DETAILED ACTION
A. This action is in response to the following communications: Amendment filed: 1/12/2026. This action is made Final.
B. Claims 9-16 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Claims 9-16 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The method claimed in claims 9-16 contain terminology that is not clearly defined within the specification, in fact the specification merely states claim limitations along with some narrowing explanation that does not describe how to make and how to use the invention. The invention that one skilled in the art must be enabled to make and use is that defined by the claim(s) of the particular application or patent.
To satisfy the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without “undue experimentation.” See, e.g., In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 736-37, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1402 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In In re Wands, the court set forth the following factors to consider when determining whether undue experimentation is needed: (1) the breadth of the claims; (2) the nature of the invention; (3) the state of the prior art; (4) the level of one of ordinary skill; (5) the level of predictability in the art; (6) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (7) the existence of working examples; and (8) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d 1404. The undue experimentation determination is not a single factual determination; rather, it is a conclusion reached by weighing all the factual considerations. Id.
The specification need not teach what is well known in the art. However, applicant cannot rely on the knowledge of one skilled in the art to supply information that is required to enable the novel aspect of the claimed invention when the enabling knowledge is in fact not known in the art. ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharms., LLC, 603 F.3d 935, 941, 94 USPQ2d 1823, 1827 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“ALZA was required to provide an adequate enabling disclosure in the specification; it cannot simply rely on the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill to serve as a substitute for the missing information in the specification.”); Auto. Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 501 F.3d 1274, 1283, 84 USPQ2d 1108, 1114-15 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Although the knowledge of one skilled in the art is indeed relevant, the novel aspect of an invention must be enabled in the patent.”). The Federal Circuit has stated that “‘[i]t is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement.’” Auto. Technologies, 501 F.3d at 1283, 84 USPQ2d at 1115 (quoting Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1366, 42 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See also Idenix Pharms. LLC v. Gilead Scis. Inc., 941 F.3d 1149, 1159-61, 2019 USPQ 2d 415844 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The rule that a specification need not disclose what is well known in the art is “merely a rule of supplementation, not a substitute for a basic enabling disclosure.” Genentech, 108 F.3d at 1366, 42 USPQ2d 1005; see also ALZA Corp., 603 F.3d at 940-41, 94 USPQ2d at 1827. Therefore, the specification must contain the information necessary to enable the novel aspects of the claimed invention. Id. at 941, 94 USPQ2d at 1827; Auto. Technologies, 501 F.3d at 1283-84, 84 USPQ2d at 1115 (“[T]he ‘omission of minor details does not cause a specification to fail to meet the enablement requirement. However, when there is no disclosure of any specific starting material or of any of the conditions under which a process can be carried out, undue experimentation is required.’”) (quoting Genentech, 108 F.3d at 1366, 42 USPQ2d at 1005). For instance, in Auto. Technologies, the claim limitation “means responsive to the motion of said mass” was construed to include both mechanical side impact sensors and electronic side impact sensors for performing the function of initiating an occupant protection apparatus. Auto. Technologies, 501 F.3d at 1282, 84 USPQ2d at 1114. The specification did not include any discussion of the details or circuitry involved in the electronic side impact sensor and thus, failed to apprise one of ordinary skill how to make and use the electronic sensor. Because the novel aspect of the invention was side impact sensors, the patentee could not rely on the knowledge of one skilled in the art to supply the missing information. Auto. Technologies, 501 F.3d at 1283, 84 USPQ2d at 1114.
Examiner notes: As can be seen throughout Application 18/223,621 there is a lack/missing information specifically for the terms used throughout the claim limitations, which include but not limited to “automatic stability detection”, “regulator manipulated variables”, “time grid”. These terms although can be defined by their general accepted meanings to one of ordinary skill in the art, the specification lacks the missing information on how these work and function together to arrive at the novel aspect of the invention proposed in the claim limitations.
Example Term “automatic Stability detection” the only found mentions in the specification states these three passages:
“The invention is based on the object of providing a method for automatic stability detection of a regulator cascade, which can detect possible instabilities of the regulator cascade as simply and reliably as possible.”
“The method is used for automatic stability detection of a regulator cascade. “
And then the claim “9. A method for automatic stability detection of a regulator cascade having a number of cascaded regulators, “
Examiner notes that the specification does not detail any functionality but merely makes conclusionary naming statements, e.g the method is used for “term a” of “term b”. But no functionality is supported within the specification relating to the term.
This is true for the other remaining terminologies.
Note: The courts have repeatedly held that "the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation’" or that any experimentation must be "reasonable". See Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al., 598 U.S. 594, 2023 USPQ2d 602 (2023); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 959 F.3d 1091, 2020 USPQ2d 10550 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Wyeth & Cordis Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories, 720 F.3d 1380, 107 USPQ2d 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., 928 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2019); and Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Gilead Sciences Inc., 941 F.3d 1149, 2019 USPQ2d 415844 (Fed. Cir. 2019). See also In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner concludes that these limitations yet found in the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claim(s) 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Grüner, Sten et al. (US Pub. 2022/0103106 A1), herein referred to as “Grüner”.
As for claim 9, Grüner teaches . A method for automatic stability detection of a regulator cascade having a number of cascaded regulators, wherein a regulation error of a respective regulator is processed by the respective regulator and the processed regulation error is output as a regulator manipulated variable, wherein a reference variable for a respectively downstream regulator in the regulator cascade is ascertained as a function of the regulator manipulated variable, the method comprising the steps of (The system has multiple closed loops, one example is shown in figure 1 each closed loop is controlled by a Variable Frequency Drive 102 (VFD) that has PID controller parameters inputted into to determine various variables from multiple sensor data to determine performance in an industrial control system, the following paragraphs emphasize the process. In par. 18 Various exemplary embodiments may be applicable to any process in an industrial plant, including a processing system and/or an industrial manufacturing related process and/or a system for a technical process, which is at least partly automated, providing different measured/sensor input values for a plurality of variables on one or more devices (equipment) and/or on one or more processes. Par. 22 a proportional-integral-derivative, PID, controller. The process controller may also be referred to as a closed-loop controller. Par. 23 The variable frequency drive 102 may store, for example in an internal memory of the variable frequency drive, information on control parameter settings, for example present values of parameters such as controller gains, ramp times, output frequency, output voltage, output power, motor speed, motor torque, motor current, motor shaft power (i.e. the estimated mechanical power at the motor shaft), motor data, limits, magnetization settings, and/or signal filtering settings. The variable frequency drive 102 may also store internal technical information recorded during the operation of the variable frequency drive, for example information on key performance indicators, such as load current histogram, torque ripple, torque vs. speed curves, and/or power vs. speed curves, temperature, voltage, and/or other information such as resonance frequencies and/or load inertias. ):
a) ascertaining an energy content of a respective regulation error (Par. 26 the set of PID input parameters may be subject to tuning, i.e. adjustment, in the PID controller 201. The difference between the measured value of the process variable and the set point may be referred to as an error. The objective of the PID controller 201 may be to minimize the error by adjusting the PID input parameters),
b) ascertaining whether an absolute value of a respective regulator manipulated variable exceeds an associated limiting value or not, and
c) generating a stability measure for the regulator cascade as a function of the energy contents of the respective regulation errors and as a function of whether the respective regulator manipulated variables exceed their associated limiting values or not (Measuring stability across the collective closed loops through output of variables from sensors across the industrial environment. Par. 28 The measured value of the process variable 210, the set point 211, the PID input parameters 212 and the PID controller output value 213 are also provided as input to one or more control loop performance monitoring algorithms 202-1, 202-2, 202-3 comprised in a control performance monitoring module 202. A set of algorithm parameters 214 and a set of drive parameters 215 may be further provided as input to the one or more control loop performance monitoring algorithms. Par. 45 Referring to FIG. 4, a set of data is inputted 401 to one or more control loop performance monitoring algorithms comprised in a variable frequency drive. The set of data comprises at least a measured value of a process variable, a target value (i.e. set point) for the process variable, a set of controller input parameters, and a controller output. An output from each of the one or more control loop performance monitoring algorithms is then obtained 402 based at least partly on the set of data. One or more key performance indicator values are determined 403 based at least partly on the output from each of the one or more control loop performance monitoring algorithms).
As for claim 10, Grüner teaches. The method according to claim 9, wherein the energy content of the respective regulation error is ascertained by way of energy operators (par. 25 The user-defined set point and the PID input parameters may be stored on a drive parameter system comprised in the variable frequency drive and obtained from the drive parameter system, for example).
As for claim 11, Grüner teaches. The method according to claim 9, wherein upon an increase of the energy contents of the respective regulation errors, the stability measure is generated so as to indicate an increasing instability of the regulator cascade (par. 25 input to PID controller wherein the objective of the PID controller 201 may be to minimize the error by adjusting the PID input parameters. The increase can correlate with energy contents which relate to speed and torque applied to the motor. The PID controller 201 provides an output 213 for example to a motor controlled by the variable frequency drive in order to adjust the process variable. The PID controller output 213 may comprise, for example, a speed and/or a torque applied to the motor).
As for claim 12, Grüner teaches. The method according to claim 9, wherein for the case that the absolute values of the respective regulator manipulated variables exceed their associated limiting values, the stability measure is generated so as to indicate an increasing instability of the regulator cascade (par. 26 set point difference with measured value equals an error amount that has exceeded a threshold which leads to instability of the closed loops).
As for claim 13, Grüner teaches. The method according to claim 9, wherein steps a) to c) are repeated in a fixed time grid (par. 25 and 26 The set of PID input parameters, which may also be referred to as controller input parameters, may comprise parameters such as a proportional controller gain (denoted as kP), integration time (denoted as kl), and derivation time (denoted as k). The proportional gain, integration time and derivation time may also be referred to as tuning parameters, which may be used to adjust the PID controller output).
As for claim 14, Grüner teaches. The method according to claim 9, wherein the regulators of the regulator cascade are selected from a group of regulators consisting of: position regulators, speed regulators, and current regulators (par. 21 position, speed and current variables are data from sensors managed by VFD through PID parameters; The variable frequency drive 102 is used to control the motor speed and torque by varying the motor input frequency and voltage. The motor 103 may be an electric motor driven by an alternating current, AC. The motor 103 is used to operate an actuator 104, such as a pump, fan or compressor, via a mechanical connection 113. The actuator 104 influences a physical process 105, such as a liquid flow within a pipe, which is sensed, i.e. measured, by a sensor device 101, such as a flow sensor. The physical process may also be affected by disturbances, which may be measured and compensated for by means of a disturbance variable. The physical process may also be referred to as an industrial process. The sensor device 101 measures one or more process variable values, such as flow, pressure, temperature, consistency, speed, current, level, or pH, associated with the physical process).
As for claim 15, Grüner teaches. The method according to claim 9, further comprising: generating diagnosis and action information as a function of the energy contents of the respective regulation errors and as a function of whether the absolute values of the reference variables generated in each case by way of the regulators exceed their associated limiting values or not (par. 26 minimizing error by adjusting PID input parameters when an error is detected by exceeding target value; par. 45).
As for claim 16, Grüner teaches. The method according to claim 9, wherein
the stability measure is further generated as a function of predeterminable properties of the regulator cascade (par. 25 input parameters in paragraph 23 provided as input to PID controller used to measure stability of the closed loops) .
(Note :) It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A1. Applicant argues for a withdraw of 35 USC 112(a).
R1. Examiner agrees partially and has updated the rejection with removed terminologies and an updated statement for reason of rejection.
A2. Applicant argues Gruner fails to disclose a regulator cascade having a number of cascaded regulators as recited in claim 9.
As an illustrative example, Figure 1 and associated paragraphs [0014] and [0019] of the specification describe and illustrate regulators 1, 2, 3 positioned in a regulator cascade 100. The regulators disclosed in Gruner are not part of a similar cascade.
R2. Examiner does not agree, the claim limitation does not mention regulators 1,2,3 or their position outside of one being downstream from another; wherein Gruner describes “downstream” from one loop information is passed to next loop hierarchy “downstream”. Gruner states that the system has multiple closed loops, one example is shown in figure 1 each closed loop is controlled by a Variable Frequency Drive 102 (VFD) that has PID controller parameters inputted into to determine various variables from multiple sensor data to determine performance in an industrial control system, the following paragraphs emphasize the process. These loops are functionally regulators and they are positioned such that one can feed into the next and therefore is cascading and/or feed into a controller which then compares output from multiple loops to detect errors from sensor outputs; wherein each loop is a cascade loop for the controller as part of the VFD. Paragraph 5 “there is provided a variable frequency drive comprising means for inputting a set of data to one or more control loop performance monitoring algorithms comprised in the variable frequency drive wherein the set of data comprises at least a measured value of a process variable, a target value for the process variable, a set of controller input parameters, and a controller output; obtaining an output from each of the one or more control loop performance monitoring algorithms based at least partly on the set of data; determining one or more key performance indicator values based at least partly on the output from each of the one or more control loop performance monitoring algorithms, wherein the one or more key performance indicator values are indicative of control loop performance; and adjusting the set of controller input parameters based at least partly on the one or more key performance indicator values.”.
In par. 18 Various exemplary embodiments may be applicable to any process in an industrial plant, including a processing system and/or an industrial manufacturing related process and/or a system for a technical process, which is at least partly automated, providing different measured/sensor input values for a plurality of variables on one or more devices (equipment) and/or on one or more processes.
Par. 22 a proportional-integral-derivative, PID, controller. The process controller may also be referred to as a closed-loop controller.
Par. 23 The variable frequency drive 102 may store, for example in an internal memory of the variable frequency drive, information on control parameter settings, for example present values of parameters such as controller gains, ramp times, output frequency, output voltage, output power, motor speed, motor torque, motor current, motor shaft power (i.e. the estimated mechanical power at the motor shaft), motor data, limits, magnetization settings, and/or signal filtering settings. The variable frequency drive 102 may also store internal technical information recorded during the operation of the variable frequency drive, for example information on key performance indicators, such as load current histogram, torque ripple, torque vs. speed curves, and/or power vs. speed curves, temperature, voltage, and/or other information such as resonance frequencies and/or load inertias. ):
Examiner recommends an amendment that clarifies the functionality of cascade regulators and how they are implemented to clarify difference between invention and prior art Gruner.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Inquires
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to NICHOLAS AUGUSTINE at telephone number (571)270-1056.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
213
559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
/NICHOLAS AUGUSTINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178 January 29, 2026