Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Application Status
Claims 12-18, 20, and 21 are presented for examination based on the amendment filed 12/05/2025 Claims 12, 20, and 21 are amended. Claims 19, and 22 are cancelled.
The 101 rejection has been withdrawn in view of amendments presented by the applicant.
The 112b rejections have been withdrawn in view of amendments presented by the applicant.
The 102 rejection has been withdrawn in view of amendments presented by the applicant.
The 103 rejection is maintained and modified to address new claim language.
§112(f) 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for’) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f} or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f} or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 12: “simulation module”
Claim 21: “modeling module”; “parameterization module”, and “simulation module”
The algorithm is considered to be the corresponding structure. (Pg 10 Paragraph 3)
Each “unit” is specifically excluded from being interpreted as software per se. See MPEP §2181(II)(B) fourth to last paragraph.
Because these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 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-AlA 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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Applicant's submitted figures have numerals and letters without any textual descriptions or labels. Replacement drawings are needed providing text labels of the boxes in the figures. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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.
Claims 12-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krist et al., US 5,486,995 (Krist) in view of Adra et al,. US 7,489,976 B2 (Adra)
Claim 12.
Krist teaches A method for parameterization of a plant model to define the plant model which provides at least input variable values and parameter values to a simulation module of a simulation process, (Krist col 3 Lines 47-50) “The interactive optimization modeling system comprises a plurality of mathematically-based models of the physical process” (col 15 Lines 33-35) “and some parameters are derived from the variables from the Process Control Computer” (col 15 Lines 35-38) “The derived parameters are calculated each time the optimizing system 73 executes its computational cycle using equations to characterize the derived parameters (variables) in a responsive manner to variables acquired from the Process Control Computer 71” (col 16 Lines 5-7) “each parameter of the model defined in the economic model definition step 51 must be defined by at least one constraint equation in the formulated plant model” {EXAMINERS NOTE: Computes, derives input/parameter values from plant data via model equations (parameterization method producing values that can be fed to a simulator}
the method comprising: providing a plant model comprising a plurality of model components which map physical sub-processes of a plant process and which correspond to physical models; (Krist Col 3 Lines 47-53 “The interactive optimization modeling system comprises a plurality of mathematically-based models of the physical process and optimizing engines which are integrated by interactive communication paths to converge upon and determine an optimized set of values for the manipulated process variables.” (Fig 3) (Depicting nodal characterization of a portion of the manufacturing system.) {EXAMINERS NOTE: Here we have a plant model built from multiple mathematical (physical) sub models, organized via nodes that represent unit operations (subprocesses) model “components” corresponds to physical subprocess.}
specifying at least one output variable value of the plant process in an operating point of the plant; (Krist Col 4 Lines 54-55 “first logic to define steady state status regarding said input signals” (Col 8 Lines 23-25) “Steady state operation" is essentially a situation where (1) a process is dynamically regular and uniform in its operation over a time interval,”) {EXAMINERS NOTE: Steady state is the operating point, the variables that comprise it are the output variable values.}
ascertaining at least one of the input variable values, parameter values and further output variable values of the sub-processes based on the model components and the at least one specified output variable value. (Krist col 15 Lines 31-35 “some of the parameters are measured from the Process Control Computer 71 each time the optimizing system 73 executes its computational cycle, and some parameters are derived from the variables from the Process Control Computer. The derived parameters are calculated each time the optimizing system 73 executes its computational cycle using equations to characterize the derived parameters (variables) in a responsive manner to variables acquired from the Process Control Computer” (Col 16 Lines 8-16) “the constraint equation could be, alternatively, the definition of a constant, the 10 definition of a variable equal to the value of a process variable acquired from the Process Control Computer 71 each time the optimizing system 73 executes its computational cycle, a complex equation and table look-up sequence using at least one process variable acquired from the Process 15 Control Computer 71 each time the optimizing system 73 executes its computational cycle”) {EXAMINERS NOTE: Krist teaches ascertaining input values (via reconciliation) and parameter values (parameter estimation) from measured/specified process outputs using equations of the plant model.}
at least one of the ascertained input variable values, parameters and the further output variable values being adjusted to improve accuracy of the plant model before the simulation is performed. (Krist col 15 Lines 35-38) “The derived parameters are calculated each time the optimizing system 73 executes its computational cycle using equations to characterize the derived parameters (variables) in a responsive manner to variables acquired from the Process Control Computer 71.” (col 16 Lines 5-8) “each parameter of the model defined in the economic model definition step 51 must be defined by at least one constraint equation in the formulated plant model” (col 16 lines 43-45) “are summarized into a process variable list for use in the nodal structuring step, the reconciliation model formulation step 56, and input into optimizing system 73” {Examiners note: Data reconciliation and parameter estimation steps to adjust/optimize model values to improve model fidelity prior to use. The adjusted (ascertained) values are then available to the simulation engine.}
Krist does not explicitly teach, but Adra teaches simulating the plant process based on at least one of the ascertained input variable values, parameters and further output variable values, (Adra col 3 Lines 41-50) “Functionally, the simulation engine 11 is triggered to begin a process flow simulation. . . These rules of operations include parameters or variables of cells and interrelationships between these cells that define activities within the process flow” (col 4 lines 53-55) “Subsequently, the simulation engine 11 acquires or caches all the rules related to the processes flow from the data store and other contributing components of the simulation model.” {Examiners note: Adra teaches a simulation engine that runs the process model using parameters/variables (simulation based on the ascertained values) produced by parameterization.}
Krist and Adra are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor of optimization.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Krist and Adra before him or her, to modify the real time optimization of Krist with the simulation engine of Adra to “integrate and combine varied analytical and implementation tools to dynamically build, simulate and analyze processes subjected to any applicable conditions and scenarios to provide 40 productivity improvements.” (Adra col 1 Lines 37-41)
Claim 13
Kirst teaches The method as claimed in claim 12, wherein at least one portion of at least one of the input variable values, parameter values and further output variable values is back- calculated during said ascertaining. (Krist Col 15 Lines 33-38 “and some parameters are derived from the variables from the Process Control Computer 71. The derived parameters are calculated each time the optimizing system 73 executes its computational cycle using equations to characterize the derived parameters (variables) in a responsive manner to variables acquired from the Process Control Computer (Col 16 Lines 28-31_ “at least one parameter derived from solution to an equation or, alternatively, a table look-up sequence using at least one parameter measured as a process variable”) {EXAMINERS NOTE: Process variables are measured outputs; the system computes (back-calculates) parameter values from those outputs.}
Claim 14.
Kirst teaches The method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the model components have model equations, which are solved to recalculate at least one of the input variable values, the parameter values and the further output variable values. (Krist Col 15 Lines 46-48 “a comprehensive set of equations characterizing a plant model comprising (1) mass, material, equilibrium, thermodynamic, and physical property related equations,” and Col 16 Lines 28-31 “at least one parameter derived from solution to an equation or, alternatively, a table look-up sequence using at least one parameter measured as a process variable”
Claim 15.
Kirst teaches The method as claimed in claim 14, wherein differential equations are transformed in a stationary state. (Krist Col 6 Lines 11-13 “FIG. 15 (constituting FIGS. ISA and 15B) is a flowchart depicting the overall steady state characterization process related to the manufacturing system.” And Col 4 Lines 36-40 “said interactive optimization means having at least an input signal reconciliation model, for deriving a reconciled input signal set from the input signals (using physical and chemical conservation laws to define equalities respecting the input signals),”)
Claim 16.
Kirst teaches The method as claimed in claim 12, wherein at least a different portion of at least one of the input variable values, the parameter values and the further output variable values is specified to ascertain at least a first portion of at least one of the input variable values, the parameter values and the further output variable values. (Krist Col 15 Lines 29-35 “Some of the parameters are constant and fixed, some of the parameters are measured from the Process Control Computer. . . and some parameters are derived from the variables from the Process Control Computer”) {EXAMINERS NOTE: The model is portioned into specified portions (constant/fixed) and derived portions (computed/ascertained)}
Claim 17.
Kirst teaches The method as claimed in claim 12, wherein a second portion of at least one of the input variable values, the parameter values and the further output variable values is automatically specified based on a specified operating point of the plant. (Krist col 4 Lines 52-68 “In more detailed form, the interactive optimization means further comprises: first logic to define steady state status regarding said input 55 signals, second logic, responsive to the steady state status, to generate a reconciled input signal set from said input signals; 60 third logic, responsive to the reconciled input signal set, to determine estimated process parameters, fourth logic, responsive to estimated process parameters and the monetary value of at least one fluctuating economic variable, to define economic setpoints, and fifth logic, responsive to defined economic setpoints, to test said economic setpoints and designate the manipulated process variables.”) {EXAMINERS NOTE: Steady state status is an operating point. Once established the system automatically defines setpoints and designates manipulated variables. }
Claim 18.
Kirst teaches The method as claimed in claim 12, wherein at least a third portion of at least one of the input variable values, the parameter values and the further output variable values is acquired in a parameterizing mode via a user interface. (Krist col 35 Lines 5-16 “Computer monitor 74 interfaces between human interface engine 813 and human operator 78 to enable data to be transmitted between the human and optimizing system 73. Computer monitor 7 4 further comprises a display means and data input means such as a keyboard, cursor positioner (also known as a mouse or trackball). In alternative embodiments, data input means includes either a tablet, lightpen, or touch screen means. In this regard, the human operator 78 utilizes the display means to read data written by human interface engine 813 to computer monitor 74; and human operator 78 utilizes a data input means to write data to human interface engine 813.”)
Claim 20.
Modified Kirst with Adra teaches The method as claimed in claim 19, wherein user inputs acquired in a simulation mode via a user interface form a basis of the simulation of the plant process. (Adra col 5 Lines 3-9) “The user may then modify at least one of the identified parameters on the fly while the simulation progresses, at step 26. Such parameter modification is recognized dynamically by the simulation tool 10, and the modified parameters are incorporated in the event data store 11 for the remainder of the simulation or until the next parameter modification.” (col 9 Lines 5-6) “The user may simulate the process flow by triggering the simulation engine from the graphical interface” {Examiners note: During a run the system accepts user inputs (parameter changes) during an in progress simulation, user provided parameters are ingested and used by the simulation engine.}
Krist and Adra are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor of optimization.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Krist and Adra before him or her, to modify the real time optimization of Krist with the simulation engine of Adra to “integrate and combine varied analytical and implementation tools to dynamically build, simulate and analyze processes subjected to any applicable conditions and scenarios to provide 40 productivity improvements.” (Adra col 1 Lines 37-41)
Claim 21
Krist teaches A system for parameterization of a plant model to define the plant model which provides at least input variable values and parameter values to a simulation module of a simulation process, (Krist col 3 Lines 47-50) “The interactive optimization modeling system comprises a plurality of mathematically-based models of the physical process” (col 15 Lines 33-35) “and some parameters are derived from the variables from the Process Control Computer” (col 15 Lines 35-38) “The derived parameters are calculated each time the optimizing system 73 executes its computational cycle using equations to characterize the derived parameters (variables) in a responsive manner to variables acquired from the Process Control Computer 71” (col 16 Lines 5-7) “each parameter of the model defined in the economic model definition step 51 must be defined by at least one constraint equation in the formulated plant model” {EXAMINERS NOTE: Computes, derives input/parameter values from plant data via model equations (parameterization method producing values that can be fed to a simulator}
the method comprising: providing a plant model comprising a plurality of model components which map physical sub-processes of a plant process and which correspond to physical models; (Krist Col 3 Lines 47-53 “The interactive optimization modeling system comprises a plurality of mathematically-based models of the physical process and optimizing engines which are integrated by interactive communication paths to converge upon and determine an optimized set of values for the manipulated process variables.” (Fig 3) (Depicting nodal characterization of a portion of the manufacturing system.) {EXAMINERS NOTE: Here we have a plant model built from multiple mathematical (physical) sub models, organized via nodes that represent unit operations (subprocesses) model “components” corresponds to physical subprocess.}
specifying at least one output variable value of the plant process in an operating point of the plant; (Krist Col 4 Lines 54-55 “first logic to define steady state status regarding said input signals” (Col 8 Lines 23-25) “Steady state operation" is essentially a situation where (1) a process is dynamically regular and uniform in its operation over a time interval,”) {EXAMINERS NOTE: Steady state is the operating point, the variables that comprise it are the output variable values.}
ascertaining at least one of the input variable values, parameter values and further output variable values of the sub-processes based on the model components and the at least one specified output variable value. (Krist col 15 Lines 31-35 “some of the parameters are measured from the Process Control Computer 71 each time the optimizing system 73 executes its computational cycle, and some parameters are derived from the variables from the Process Control Computer. The derived parameters are calculated each time the optimizing system 73 executes its computational cycle using equations to characterize the derived parameters (variables) in a responsive manner to variables acquired from the Process Control Computer” (Col 16 Lines 8-16) “the constraint equation could be, alternatively, the definition of a constant, the 10 definition of a variable equal to the value of a process variable acquired from the Process Control Computer 71 each time the optimizing system 73 executes its computational cycle, a complex equation and table look-up sequence using at least one process variable acquired from the Process 15 Control Computer 71 each time the optimizing system 73 executes its computational cycle”) {EXAMINERS NOTE: Krist teaches ascertaining input values (via reconciliation) and parameter values (parameter estimation) from measured/specified process outputs using equations of the plant model.}
at least one of the ascertained input variable values, parameters and the further output variable values being adjusted to improve accuracy of the plant model before the simulation is performed. (Krist col 15 Lines 35-38) “The derived parameters are calculated each time the optimizing system 73 executes its computational cycle using equations to characterize the derived parameters (variables) in a responsive manner to variables acquired from the Process Control Computer 71.” (col 16 Lines 5-8) “each parameter of the model defined in the economic model definition step 51 must be defined by at least one constraint equation in the formulated plant model” (col 16 lines 43-45) “are summarized into a process variable list for use in the nodal structuring step, the reconciliation model formulation step 56, and input into optimizing system 73” {Examiners note: Data reconciliation and parameter estimation steps to adjust/optimize model values to improve model fidelity prior to use. The adjusted (ascertained) values are then available to the simulation engine.}
Krist does not explicitly teach, but Adra teaches simulating the plant process based on at least one of the ascertained input variable values, parameters and further output variable values, (Adra col 3 Lines 41-50) “Functionally, the simulation engine 11 is triggered to begin a process flow simulation. . . These rules of operations include parameters or variables of cells and interrelationships between these cells that define activities within the process flow” (col 4 lines 53-55) “Subsequently, the simulation engine 11 acquires or caches all the rules related to the processes flow from the data store and other contributing components of the simulation model.” {Examiners note: Adra teaches a simulation engine that runs the process model using parameters/variables (simulation based on the ascertained values)produced by parameterization.}
Krist and Adra are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor of optimization.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Krist and Adra before him or her, to modify the real time optimization of Krist with the simulation engine of Adra to “integrate and combine varied analytical and implementation tools to dynamically build, simulate and analyze processes subjected to any applicable conditions and scenarios to provide 40 productivity improvements.” (Adra col 1 Lines 37-41)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN DAVID HAGLER whose telephone number is (703)756-1339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10am- 6pm.
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 5712723676. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN DAVID HAGLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189