the Navigation Tree.”) See also DOLL ([Figure 29] , [Figure 30], and [Figure 31].)
DOLL also teaches incrementing the hierarchical level, until a predefinable abort criterion is met DOLL ([Column 2 | Lines 19:27]“ In a food processing plant, for example, a controller can be used to maintain a soup stock at a simmer or low boil. This is done by comparing measurements of vapor pressure in the processing vessel with a desired setpoint. If the vessel pressure is too low, the control algorithm may call for incrementally opening the heating gas valves, thereby, driving the pressure and boiling activity upwards. As the pressure approaches the desired setpoint, the algorithm requires incrementally leveling the valves to maintain the roil of the boil.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of DOLL with ZHANG as the references deal with using a computer implemented method for processing data associated with a simulation model configured to simulate at least one aspect of a technical system. DOLL would modify ZHANG wherein the ascertainment of the substitute model for the simulation model at least temporarily storing parameters of the first parameter group and assigning to a hierarchical level of a first hierarchical level. The benefit of doing so provides provide improved methods and apparatus for control and, particularly, for configuring control systems. (DOLL [Column 3 | Lines 15-16]).
The combination of ZHANG and DOLL does not explicitly teach wherein the ascertainment of the substitute model for the simulation model includes carrying out a sensitivity analysis based on the first parameter group or wherein the ascertainment of the substitute model for the simulation model includes ascertaining a modified first parameter group based on the sensitivity analysis.
However, HALE teaches wherein the ascertainment of the substitute model for the simulation model includes carrying out a sensitivity analysis based on the first parameter group HALE ([0017] “Embodiments of the subject invention can also incorporate sensitivity analysis (carrying out a sensitivity analysis) for one or more input parameters (based on the first parameter group).
HALE also teaches wherein the ascertainment of the substitute model for the simulation model includes ascertaining a modified first parameter group based on the sensitivity analysis HALE ([0088] “In one embodiment, the database 60 can be customized with specific input parameters (a modified first parameter). This can be accomplished by modifying, deleting, or adding to existing input parameters values (a modified first parameter)… In a further embodiment, the sensitivity analysis results selector only becomes available after trial datasets (a modified first parameter group) have been generated on the Input Parameters screen. Advantageously, the sensitivity analysis feature (based on the sensitivity analysis) of the subject invention allows a user to automatically contrast any of a variety of simulation input and outputs (ascertaining a modified first parameter).
The combination of ZHANG, DOLL and HALE does not explicitly teach ascertaining a first parameter group of parameters of the simulation model, whose sensitivity exceeds a predefinable sensitivity limiting value.
However, HEMMETT teaches ascertaining a first parameter group of parameters of the simulation model, whose sensitivity exceeds a predefinable sensitivity limiting value HEMMETT ([0036] “Exemplary criteria include, but not limited to, using the single absolute valued maximum output slew sensitivity, using the maximum positive and negative output slew sensitivity, or using a set of all output slew sensitivities that exceed the sensitivity threshold.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of HEMMETT with ZHANG, DOLL, and HALE as the references deal with using a computer implemented method for processing data associated with a simulation model configured to simulate at least one aspect of a technical system. HEMMETT would modify ZHANG, DOLL, and HALE by substituting models using maximum positive and negative output slew sensitivity values that exceed a predefinable sensitivity threshold or limiting value. The benefit of doing so provides very insightful information in discovering data errors in the technical system, improving quality parameters and limiting values for a technical system, accelerating quality ascertainments, enabling improved and timely quality characteristic prognosis, shortening development time by automating work steps, and increasing product quality. (HEMMETT [0009]).
The combination of ZHANG, DOLL, HALE, and HEMMETT does not explicitly teach repeating the steps of the at least temporary storing, of carrying out the sensitivity analysis based on the first parameter group of ascertaining the modified first parameter group.
However, PAN teaches repeating the steps of the at least temporary storing, of carrying out the sensitivity analysis based on the first parameter group of ascertaining the modified first parameter group PAN ([0020 | pdf page 9 of 12] “hen the microblog data de-duplication module for analyzing according to the collected microblog data content and address to redistributed the repeated acquisition of data. then the collected microblog data format transformation, the process of normalizing the microblog data into easy to analyze and process data structure, and then extracting module collected microblog data extracted by segmentation, extracting the key sensitive words in the web, and the extracted page key terms into database. then twitter hotspot event sensitivity matching process to sensitivity of data in the current page of previously designed sensitivity matching model, judging the currently collected data whether it is necessary for critical analysis. If the sensitivity is low, it does not carry out the association analysis, otherwise, analyzing the data by the page association models, through correlation analysis can be between multiple pages of the associated characteristic of the same event by modeling and analysis to obtain effective identification of the hotspot event. and through analysis of the correlation analysis model, it also can process the propagation and the propagation range of the hotspot event, so as to effectively realize the purpose of identification and tracking of the hotspot event.”) See also PAN ([0015] “As shown in Figure 1, a microblog hotspot tracking system, comprising a collecting module, a data de-duplication module, format conversion module, a word extraction module, a word segmentation storing module, hotspot event sensitivity matching module, associated model analyzing module and hotspot event identification and tracking module.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of PAN with ZHANG, DOLL, HALE, and HEMMETT as the references deal with using a computer implemented method for processing data associated with a simulation model configured to simulate at least one aspect of a technical system. PAN would modify ZHANG, DOLL, HALE, and HEMMETT repeating the steps of the at least temporary storing, of carrying out the sensitivity analysis based on the first parameter group of ascertaining the modified first parameter group. The benefit of doing so effectively tracks the development state of the event where the purpose for tracking in the hotspot event microblog are comprehensive and accurate. (PAN [0011]). Accordingly, claim 22 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 38
Claim 38 is rejected because it is the system embodiment of claim 22 with similar limitations to claim 22, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 22.
Claim 39
Claim 39 is rejected because it is the non-transitory computer readable medium embodiment of claim 22 with similar limitations to claim 22, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 22.
Claim(s) 23-26, 28, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG, in view of DOLL, in view of HALE, in view of HEMMETT, in view of PAN, and in further view of MEZGHANI (US 20170337302 A1).
Claim 23
Claim 23 is rejected because the combination of ZHANG, DOLL, HALE, HEMMETT, and PAN teaches claim 22.
The combination of ZHANG, DOLL, HALE, HEMMETT, and PAN does not explicitly teach wherein the technical system includes at least one of the following elements: a) hardware, b) software, c) a combination of hardware and software.
However, the MEZGHANI reference wherein the technical system includes at least one of the following elements: a) hardware, b) software, c) a combination of hardware or software MEZGHANI teaches MEZGHANI ([279] “Each of the components can communicate using a system bus. In some implementations, any or all of the components for the computer both hardware or software (or a combination of hardware or software), may interface with each other or the interface (or a combination of both) over the system bus using application programming interface (API) or a service layer or a combination of the API and service layer.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of MEZGHANI with ZHANG, DOLL, HALE, HEMMETT, and PAN as the references deal with using a computer implemented method for processing data associated with a simulation model configured to simulate at least one aspect of a technical system. MEZGHANI would modify ZHANG, DOLL, HALE, HEMMETT, and PAN by including at least one of the following elements: a) hardware, b) software, c) a combination of hardware or software. The benefits of doing so provides insightful information in discovering data errors in the technical system, improving quality parameters and limiting values for a technical system, accelerating quality ascertainments, enabling improved and timely quality characteristic prognosis, shortening development time by automating work steps, and increasing product quality. (MEZGHANI [0018]). Accordingly, claim 23 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 24
Claim 24 is rejected because the combination of ZHANG, DOLL, HALE, HEMMETT, PAN, and MEZGHANI teaches claim 23.
The combination of ZHANG, DOLL, HALE, HEMMETT, and PAN does not explicitly teach wherein the technical system includes the hardware, and the hardware includes at least one of the following elements: a) a sensor, b) an actuator, c) a hardware circuitry, d) an electrical and/or electronic and/or electromechanical component, e) an electric machine, f) a computing device.
However, the MEZGHANI reference teaches wherein the technical system includes the hardware, and the hardware includes at least one of the following elements: a) a sensor, b) an actuator, c) a hardware circuitry, d) an electrical and/or electronic and/or electromechanical component, e) an electric machine, or f) a computing device MEZGHANI ([310] “In a third implementation, a computer-implemented system, comprising a computer memory (computing device); at least one hardware processor (hardware circuitry) interoperably coupled with the computer memory (computing device).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of MEZGHANI with ZHANG, DOLL, HALE, HEMMETT, and PAN as the references deal with using a computer implemented method for processing data associated with a simulation model configured to simulate at least one aspect of a technical system. MEZGHANI would modify ZHANG, DOLL, HALE, HEMMETT, and PAN by including hardware, and the hardware includes at least one of the following elements: a) a sensor, b) an actuator, c) hardware circuitry, d) an electrical and/or electronic and/or electromechanical component, e) an electric machine, or f) a computing device. The benefits of doing so provides insightful information in discovering data errors in the technical system, improving quality parameters and limiting values for a technical system, accelerating quality ascertainments, enabling improved and timely quality characteristic prognosis, shortening development time by automating work steps, and increasing product quality. (MEZGHNI [0018]). Accordingly, claim 24 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 25
Claim 25 is rejected because the combination of ZHANG, DOLL, HALE, HEMMETT, and PAN, and MEZGHANI teaches claim 23.
The combination of ZHANG, DOLL, HALE, HEMMETT, and PAN does not explicitly