DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is non-final and in response to the claims filed June 30, 2022. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, of which claims 1-20 are currently rejected.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. [0005] recites “…and thus luck adaptability…” and this appears to be a typographical error and should read “and thus lack”
Para. [0096] recites “…of the generator 102 using the of the delay/amplitude estimator 404…” and this appears to be a typographical error with the recitation of “the of the”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “each of the combinations” and to prevent any potential confusion, the claim should fully refer back to combinations and state “each of the various combinations of estimation laws and control laws” or the claim could read “each combination of the various combinations of estimation laws and control laws”. Claims 10 and 16 recite similar language and are objected to for at least the same reasons therein.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 10-13, and 15-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of copending Application No. 17/855,644 (“the ‘644 application”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of the present invention is unpatentable over at least claim 1 of the ‘644 application.
Claim 2 of the present invention is unpatentable over at least claim 2 of the ‘644 application.
Claim 3 of the present invention is unpatentable over at least claims 1 and 4 of the ‘644 application. Specifically, the possible control signals use based on estimated parameter tensors.
Claim 4 of the present invention is unpatentable over at least claim 4 of the ‘644 application.
Claim 10 of the present invention is unpatentable over at least claim 4 of the ‘644 application.
Claim 11 of the present invention is unpatentable over at least claim 1 of the ‘644 application.
Claim 12 of the present invention is unpatentable over at least claim 2 of the ‘644 application.
Claim 13 of the present invention is unpatentable over at least claim 15 of the ‘644 application.
Claim 15 of the present invention is unpatentable over at least claim 7 of the ‘644 application.
Claim 16 of the present invention is unpatentable over at least claims 16 and 17 of the ‘644 application.
Claim 17 of the present invention is unpatentable over at least claim 1 of the ‘644 application.
Claim 18 of the present invention is unpatentable over at least claim 2 of the ‘644 application.
Claims 5, 7, 8, 14, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of the ‘644 application further in view of Cline et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0119629; hereinafter “Cline”).
As per claim 5 of the present application, the ‘644 application teaches combinations of control signals but does not explicitly teach wherein the total estimated system output, yest_out, is based on a combination of the estimated system outputs, yest_se.
Cline teaches wherein the total estimated system output, yest_out, is based on a combination of the estimated system outputs, yest_se (See Cline para. [0043]: combine at least two or more demand signals for a comprehensive control signal).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the control signals of the ‘644 application with the combination of outputs of Cline. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose combining control signals and Cline further enhances the control signals of the ‘644 application because loop selection logic improves engine performance by allowing the control logic to access engine states (See Cline para. [0005]).
As per claim 7 of the present application, claims 9 and 17 of the ‘644 application teaches selecting the best control signal and using measured system outputs and estimated system outputs to calculate the estimation error or system cost function. However, the ‘644 application does not explicitly use the formulas as claimed to select the best one of the possible control signals.
Cline teaches wherein the selector module is configured to select a best one of the possible control signals, use, by calculating an estimated system error, êout, or system cost function, Jout, for each of the possible control signals, use, based on |r−ymeas|, |r−yest_out|, or |ymeas−yest_out|, where r is a reference signal of the input regressor, Ø, ymeas is a measurement of an output of the power system, and yest_out is a total estimated system output (See Cline para. [0030]: “determine error between actual engine operation and modeled engine operation and output a signal that allows control module 12 to compensate for this error”. This is |ymeas−yest_out|; paras. [0034-35]: “using a reference model to determine the reference control signal, Rref, closed-loop reference module 6 may determine a reference control signal, Rref, that is closer to the desired reference control signal, Rref, for the selected request demand signal…”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the ‘644 application with the teachings of Cline for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 5.
As per claim 8 of the present application, claims 9 and 17 of the ‘644 application teaches selecting the best combination of control signals and using measured system outputs and estimated system outputs to calculate the estimation error or system cost function. However, the ‘644 application does not explicitly use the formulas as claimed to select the best combination of the control signals.
Cline teaches wherein the selector module is configured to select a best one of the possible control signals, use, by calculating an estimated system error, êout, or system cost function, Jout, for each of the possible control signals, use, based on |r−ymeas|, |r−yest_out|, or |ymeas−yest_out|, where r is a reference signal of the input regressor, Ø, ymeas is a measurement of an output of the power system, and yest_out is a total estimated system output (See Cline para. [0030]: “determine error between actual engine operation and modeled engine operation and output a signal that allows control module 12 to compensate for this error”. This is |ymeas−yest_out|; paras. [0034-35]: “using a reference model to determine the reference control signal, Rref, closed-loop reference module 6 may determine a reference control signal, Rref, that is closer to the desired reference control signal, Rref, for the selected request demand signal…”; para. [0043]: combined demand signal to be output to control actuators of engine).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the ‘644 application with the teachings of Cline for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 5.
As per claim 14 of the present application, claim 1 of the ‘644 application teaches estimation laws and control laws to generate possible control signals. However, the ‘644 application does not explicitly use a plurality of combinations to do so.
Cline further teaches wherein the adaptation law generator comprises a plurality of combinations of estimation laws and control laws, each combination producing one of the possible control signals, use (See Cline para. [0043]: combine at least two or more demand signals for a comprehensive control signal).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the ‘644 application with the teachings of Cline for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 5.
As per claim 20 of the present invention, claim 17 of the ‘644 application compares information from previous iterations. However, the ‘655 application does not explicitly compare a control uout.
Cline teaches wherein the input regressor, Ø, comprises the reference signal, r, a measured system output, ymeas, [from a previous iteration], and a control, uout, [from a previous iteration] (See Cline para. [0030]: “determine error between actual engine operation and modeled engine operation and output a signal that allows control module 12 to compensate for this error”; paras. [0034-35]: “using a reference model to determine the reference control signal, Rref, closed-loop reference module 6 may determine a reference control signal, Rref, that is closer to the desired reference control signal, Rref, for the selected request demand signal…”; para. [0045]: “modules that are configured to receive multiple engine control variable inputs and determine multiple outputs based on relationships between the multiple engine control variable inputs”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the ‘644 application with the teachings of Cline for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 5.
Claim 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the ‘644 application in view of Cline, further in view of Piche et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0102902; hereinafter “Piche”).
As per claim 6, while the ‘655 application and Cline teaches the system outputs, the ‘655 application and Cline do not use a weighted average.
Piche teaches wherein the combination of the estimated system outputs, yest_se, is a weighted average of the estimated system outputs, yest_se (See Piche paras. [0058] and [0075]: “aggregate model may be used to provide a weighted average of the CV (controlled variables) around the MVs (manipulated variables).”; para. [0068]: outputs (CVs) of the gas turbine).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the engine control signals of the ‘644 application and Cline with the averages of Piche. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose controlling and modelling power systems, and Piche enhances the output optimization of Cline by penalizing bias and to efficiently optimize continuously updated values (See Piche para. [0075]).
Claims 9 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of the ‘644 application, further in view of Piche.
As per claim 9 of the present invention, claim 4 of the ‘644 application discloses wherein the best combination is a topology of two or more of the possible control signals, use (See Cline para. [0043]: combined demand signal to be output to control actuators of engine). However, the ‘644 application does not explicitly use an average.
Piche teaches that the best combination of Cline is selected from an average, weighted average, or summation or the two or more of the possible control signals, use (See Piche paras. [0058] and [0075]: “aggregate model may be used to provide a weighted average of the CV (controlled variables) around the MVs (manipulated variables).”; para. [0068]: outputs (CVs) of the gas turbine).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the engine control signals of the ‘644 application with the averages of Piche. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose controlling and modelling power systems, and Piche enhances the output optimization of Cline by penalizing bias and to efficiently optimize continuously updated values (See Piche para. [0075]).
As per claim 19 of the present invention, the ‘644 application teaches the combination of the signals. However, while the ‘644 application teaches the system outputs, he ‘644 application does not use a weighted average.
Piche teaches wherein the combination is an average, weighted average, multiplication, or difference (See Piche paras. [0058] and [0075]: “aggregate model may be used to provide a weighted average of the CV (controlled variables) around the MVs (manipulated variables).”; para. [0068]: outputs (CVs) of the gas turbine).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the ‘644 application with the teachings of Piche for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 6.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
As per claim 1, at Step 1, the claim is directed to the statutory category of invention of machine or manufacture. At Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are directed to mental process(es) and/or mathematical relationships. The claim language has been reproduced below:
An adaptive engine configured to receive a series of reference signals and in response provide a control to one or more actuators controlling parameters of a power system, the adaptive engine comprising:
an adaptation law generator taking an input regressor, Ø, and generating a plurality of possible control signals, use, as a function of the input regressor, Ø, applied to various combinations of estimation laws and control laws;
at least one nonlinear model producing an estimated system output, yest_se, for each of the combinations; and
a selector module configured to select a best one, or best combination, of the possible control signals, use, based on at least one of the estimated system outputs, yest_se.
Each of these limitations are mental processes and/or mathematical relationships that can be performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. That is, other than the recitation of one or more actuators and a general control signal, nothing in the claim elements goes beyond the above-identified abstract ideas. A user can certainly perform these functions and identify the optimal way to control, or tell another user or machine to control, a high-level power system.
At Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements are bolded above. These elements are generic components that essentially are an equivalent to an “apply it” scenario and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Additionally, the claims could be considered a general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims are merely directed to high level optimization of how to best select an operation plan for a general power system. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (h).
At Step 2B, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
Claims 10 and 16 recite similar language as the adaptive engine of claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons therein. At Steps 2A, Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any other additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
As per claim 2, at Step 2A Prong 2, the claim is not integrated into a practical application because the power system is merely adding an equivalent of an “apply it” scenario with regards to the plasma. Additionally, this could be construed as a general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (h). At Step 2B, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
As per claim 3, the claim is directed to estimations that can be performed with the assistance of pen and paper (mental process – observation and evaluation; mathematical relationships). At Steps 2A, Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
As per claim 4, the claim is directed to estimations that can be performed with the assistance of pen and paper (mental process – observation and evaluation; mathematical relationships). At Steps 2A, Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
As per claim 5, the claim is directed to estimations that can be performed with the assistance of pen and paper (mental process – observation and evaluation; mathematical relationships). At Steps 2A, Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
As per claim 6, the claim is directed to averaging outputs, which can be performed with the assistance of pen and paper (mental process – observation and evaluation; mathematical relationships and calculations). At Steps 2A, Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
As per claim 7, the claim is directed to calculating and selecting optimal operations, which can be performed with the assistance of pen and paper (mental process – observation and evaluation; mathematical relationships and calculations). At Steps 2A, Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
As per claim 8, the claim is directed to calculating and selecting optimal operations, which can be performed with the assistance of pen and paper (mental process – observation and evaluation; mathematical relationships and calculations). At Steps 2A, Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
As per claim 9, the claim is directed to averaging generic control signals, which can be performed with the assistance of pen and paper (mental process – observation and evaluation; mathematical relationships and calculations). At Steps 2A, Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
As per claim 11, at Step 2A Prong 2, the claim is not integrated into a practical application because the power system is merely adding an equivalent of an “apply it” scenario with regards to the actuators. Additionally, this could be construed as a general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (h). At Step 2B, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
As per claim 12, at Step 2A Prong 2, the claim is not integrated into a practical application because the power system is merely adding an equivalent of an “apply it” scenario with regards to the plasma. Additionally, this could be construed as a general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (h). At Step 2B, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
As per claim 13, the claim is directed to calculating errors in the system, which can be performed with the assistance of pen and paper (mental process – observation and evaluation; mathematical relationships and calculations). At Steps 2A, Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
As per claim 14, the claim is directed to calculating and selecting optimal operations, which can be performed with the assistance of pen and paper (mental process – observation and evaluation; mathematical relationships and calculations). At Steps 2A, Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
As per claim 15, the claim is directed to modeling operations based on time-varying systems, which can be performed with the assistance of pen and paper (mental process – observation and evaluation; mathematical relationships and calculations). At Steps 2A, Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
As per claim 17, at Step 2A Prong 2, the claim is not integrated into a practical application because the power system is merely adding an equivalent of an “apply it” scenario with regards to the actuators. Additionally, this could be construed as a general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (h). At Step 2B, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
As per claim 18, at Step 2A Prong 2, the claim is not integrated into a practical application because the power system is merely adding an equivalent of an “apply it” scenario with regards to the plasma. Additionally, this could be construed as a general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (h). At Step 2B, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
As per claim 19, the claim is directed to averaging generic control signals, which can be performed with the assistance of pen and paper (mental process – observation and evaluation; mathematical relationships and calculations). At Steps 2A, Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
As per claim 20, the claim is directed to calculating and selecting optimal operations, which can be performed with the assistance of pen and paper (mental process – observation and evaluation; mathematical relationships and calculations). At Steps 2A, Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
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-AIA 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-AIA 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-AIA 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-AIA 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-AIA 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: “selector module” in claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, and 16.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 8 recites “each combination” and “each of the combinations” and it is unclear what combinations the claim is referring to, as there are numerous combinations (various and best) in both claim 8 and claim 1, from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 14 recites “a plurality of combinations of estimation laws and control laws, each combination…” and it is unclear if these are the same “various combinations” as introduced in claim 10, or different combinations. Additionally, it is therefore unclear which combination claim 14 is referring to when stating “each combination”.
Claim limitation “selector module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, and 16 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 3-6, 9, 11-13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected based on their dependency from an above-rejected claim.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cline et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0119629; hereinafter “Cline”).
As per claim 1, Cline teaches an adaptive engine configured to receive a series of reference signals and in response provide a control to one or more actuators controlling parameters of a power system (See Cline para. [0020]), the adaptive engine comprising:
an adaptation law generator taking an input regressor, Ø, and generating a plurality of possible control signals, use, as a function of the input regressor, Ø, applied to various combinations of estimation laws and control laws (See Cline para. [0030]: “Adaptation module 16 may be included in power management system 2 to determine error between actual engine operation and modeled engine operation and output a signal that allows control module 12 to compensate for this error. Error may include, for example, manufacturing variations in gas turbine engine 14 that deviate from the engine model, degradations in performance of gas turbine engine 14 over its life, and variations in sensors and actuators of the engine that may change over time. Adaptation module 16 includes a set of adaptation laws. The set of adaptation laws may be configured to generate an output, based on the trajectory difference between the reference state trajectory signal, Xref, and the engine state trajectory signal, Xeng, to control module 12 to reduce or substantially cancel effects of uncertainties in power management system 2”);
at least one nonlinear model producing an estimated system output, yest_se, for each of the combinations (See Cline paras. [0028]: “nonlinear models such as nonlinear thermodynamic cycle models”); and
a selector module configured to select a best one, or best combination, of the possible control signals, use, based on at least one of the estimated system outputs, yest_se (See Cline paras. [0034-35]: “By using a reference model to determine the reference control signal, Rref, closed-loop reference module 6 may determine a reference control signal, Rref, that is closer to the desired reference control signal, Rref, for the selected request demand signal, Preq and allow control module 12 to operate under smaller design margins compared to, for example, a controller that does not use a reference model to determine a control reference signal (e.g. open-loop reference model)… Control module 12 may determine the demand signal based on the engine state trajectory signal, Xeng, the adaptation signal, Radp, and the reference control signal, Rref. Control module 12 may output the demand signal, Rdmd, to control operation of at least one component of gas turbine engine 14.”; para. [0043]: “combine two or more demand signals for a comprehensive control signal”).
As per claim 3, Cline further teaches the adaptive engine of claim 1, wherein the adaptation law generator produces an estimated model parameter tensor for each of the estimation laws, and wherein each of the plurality of possible control signals, use, is based on one of the estimated model parameter tensors (See Cline paras. [0028] and [0031-32]: engine parameters related to various physical properties, and can include the “engine parameter estimate signal” at the control module).
As per claim 4, Cline further teaches the adaptive engine of claim 3, wherein each of the estimated model parameter tensors is based on an estimation error, ê, or cost function, J, that is a function of a total estimated system output, yest_out (See Cline paras. [0028] and [0030]: engine parameters related to various physical properties, and can include a determination of “error between actual engine operation and modeled engine operation and output a signal that allows control module 12 to compensate for this error”).
As per claim 5, Cline further teaches the adaptive engine of claim 4, wherein the total estimated system output, yest_out, is based on a combination of the estimated system outputs, yest_se (See Cline para. [0043]: combine at least two or more demand signals for a comprehensive control signal)
As per claim 7, Cline further teaches the adaptive engine of claim 1, wherein the selector module is configured to select a best one of the possible control signals, use, by calculating an estimated system error, êout, or system cost function, Jout, for each of the possible control signals, use, based on |r−ymeas|, |r−yest_out|, or |ymeas−yest_out|, where r is a reference signal of the input regressor, Ø, ymeas is a measurement of an output of the power system, and yest_out is a total estimated system output (See Cline para. [0030]: “determine error between actual engine operation and modeled engine operation and output a signal that allows control module 12 to compensate for this error”. This is |ymeas−yest_out|; paras. [0034-35]: “using a reference model to determine the reference control signal, Rref, closed-loop reference module 6 may determine a reference control signal, Rref, that is closer to the desired reference control signal, Rref, for the selected request demand signal…”).
As per claim 8, Cline further teaches the adaptive engine of claim 1, wherein the selector module is configured to select a best combination of the possible control signals, use, by calculating an estimated system error, êout, or system cost function, Jout, for each combination, based on |r−ymeas|, |r−yest_out|, or |ymeas−yest_out|, where r is a reference signal of the input regressor, Ø, ymeas is a measurement of an output of the power system, and yest_out is a total estimated system output corresponding to each of the combinations (See Cline para. [0030]: “determine error between actual engine operation and modeled engine operation and output a signal that allows control module 12 to compensate for this error”. This is |ymeas−yest_out|; paras. [0034-35]: “using a reference model to determine the reference control signal, Rref, closed-loop reference module 6 may determine a reference control signal, Rref, that is closer to the desired reference control signal, Rref, for the selected request demand signal…”; para. [0043]: combined demand signal to be output to control actuators of engine).
As per claim 10, Cline teaches an adaptive engine comprising:
an adaptation law generator taking an input regressor, Ø, and generating a plurality of possible control signals, use, as a function of the input regressor, Ø, applied to various combinations of estimation laws and control laws (See Cline para. [0030]: “Adaptation module 16 may be included in power management system 2 to determine error between actual engine operation and modeled engine operation and output a signal that allows control module 12 to compensate for this error. Error may include, for example, manufacturing variations in gas turbine engine 14 that deviate from the engine model, degradations in performance of gas turbine engine 14 over its life, and variations in sensors and actuators of the engine that may change over time. Adaptation module 16 includes a set of adaptation laws. The set of adaptation laws may be configured to generate an output, based on the trajectory difference between the reference state trajectory signal, Xref, and the engine state trajectory signal, Xeng, to control module 12 to reduce or substantially cancel effects of uncertainties in power management system 2”; para. [0043]: “combine two or more demand signals for a comprehensive control signal”);
at least one nonlinear model producing an estimated system output, yest_se, for each of the combinations (See Cline para. [0028]: “nonlinear models such as nonlinear thermodynamic cycle models”); and
a selector module configured to select one of the possible control signals, use, that minimizes an estimated system error, êout, as a control, uout (See Cline paras. [0025] and [0030]: reduce error by adjusting control signals; paras. [0034-35]: “By using a reference model to determine the reference control signal, Rref, closed-loop reference module 6 may determine a reference control signal, Rref, that is closer to the desired reference control signal, Rref, for the selected request demand signal, Preq and allow control module 12 to operate under smaller design margins compared to, for example, a controller that does not use a reference model to determine a control reference signal (e.g. open-loop reference model)… Control module 12 may determine the demand signal based on the engine state trajectory signal, Xeng, the adaptation signal, Radp, and the reference control signal, Rref. Control module 12 may output the demand signal, Rdmd, to control operation of at least one component of gas turbine engine 14.”).
As per claim 11, Cline further teaches the adaptive engine of claim 10, further comprising one or more actuators of a power system controlled by the control, uout (See Cline para. [0020]: “the power management system may be configured to control more than one component of the gas turbine engine, such as the fuel flow system or variable stator vane actuators”).
As per claim 13, Cline further teaches the adaptive engine of claim 10, wherein the estimated system error, êout, is calculated from two or more of (1) measured system outputs, (2) the estimated system output, yest_se, and (3) a reference signal from the input regressor, Ø (See Cline para. [0030]: “determine error between actual engine operation and modeled engine operation and output a signal that allows control module 12 to compensate for this error”).
As per claim 14, Cline further teaches the adaptive engine of claim 10, wherein the adaptation law generator comprises a plurality of combinations of estimation laws and control laws, each combination producing one of the possible control signals, use (See Cline para. [0043]: combine at least two or more demand signals for a comprehensive control signal).
As per claim 15, Cline further teaches the adaptive engine of claim 10, wherein the control laws are configured to implement a control portion of the nonlinear model to produce the estimated system output, yest_se, for each of the combinations, based on a time-varying linear system (See Cline para. [0030]: Adaptation module 16 may be included in power management system 2 to determine error between actual engine operation and modeled engine operation and output a signal that allows control module 12 to compensate for this error. Error may include, for example, manufacturing variations in gas turbine engine 14 that deviate from the engine model, degradations in performance of gas turbine engine 14 over its life, and variations in sensors and actuators of the engine that may change over time” (emphasis added). The adaption laws may be configured to generate an output, based on the trajectory difference between the reference state trajectory signal, Xref, and the engine state trajectory signal, Xeng).
As per claim 16, Cline teaches an adaptive engine comprising:
an adaptation law generator taking an input regressor, Ø, and generating a plurality of possible control signals, use, as a function of the input regressor, Ø, applied to various combinations of estimation laws and control laws (See Cline para. [0030]: “Adaptation module 16 may be included in power management system 2 to determine error between actual engine operation and modeled engine operation and output a signal that allows control module 12 to compensate for this error. Error may include, for example, manufacturing variations in gas turbine engine 14 that deviate from the engine model, degradations in performance of gas turbine engine 14 over its life, and variations in sensors and actuators of the engine that may change over time. Adaptation module 16 includes a set of adaptation laws. The set of adaptation laws may be configured to generate an output, based on the trajectory difference between the reference state trajectory signal, Xref, and the engine state trajectory signal, Xeng, to control module 12 to reduce or substantially cancel effects of uncertainties in power management system 2”);
at least one nonlinear model producing an estimated system output, yest_se, for each of the combinations (See Cline paras. [0028]: “nonlinear models such as nonlinear thermodynamic cycle models”); and
a selector module configured to select as a control, uout, a combination of two or more of the possible control signals, use, the combination being one that minimizes an error or cost function based on two or more of: a reference signal, r, from the input regressor, Ø, measured system output, ymeas, from the input regressor, Ø, and the estimated system output yest_se (See Cline paras. [0025] and [0030]: reduce error by adjusting control signals; paras. [0034-35]: “By using a reference model to determine the reference control signal, Rref,