DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claim 1 is currently presented for Examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No.16696967, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. See the instant independent claims, wherein several of these limitations do not have sufficient § 112(a) support from the ‘16696967”.
E.g.: Claim 1 include some elements from later-filed application (18136812) for example
a. Claim 1 recites limitation “data acquisition devices, including flow meter, dissolved oxygen detector, nitrate nitrogen detector, ammonia nitrogen detector, suspended solids concentration detector, effluent biochemical oxygen demand detector, effluent chemical oxygen demand detector, effluent ammonia nitrogen detector, effluent total nitrogen detector, effluent suspended solids concentration;
control devices, including aeration pump, reflow pump;
data transmission devices, including communication interface, remote interface; and
a programmable logic controller PLC.
the WWTP mainly includes biochemical reaction process and sedimentation process, among them, the biochemical reaction process is divided into five tanks, including an anaerobic tank, an anoxic tank and three aerobic tanks, mainly involving three reaction processes; firstly, wastewater enters an anaerobic tank from a water inlet for reaction of ammonization, secondly, the wastewater enters an anoxic tank from the anaerobic tank for denitrification reaction, finally, the wastewater flows from the anoxic tank to the three aerobic tanks for nitrification reaction, and flows into the secondary sedimentation tank for sedimentation; the anaerobic tank and the anoxic tank are respectively provided with a stirrer to fully mix the activated sludge and the wastewater; the aeration pump arranged at the third aerobic tank can charge oxygen for the three aerobic tanks, and the reflow pump arranged between the third aerobic tank and the anaerobic tank is used for controlling the reflow rate of the internal circulation; the treated wastewater enters a secondary sedimentation tank to realize the separation of activated sludge and effluent; then the effluent is discharged from the upper end of the secondary sedimentation tank, part of the activated sludge is discharged from the bottom end of the secondary sedimentation tank, and the remaining sludge is returned to the anaerobic tank by the control action of the reflow pump arranged at the secondary sedimentation tank; data acquisition sensors are arranged in the anaerobic tank, the anoxic tank, the aerobic tank and the secondary sedimentation tank;
the data acquisition device installed in the biochemical reaction process comprises:
a flow meter arranged in the anaerobic tank and used for acquiring inflow flow data, a portable dissolved oxygen detector installed in the third aerobic tank for obtaining dissolved oxygen concentration data, a nitrate nitrogen detector arranged in the anoxic tank and used for acquiring nitrate nitrogen concentration data, an ammonia nitrogen detector arranged in the third aerobic tank and used for acquiring ammonia nitrogen data, a suspended matter concentration detector installed in the anoxic tank for acquiring suspended matter concentration data;
the data acquisition device installed in the secondary sedimentation tank:
an effluent ammonia nitrogen detector for acquiring effluent ammonia nitrogen data, an effluent total nitrogen detector for acquiring effluent total nitrogen data, an effluent suspended matter concentration detector for acquiring effluent suspended matter data, an effluent biochemical oxygen demand detector for obtaining effluent biochemical oxygen demand data, a water outlet chemical oxygen demand detector used for acquiring water outlet chemical oxygen demand data;
the data transmission end of each instrument in the wastewater treatment process is connected to the computer by using the communication interface and the remote interface in the data transmission device; the programmable logic controller PLC is used for changing the rotating speed of the driving motor of the aeration pump and the reflow pump to control the output of the aeration pump and the reflow pump;
the software module includes data acquisition module, intelligent modeling module, multi-objective optimization module and control module;
the data acquisition module is used for acquiring data information such as process variables related to the wastewater treatment process and optimized operation performance indexes;
the intelligent modeling module is used for establishing an optimal operation performance index model of the wastewater treatment process, and comprises a pumping energy consumption model, an aeration energy consumption model and an effluent quality model;
the multi-objective optimization module is used for simultaneously optimizing a plurality of performance indexes of the wastewater treatment process, including pumping energy, aeration energy and effluent water quality, and obtaining optimal values of related control variables;
the control module compares the control action of the aeration pump and the reflow pump with the obtained optimized set value of the control variable, so as to carry out the control action;”
These are some of the elements that are not supported in parent application 16996967. Under MPEP 211.05 and 2133.01, claims 1 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: specification contains numerous informalities including grammatical errors, inconsistent singular and plural terminology, improper punctuation and typographical defects. For example, phrases such as “the update process are,” “x(t) is the inputs,”, “maximum iterative numbers,” and “U is the relationship to combine” are grammatically improper, and inconsistent terminology is used with respect to “control variables/control variable” and “data transmission devices/devices”. For example, Para [0068]-W1r(t), W2r(t) and W3r(t) are the weight vectors of the rth radial basis functions of f1(t) and f2(t) at the tth time, whose ranges are [−3, 3] respectively; W1(t), W2(t) and W3(t) are the biases of the rth radial basis functions of f1(t) and f2(t) at the tth time”. Specification defines W1r(t), W2r(t) and W3r(t), but states that these variables correspond only to radial basis functions of f1(t) and f2(t), omitting f3(t). Likewise, variables W1(t), W2(t) and W3(t) are defined only respect to f1(t) and f2(t). Further para [0031] recites “pBestk,i(t) is the personal optimal position of the ith particle in the kth iteration at the tth time, and gBestk(t) is the personal optimal position in the kth iteration at the tth time”. Specification is inconsistent because pBestk,i(t) and gBestk,i(t) are both define as “personal optimal position”, although these variables represent distinct optimization parameters. Later it says global optimal solutions for gBEST. The inconsistent mathematical definitions render the scope of specification unclear. Specification recites in equation 11 it recites pk-1(t), while the corresponding explanation refers to pBestk-1(t). No definition is provided for pk-1(t), rendering the mathematical relationship indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim objections
Claim 1 is objected because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “a programmable logic controller PLC.” The clam contains improper punctuation and is not presented as a single continuous sentence. The period after “PLC” improperly terminates the claim and causes the remaining language to appear as a separate sentence fragment. Thus, it is making it unclear whether the subsequent languages forms parts of claim 1.
Claim 1 is objected to because the claim contains numerous informalities including grammatical errors, inconsistent singular and plural terminology, improper punctuation and typographical defects. For example, phrases such as “the update process are,” “is the inputs”, “maximum iterative numbers,” and “U is the relationship to combine” are grammatically improper, and inconsistent terminology is used with respect to “control variables/control variable” and “data transmission devices/devices”. Claim recites “Therefore, a dynamic…” in page 36 which is grammatically improper because it is continuing the same sentence after punctuation linking related clauses. Claim recites “The control action is obtained…” in page 40 which is grammatically improper because it is continuing the same sentence after punctuation linking related clauses. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
7. 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:
Claim 1:
the software module includes data acquisition module, intelligent modeling module, multi-objective optimization module and control module;
Each of the above generic placeholder is specifically excluded from being interpreted as software per se. See MPEP §2181(II)(B) third to last paragraph.
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, First Paragraph
8. 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.
9. Claim 1 is 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. Claim 1 recites “the software module includes data acquisition module, intelligent modeling module, multi-objective optimization module and control module” for performing the claim limitation. These limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use the generic placeholders without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function or to modify the generic placeholder. Specification paragraph [0013-0018] and [0048-0049] and fig 1 states " The data transmission end of each instrument in the wastewater treatment process is connected to the computer by using the communication interface and the remote interface in the data transmission device. The programmable logic controller PLC is used for changing the rotating speed of the driving motor of the aeration pump and the reflow pump to control the output of the aeration pump and the reflow pump." The specification does not specifically link any algorithms to the modules for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the claims and spec lack corresponding structure support for the modules listed above. The written description does not include the structural elements to carry out these specifically claimed functions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, Second Paragraph
10. 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.
11. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 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 pre-AlA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “the software module includes data acquisition module, intelligent modeling module, multi-objective optimization module and control module” for performing the claim limitation. These limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use the generic placeholders without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function or to modify the generic placeholder. Specification paragraph [0013-0018] and [0048-0049] and fig 1 states " The data transmission end of each instrument in the wastewater treatment process is connected to the computer by using the communication interface and the remote interface in the data transmission device. The programmable logic controller PLC is used for changing the rotating speed of the driving motor of the aeration pump and the reflow pump to control the output of the aeration pump and the reflow pump." In particular, note that “For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)” [MPEP 2181 II.B]. The specification does not specifically link any algorithms to the above modules for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the claims and spec lack corresponding structure support for the modules (see above) and are indefinite.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitations will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, 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 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.
12. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 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 pre-AlA the applicant regards as the invention.
a. Claim 1 recites “A dynamic multi-objective particle swarm optimization-based optimal control method of a system for wastewater treatment process (WWTP), wherein the system comprises:”… “the dynamic multi-objective particle swarm optimization-based optimal control method for WWTP comprises the following steps:…”. Claim 1 improperly recites both a method and a system. Specifically, claim 1 begins by recites “...a control method”, then recites “wherein the system comprises” followed by structural system components, and subsequently recites “the method comprises” followed by method steps. Accordingly, it is unclear if the claim directed to a method, a system, or a combination thereof, thereby rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
b. Claim 1 recites “the WWTP mainly includes…mainly involving three…”. And “performance indexes mainly include pumping energy (PE), aeration energy (AE) and effluent quality (EQ); PE mainly refers to the power consumption generated by the internal reflow pump, which is measured by the pumping energy power meter. AE mainly refers to the power consumption generated by aeration pump during aeration, which is measured by aeration energy power meter. EQ mainly refers to the tax or penalty to be paid for discharging pollution to the receiving water body; the pollutants mainly…...”. The term “mainly” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “mainly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the exact scope of the claim, leading to a lack of precise boundaries, rendering the claim indefinite.
c. Claim 1 recites “the anoxic tank are respectively provided with a stirrer to fully mix the activated sludge and the wastewater” The term “fully” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fully” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the exact scope of the claim, leading to a lack of precise boundaries, rendering the claim indefinite.
d. Claim 1 recites “a portable dissolved oxygen detector installed in the third aerobic tank”. The term “portable” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “portable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the exact scope of the claim, leading to a lack of precise boundaries, rendering the claim indefinite.
e. Claim 1 recites “related control variables”. The term “related” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “related” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the exact scope of the claim, leading to a lack of precise boundaries, rendering the claim indefinite.
f. Claim 1 recites “great influence”. The term “great” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “great” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the exact scope of the claim, leading to a lack of precise boundaries, rendering the claim indefinite.
g. Claim 1 recites “guarantee”. The term “guarantee” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “guarantee” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the exact scope of the claim, leading to a lack of precise boundaries, rendering the claim indefinite.
h. Claim 1 recites “real time”, “passively accepted”, “important controlled variables”, “some particles”, The term ““real time”, “passively accepted”, “important controlled variables”, “some particles” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “real time”, “passively accepted”, “important controlled variables”, “some particles” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the exact scope of the claim, leading to a lack of precise boundaries, rendering the claim indefinite.
i. Claim 1 recites “when the real concentration value of SO is close to the optimized set value of the SO concentration obtained in the step 3” and “when the real concentration value of the nitrate nitrogen is close to the optimized set value of the nitrate nitrogen concentration obtained in the step 3”. The term “close to” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the exact scope of the claim, leading to a lack of precise boundaries, rendering the claim indefinite.
j. The claim 1 have numerous issues with antecedent basis. The Examiner suggests amending the claims such that the first recitation of each distinct element uses articles such as “a”/”an”, later recitations referring back to the same distinct element uses articles such as “the”/”said”, to use disambiguating modifiers (e.g., first, second, etc.) when there are multiple distinct elements with the same base term, and that the use of modifiers for each distinct element is kept consistent. Below is a non-exhaustive list of examples of these issues: “the control action”, “the computer”, “the communication interface”, “the remote interface”, “the data transmission device”, “the software module”, “the rotating speed”, “the output of the aeration pump”, “the performance index values”, “the operating data”, “the non-linear models”, “the designed dynamic multi-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm”, “the control variable”, “the collected data”, “the particles”, “the archive”, “the established models”, “the control quantity”, “the variation”, “the data transmission end”, “the pumping energy power meter”, “the driving motor”, “the variable frequency output”, “the density method”, “the current frequency conversion output”, “the pollutants”, “the two controlled variables”, “the related process variables”, “the kth iteration”, “the k+1th time”, “the learning parameters”, “the diversity index”, “the convergence index”, “the number of objectives”, “the optimal solutions”, “the variable quantity”, “the microbial activity”, (an intelligent modeling module in step 2, “a control module in step 4 are previously introduced). Applicant is urged to address these issues in the response to this office action, wherein amendments that establish an antecedent basis will overcome these grounds of rejection.
k. Claim 1 recites “the data transmission device” that lacks clear antecedent basis. Claim 1 initially recites “data transmission devices” in plural form but later refers to “the data transmission device” in singular form, rendering unclear whether one or multiple devices are intended. Claim 1 recites “control variable” that lacks clear antecedent basis. Claim 1 initially recites “control variables” in plural form but later refers to “the control variable” in singular form, rendering unclear whether one or more control variables are intended. Claim 1 recites “the data acquisition device” that lacks clear antecedent basis. Claim 1 initially recites “data acquisition devices” in plural form but later refers to “the data acquisition device” in singular form, rendering unclear whether one or multiple devices are intended.
l. Claim 1 recites “W1r(t), W2r(t) and W3r(t) are the weight vectors of the rth radial basis functions of f1(t) and f2(t) at the tth time, whose ranges are [−3, 3] respectively; W1(t), W2(t) and W3(t) are the biases of the rth radial basis functions of f1(t) and f2(t) at the tth time” in page 35. The claim 1 defines W1r(t), W2r(t) and W3r(t), but states that these variables correspond only to radial basis functions of f1(t) and f2(t), omitting f3(t). Likewise, variables W1(t), W2(t) and W3(t) are defined only respect to f1(t) and f2(t). The inconsistent mathematical definitions render the scope of claim 1 unclear.
m. Claim 1 recites “pBestk,i(t) is the personal optimal position of the ith particle in the kth iteration at the tth time, and gBestk(t) is the personal optimal position in the kth iteration at the tth time” in page 37. Claim is inconsistent because pBestk,i(t) and gBestk,i(t) are both define as “personal optimal position”, although these variables represent distinct optimization parameters. This inconsistency renders the mathematical algorithm indefinite.
n. Claim 1 recites “pBestk,i(t) is the personal optimal position of the ith particle in the kth iteration at the tth time, and gBestk(t) is the personal optimal position in the kth iteration at the tth time” in page 37. Claim is inconsistent because pBestk,i(t) and gBestk,i(t) are both define as “personal optimal position”, although these variables represent distinct optimization parameters. This inconsistency renders the mathematical algorithm indefinite.
o. Claim 1 recites in equation 11 it recites pk-1(t), while the corresponding explanation refers to pBestk-1(t). No definition is provided for pk-1(t), rendering the mathematical relationship indefinite.
p. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims require the use of a specific equation for the steps 1-4 for wastewater treatment process (WWTP). The closest prior art is:
Chen et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0186254 A1) teaches an optimizing method for multi-source municipal solid waste combinations based on machine learning by applying machine learning algorithms in treating MSW combinations using industrial kilns.
Wan et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0052422 A1) teaches a method and system for wastewater treatment based on dissolved oxygen control by a fuzzy neural network by controlling dissolved oxygen based on influent loading, operation of the reactor and the processing target of water quality.
Han et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0029900 A1) conceptually presents a computing implemented method designed for predicting the effluent total nitrogen concentration (TN) in an urban wastewater treatment process (WWTP).
Chen et al. (Assessing wastewater reclamation potential by neural network model, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 16 (2003) 149–157) presents a novel approach on the basis of a neural network model that is designed to provide better predictions of nitrogen contents in treated effluents to be used for groundwater recharge. The optimal structure of a neural network model useful for evaluating the reuse potential of the effluent produced from a contact-aeration process is developed.
However, none of the references teaches the steps (1)-(4) equivalent to the specific one claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PURSOTTAM GIRI whose telephone number is (469)295-9101. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, RENEE CHAVEZ can be reached at 5712701104. 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.
/PURSOTTAM GIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights