Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, “by inputting time series data of a control amount of the control object into the model that outputs time series data of the measured variable of the control object” is not described in the Specification as originally filed. The Specification as originally filed does not specify any “control amount” as an input.
Regarding claims 12 and 20-21 “inputting time series data of a control amount of the control object” poses the same issue as presented with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2-7, 9-11, 13-17, and 19 contain new matter by virtue of dependency.
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 1-7, 9-11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 21, “the model that outputs time series data…” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Claims 2-7 and 9-11 are indefinite by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-12, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordanou (Jordanou, Jean P., et al. "Nonlinear model predictive control of an oil well with echo state networks." IFAC-PapersOnLine 51.8 (2018): 13-18.) in view of Turner (US20020072828A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jordanou teaches:
train a model (§5.1) related to a measured variable (§4, Pbh and Ptt) of a control object (§4, choke valves) by inputting time series data of a control amount of the control object into the model that outputs time series data of the measured variable of the control object (§4, control amount ΔU which is time series data, see §3, and outputs a prediction vector Y of the output, i.e. of the measured variable), under a constraint corresponding to a relationship between a change in a value of the time series data of the control object and a change in a value of the time series data of the measured variable (see Figure 3, which shows a relationship between valve openings and pressures and how a change in one or both valve openings implements a change in one or both pressures, i.e. a constraint regarding the changes in valves and changes in pressures is present).
Jordanou does not explicitly disclose
a training device comprising:
at least one memory; and
at least one processor.
Turner teaches a training device comprising:
at least one memory (¶36, a computer readable medium containing instructions); and
at least one processor (Figure 1: 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the methodology of Jordanou with a training device comprising at least one memory and a processor configured to perform the method of Jordanou in order to speed calculation time via implementation on a computer.
Regarding claim 2, Jordanou as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to train, under the constraint,
a plurality of models, each being configured to output time series data of a plurality of measured variables of the control object (see §5.1 where variable parameters, e.g. γ, are set. Changing any one of the parameters renders a different model and thereby the processor is configured to train, under the constraint, a plurality of models because it is configured to train under various hyperparameters. Ptt and Pbh constitute a plurality of measured variables).
Regarding claim 9, Jordanou as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the relationship between the change in the value of the time series data of the control amount and the change in the value of the time series data of the measured variable as described in claim 9.
However, Turner teaches the applicability of predictive control systems to cases in which the relationship between the change in the value of the input time series data and the change in the value of the output time series data includes a monotonically increasing relationship where the value of the output time series data increases when the value of input the time series data is increased (¶45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the system of Jordanou as modified to an instance where the relationship includes a monotonically increasing relationship where the value of the time series data of the measured variable increases when the value of the time series data of the control amount is increased in order to accurately describe the dynamics of such a control system.
Regarding claim 10, Jordanou as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 9, wherein
the at least one processor is configured to impose, when the relationship between the change in the value of the time series data of the control amount and the change in the value of the time series data of the measured variable is the monotonically increasing relationship, the constraint such that a value of a model parameter of the model related to the measured variable of the control object becomes positive (see Turner, ¶45, the signs are matched for input and output and positive for monotonic increase).
Regarding claim 11, Jordanou as modified teaches a plant configured to execute control by using the model related to the measured variable of the control object trained by the training device of claim 1 (see §4).
Regarding claim 12, Jordanou as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, which is further configured to infer information related to the time series data of the measured variable of the control object (§4, any output of the model is such an inference).
To clarify, the limitations not explicitly recited above with respect to claim 12 are already detailed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Jordanou as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 and furthermore teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 which cover the limitations of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, Jordanou as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 which covers the inference method executed by the processor of Jordanou as modified under normal operation.
Regarding claim 21, Jordanou as modified according to claim 1 performs the method of claim 21 under normal operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 and 13-17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for indicating allowable subject matter for claims 3, 5, 7, and 16 are noted in the Action dated 07/08/2025.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, while Liu discloses differenced data, it is not clear how one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings of Jordanou, Turner, and/or Liu to arrive at the invention of claims 4 or 15.
Claim 6 depends from claim 4 and inherits allowability therefrom.
Claim 13 is allowable because the prior art fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for utilizing a plurality of models to infer information related to a plurality of time series data of measured variables of the control object as claimed. This aspect is not disclosed independently in Jordanou or Turner and it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Jordanou or Turner with Liu to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 14 depends on claim 13 and inherits allowability therefrom.
Claim 17 depends from claim 15 and inherits allowability therefrom.
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 SCHYLER S SANKS whose telephone number is (571)272-6125. The examiner can normally be reached 06:30 - 15:30 Central Time, M-F.
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, Michael Huntley can be reached at (303) 297-4307. 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.
/SCHYLER S SANKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2129