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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1-19 have been examined and rejected.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 16-19 recites “on processor” at a number of limitations. There are apparently typographical errors. They should be “one processor,” instead as recited in other claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification writes “on processor” at multiple locations on p. 15 line 20 – p. 16 line 6. There are apparently typographical errors. They should be “one processor,” instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a communication interface configured to” in claims 1 and 11 and “a user interface configured to receive … and transmit.” The specification does not provide a definition of this communication interface. To examine the claim, any teaching of a communication interface to receive and transmit data should read onto a communication interface, and any interface to receive a user query and transmit the received query to a processor to should read onto a user interface.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Claim 1 recites “sub-module.” It is not clear what a “sub-module” is in a target system. Is sub-module a component of the system model as sub-model is, but different from sub-model? Is there a relationship between a sub-module and sub-model? Claim 1 recites first data as input data of a first sub-module, second data as input data to a second sub-module, second sub-module receiving output data from the of the first sub-module as input, and second sub-model inferring a behavior of the target system based on the second data. It is not clear how the second sub-model inferring a behavior of the target system based on the second data while the second data is connected to a second sub-module? There are several unclear and disconnected things in claim 1. Claim 1 is, therefore, rejected as being indefinite.
The term “sub-module” is only mentioned in the Summary of the specification but not in the Detailed Description. The term “sub-model” is mentioned in both parts of the specification. The Detailed Description only describes data connected to sub-models. Hence, to examine recited claims, the Examiner interprets sub-modules as corresponding sub-models.
Corrections to claims and/or specification are required.
Limitation “provide second data as input data of a second sub-module, based on the structural information, wherein the second sub-module is defined to receive output data of the first sub-module as input data thereof by the structural information” in claim 1 renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the provided second data are data from the acquired data in the first limitation or the output data of the first sub-module as input data by definition. “Wherein the second sub-module is defined to receive output data of the first sub-module as input data” is a connectivity definition by the structural information; however, “provide second data as input data of a second sub-module” may be interpreted as inputting separate second data, which are acquired in the first limitation, as input data of a second sub-module. To examine this limitation, the Examiner interprets it as using output data from the first sub-module as input data to the second sub-module by structural definition.
Similar to discussions above about “providing second data …”, limitation “provide third data based on output data of the second sub-module as an output of the system model describing the behavior of the target system” also renders claim 1 indefinite. To examine this limitation, the Examiner interprets it as output data from the second sub-module.
Independent claims 11, 15, and 19 recite analogous limitations to claim 1 including those sub-modules and sub-models. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2-10, 12-14, and 16-18 depend on claims 1, 11, and 15, respectively. They do not cure the deficiencies above. They are also rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed to abstract ideas.
Claim 1 is a system claim and recites:
A computing system for implementing and operating a model describing a target system, the computing system comprising:
a communication interface configured to receive or require acquired data about the target system; (generic computer component performing data gathering activity)
a system model including a plurality of sub-models; and (a system model is received data, so it is insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g))
at least one processor, (generic computer component)
wherein each of the plurality of sub-models is a model capable of inferring or predicting at least a part of the acquired data as output data when receiving another part of the acquired data as input data, (insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g))
wherein a data connection relation between the input data and the output data of each of the plurality of sub-models in the system model is defined based on structural information of the target system, and (insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g))
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
select first data as input data of a first sub-module, based on the structural information, from among new input data for the target system; (mental process)
provide second data as input data of a second sub-module, based on the structural information, wherein the second sub-module is defined to receive output data of the first sub-module as input data thereof by the structural information; (insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g))
control the second sub-model to infer a behavior of the target system based on the second data; and (mental processes of evaluation and judgement)
provide third data based on output data of the second sub-module as an output of the system model describing the behavior of the target system. (insignificant extra-solution activity, creating data MPEP 2106.05(d))
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: limitations indicated as insignificant extra-solution activity above. The claim recites additional elements including a processor and a communication interface at generic level to perform functions, which do not amount significantly more to abstract ideas.
Claim 2 is a system claim depending on claim 1 and recites:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to select the second data as the input data of the second sub-module, based on the structural information, among the new input data for the target system. (mental process)
Step 2A, prong 1:
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements.
Claim 3 is a system claim depending on claim 1 and recites:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
control the first sub-model to infer the behavior of the target system based on the first data; and (mental processes of evaluation and judgement)
provide the second data using output data from the first sub-module with inference of the first sub-module based on the structural information as the input data of the second sub-module. (insignificant extra-solution activity, outputting data MPEP 2106.05(g))
Step 2A, prong 1:
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: limitations indicated as insignificant extra-solution activity above. The claim does not recite additional elements.
Claim 4 is a system claim depending on claim 1 and recites:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of sub-models is at least one of a theory-driven model capable of deductive reasoning and is defined based on obtainable domain knowledge, experience, and theory that are related to the target system, a data-driven model trained based on the acquired data about the target system, and a complex model formed by combining the theory-driven model and the data-driven model to be complementary to each other. (insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g))
Step 2A, prong 1:
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: limitations indicated as insignificant extra-solution activity above. The claim does not recite additional elements.
Claim 5 is a system claim depending on claim 1 and recites:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the structural information is defined based on a data connection relation between parameters of a theory-driven primitive model included in the target system and acquired using knowledge about the target system, and whether each of the parameters is included in the acquired data. (insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g))
Step 2A, prong 1:
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: limitations indicated as insignificant extra-solution activity above. The claim does not recite additional elements.
Claim 6 is a system claim depending on claim 1 and recites:
The computing system of claim 1, wherein the structural information includes:
information on a first parameter selected as at least one of the input data and the output data of each of the plurality of sub-models from among parameters of a theory-driven primitive model included in the target system and acquired using knowledge about the target and system; (insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g))
sub-model data structure information wherein the first parameter is defined as the input data and output data of each of the plurality of sub-models with respect to the theory-driven primitive model. (insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g))
Step 2A, prong 1:
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: limitations indicated as insignificant extra-solution activity above. The claim does not recite additional elements.
Claim 7 is a system claim depending on claim 1 and recites:
The computing system of claim 1, further comprising:
a user interface configured to receive a user query about the target system and transmit the received user query to the at least one processor,
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to interpret the user query into an instruction command that is executed within the computing system.
Step 2A, prong 1: no additional abstract idea limitation is recited in the claim.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: The claim recites an additional element including a user interface at generic level to perform functions, which does not amount significantly more to abstract ideas.
Claim 8 is a system claim depending on claim 7 and recites:
The computing system of claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
search for at least one of a condition variable, a control variable, and a design variable of the target system corresponding to an association of at least two of the first data, the second data, and the third data based on the structural information and the data connection relation when the user query includes a query for the association of at least two or more of the first data, the second data, and the third data, to generate a search result; (mental processes)
generate a response to the user query based on the search result; and (insignificant extra-solution activity, creating data MPEP 2106.05(d))
transmit the response to the user query to the user interface. (insignificant extra-solution activity, transmitting data MPEP 2106.05(d))
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: Limitations indicated as insignificant extra-solution activity above. The claim does not recite additional elements.
Claim 9 is a system claim depending on claim 7 and recites:
The computing system of claim 7, wherein, when the user query includes a prediction of the behavior of the target system when the second data is out of an acquired data domain covered by the acquired data (insignificant extra-solution activity, data description (content of the query)), the at least one processor is further configured to:
apply at least one of a theory-driven model capable of deductive reasoning, a data-driven model trained based on the acquired data, and a complex model formed by combining the theory-driven model and the data-driven model to be complementary to each other as the second sub-model. (mental processes that can be done by pen and paper)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements.
Claim 10 is a system claim depending on claim 9 and recites:
The computing system of claim 9, wherein, when the user query includes a request in which a distribution of the third data is to be adjusted ((insignificant extra-solution activity, data description (content of the query)), the at least one processor is further configured to:
generate a first distribution applicable to the first data, a second distribution of the second data related to the first distribution, and a third distribution of the third data related to the second distribution among the acquired data based on the structural information and the system model (since generation of distributions involves probability computations, this limitation is grouped to math concepts); and
provide at least one of a limiting condition of a range of the first distribution in response to the user query based on the first distribution, the second distribution, the third distribution, and the structural information, and a modified condition suggesting a change of at least one of a condition variable, a control variable, or a design variable of the target system to the user (mental process).
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements.
Claim 11 is a system claim and recites limitations analogous to those in claim 1. The claim is, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 12 is a system claim depending on claim 11 and recites:
The computing system of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control the first sub-module to learn a relation between the first data and the second data. (mental processes of evaluation and judgement)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements.
Claim 13 is a system claim depending on claim 11 and recites limitations similar to those in claim 12. The claim is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 14 is a system claim depending on claim 11 and recites limitations similar to those in claim 4. The claim is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15 is a method claim and recites limitations analogous to those in claim 1. The claim is, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 16-18 are a method claim depending on claim 15 and recites limitations analogous to those in claims 8-10, respectively. The claims are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 19 is a method claim and recites limitations analogous to those in claim 11. The claim is, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-7, 9, 11-15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klenner et al. (US 2018/0357343).
.
As per claim 1, Klenner teaches a computing system for implementing and operating a model describing a target system, the computing system comprising:
a communication interface configured to receive or require acquired data about the target system (Fig. 1 element 124, ¶ 0039);
a system model including a plurality of sub-models (Fig. 1 element 108, ¶ 0035; Klenner teaches a system model called hybrid module including a plurality of models, corresponding to sub-models); and
at least one processor (Fig. 1 element 116),
wherein each of the plurality of sub-models is a model capable of inferring or predicting at least a part of the acquired data as output data when receiving another part of the acquired data as input data (Fig. 1 element 110, 112, or 114, ¶ 0037, 0052),
wherein a data connection relation between the input data and the output data of each of the plurality of sub-models in the system model is defined based on structural information of the target system (Fig. 3; this figure illustrates data connection defined based on structural information of the target system as recited), and
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
select first data as input data of a first sub-module, based on the structural information, from among new input data for the target system (Fig. 3 element 112, ¶ 0055, 0058; Klenner teaches data sample 302, corresponding to first data selected, input to physics-based model 112; the physics-model corresponds to a first sub-model);
provide second data as input data of a second sub-module, based on the structural information, wherein the second sub-module is defined to receive output data of the first sub-module as input data thereof by the structural information (Fig. 3 element 114, 0062; Klenner teaches a model, element 112, producing output, which is provided to element 114, corresponding to a second sub-module as recited, as input data);
control the second sub-model to infer a behavior of the target system based on the second data (Fig. 3 element 114, ¶ 0062 ; Klenner teaches a sub-model predicting based on the second data; this teaching reads onto this limitation); and
provide third data based on output data of the second sub-module as an output of the system model describing the behavior of the target system (Fig. 3 element 114, ¶ 0062; Klenner teaches the second sub-model as discussed above producing output of the system model performing function of the system; this teaching reads onto this limitation).
As per claim 2, Klenner teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to select the second data as the input data of the second sub-module, based on the structural information, among the new input data for the target system (¶ 0059; Klenner teaches input to hybrid model 114, corresponding to a second sub-model as recited in the claim, may be data samples 302, additional samples 602 for calibration; this teaching reads onto the processor configured to select the second data as the input data of the second sub-module, based on the structural information, among the new input data for the target system, which may be data samples 302, additional samples 602).
As per claim 3, Klenner teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
control the first sub-model to infer the behavior of the target system based on the first data (¶ 0058; Klenner teaches the physics-driven model receiving input to perform simulation to produce output based on input; this teaching is interpreted as the first sub-model to infer the behavior of the target system based on the first dat); and
provide the second data using output data from the first sub-module with inference of the first sub-module based on the structural information as the input data of the second sub-module (Fig. 3 element 114, 0062; Klenner teaches a model, element 112, producing output, which is provided to element 114; this teaching reads onto this limitation).
As per claim 4, Klenner teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of sub-models is at least one of a theory-driven model capable of deductive reasoning and is defined based on obtainable domain knowledge, experience, and theory that are related to the target system,
As per claim 5, Klenner teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein the structural information is defined based on a data connection relation between parameters of a theory-driven primitive model included in the target system and acquired using knowledge about the target system, and whether each of the parameters is included in the acquired data (¶ 0058; Klenner teaches an intelligent sampling process of data sample entered as input to identify what sampling parameters may be run in the simulation of the physics-driven model; this teaching indicates that there must be a structural information defined based on a data connection relation as recited in this claim).
As per claim 6, Klenner teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein the structural information includes:
information on a first parameter selected as at least one of the input data and primitive model included in the target system and acquired using knowledge about the target and system (¶ 0058; Klenner teaches an intelligent sampling process of data sample entered as input to identify what sampling parameters may be run in the simulation of the physics-driven model; this teaching indicates that there must be information on a first parameter selected as the input data as recited in this limitation);
sub-model data structure information wherein the first parameter is defined as the input data and output data of each of the plurality of sub-models with respect to the theory-driven primitive model (¶ 0058-0060; Klenner teaches sampling parameters for physics-driven model for optimization; if the sampled parameters at its output are not optimized, they continue at the hybrid model; this teaching reads onto this limitation).
As per claim 7, Klenner teaches the computing system of claim 1, further comprising:
a user interface configured to receive a user query about the target system and transmit the received user query to the at least one processor (Fig. 1 elements 122, 120, ¶ 0046; Klenner teaches a user interface to perform function as recited),
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to interpret the user query into an instruction command that is executed within the computing system (Fig. 1, ¶ 0044, 0047; Klenner teaches a user interface to communicate with a processor 118 to execute program code; this teaching reads onto this limitation).
As per claim 9, Klenner teaches the computing system of claim 7, wherein, when the user query includes a prediction of the behavior of the target system when the second data is out of an acquired data domain covered by the acquired data, the at least one processor is further configured to (¶ 0060-0061; Klenner teaches prediction of the behavior of a system performed in physics model 112; when output data from physics model 112, corresponding to the second data as recited, is determined to be outside of region of competence, corresponding to the second data out of an acquired data domain covered by the acquired data, the output data from physics model 112 are directed to perform steps by the processor):
apply at least one of a theory-driven model capable of deductive reasoning, a data-driven model trained based on the acquired data, and a complex model formed by combining the theory-driven model and the data-driven model to be complementary to each other as the second sub-model (¶ 0060-0061; Klenner teaches the output data from physics model 112 are directed to be operated on at model 114, which may be physics-driven model).
As per claim 11, Klenner teaches a computing system for implementing and operating a model describing a target system, the computing system comprising:
a communication interface configured to receive or require acquired data about the target system (Fig. 1 element 124, ¶ 0039);
a system model including a plurality of sub-models (Fig. 1 element 108, ¶ 0035; Klenner teaches a system model called hybrid module including a plurality of models, corresponding to sub-models); and
at least one processor (Fig. 1 element 116),
wherein each of the plurality of sub-models is a model trained to infer or predict at least a part of the acquired data as output data when receiving another part of the acquired data as input data (Fig. 1 element 110, 112, or 114, ¶ 0037, 0052; Klenner teaches sub-models using inputs to produce outputs; this teaching is regarded as the sub-models trained to infer or predict as recited in the claim),
wherein a data connection relation between the input data and the output data of each of the plurality of sub-models in the system model is defined based on structural information of the target system (Fig. 3; this figure illustrates data connection defined based on structural information of the target system as recited), and
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
provide first data for a training of a first sub-module, based on the structural information, from among the acquired data (Fig. 3 element 112, ¶ 0005, 0055, 0058; Klenner teaches data sample 302, corresponding to first data selected, input to physics-based model 112; the physics-model corresponds to a first sub-model; Klenner also teaches calibrating a physics-driven model as a function of a discrepancy between physics-driven model and actual field data; this calibration process is interpreted as a training process);
provide second data for the training of the first sub-module and for a training of second sub-module, based on the structural information, from among the acquired data, wherein the second sub-module is defined to receive output data of the first sub-module as structural input data thereof by the information (Fig. 3 element 114, 0062, 0065-0066; Klenner teaches a model, element 112, producing output, which is provided to element 114, corresponding to a second sub-module as recited, as input data; Klenner also teaches hybrid-model 114 being calibrated or structural updated with additional data samples, which is interpreted as a training process); and
provide third data for the training of the second sub-module, based on the structural information (Fig. 3 element 114, ¶ 0062; Klenner teaches the second sub-model as discussed above producing output of the system model performing function of the system; this teaching reads onto this limitation).
As per claim 12, Klenner teaches the computing system of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control the first sub-module to learn a relation between the first data and the second data (Fig. 3 element 112, ¶ 0005, 0055, 0058; Klenner teaches calibrating a physics-driven model as a function of a discrepancy between physics-driven model and actual field data; this calibration process is interpreted as a training process as recited in this claim).
As per claim 13, Klenner teaches the computing system of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control the second sub-module to learn a relation between the second data and the third data (Fig. 3 element 114, 0062, 0065-0066; Klenner teaches hybrid-model 114 being calibrated or structural updated with additional data samples, which is interpreted as a training process as recited in this claim).
As per claim 14, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 4. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 15, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 1. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 17, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 9. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.:
As per claim 19, these limitations have already been discussed in claim 11. They are, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10, 16, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claim 8, Klenner teaches the computing system of claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
generate a response to the user query based on the search result (¶ 0044); and
transmit the response to the user query to the user interface (¶ 0044).
Klenner and other cited prior arts either alone or in combination do not teach:
search for at least one of a condition variable, a control variable, and a design variable of the target system corresponding to an association of at least two of the first data, the second data, and the third data based on the structural information and the data connection relation when the user query includes a query for the association of at least two or more of the first data, the second data, and the third data, to generate a search result;
As per claim 10, Klenner teaches the computing system of claim 9, wherein,
Klenner and other cited prior arts either alone or in combination do not teach:
when the user query includes a request in which a distribution of the third data is to be adjusted, the at least one processor is further configured to:
generate a first distribution applicable to the first data, a second distribution of the second data related to the first distribution, and a third distribution of the third data related to the second distribution among the acquired data based on the structural information and the system model; and
provide at least one of a limiting condition of a range of the first distribution in response to the user query based on the first distribution, the second distribution, the third distribution, and the structural information, and a modified condition suggesting a change of at least one of a condition variable, a control variable, or a design variable of the target system to the user.
Claims 16 and 18 recite limitations analogous to those in claim in claims 8 and 10. They are indicated allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong Van Luu whose telephone number is 571-272-8572. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 8:30 to 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3676, 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.
/CUONG V LUU/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189