DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the Amendments/Remarks filed on 5 August 2026 and Supplemental Amendment/Remarks received on 7 August 2026. Claims 1, 6, and 7 were amended in the claims filed on 5 August 2026 and claims 1 and 6 were further amended in the claims filed on 7 August 2026. Claims 3, 4, and 8 were previously cancelled. Claims 1, 2, and 5-7 remain pending in this application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 9, filed 5 August 2026, with respect to objected claim 6 has been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 5 August 2026. The objections of claims 1 and 6 have been withdrawn. Note: Claims 1 was also objected to in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 5 May 2026
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 9-10, filed 5 August 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1, 2, and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 5 August 2026. The rejections of claims 1, 2, and 5-7 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 9-10, filed 5 August 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1, 2, and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 5 August 2026. The rejections of claims 1, 2, and 5-7 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 9, filed 7 August 2026, with respect to the additional outstanding issues as discussed in the telephonic interview on 6 August 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 7 August 2026. The outstanding issues set forth in the telephonic interview on 6 August have been obviated.
Claims 1 and 6 stand objected to and claims 1, 2, and 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 includes the grammatical issue of “… in an archive, the manipulated variables being constant during the production operation” in lines 7-8. Suggested claim language: “… in an archive, wherein the manipulated variables were constant during the production operation”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 1 includes the grammatical and antecedent issues of “b) …. the manipulated variable which was required during step a) …” in lines 30-31. Suggested claim language: “b) …. the manipulated variable required during the step a) …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 1 includes the grammatical and antecedent issues of “an immediate transition to a subsequent step occurring if one of the controlled variables exceeds a specified permitted deviation during steps d) and e)” in lines 47-49. Suggested claim language: “an immediate transition to a respective subsequent step occurring if one of the controlled variables exceeds a specified permitted deviation during steps the d) and e)””; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 6 includes the grammatical and antecedent issues of “b) …. the manipulated variable which was required during step a) …” in lines 33-35. Suggested claim language: “b) …. he manipulated variable required during the step a) …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 6 includes the grammatical and antecedent issues of “an immediate transition to a subsequent step occurring if one of the controlled variables exceeds a specified permitted deviation during the steps d) and e)” in lines 55-58. Suggested claim language: “an immediate transition to a respective subsequent step occurring if one of the controlled variables exceeds a specified permitted deviation during steps the d) and e)”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, and 5-7 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 1 recites “… previously defined controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables ..” in lines 3-4; “providing historical measured data from a production operation of the process installation in an archive, the manipulated variables being constant during the production operation” in lines 6-8;
“determining a respective operating point for each manipulated variable and a respective operating point and a respective standard deviation for each controlled variable from the historical measured data” in lines 9-11 and “sampling the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables with a constant sampling time” in lines 16-17. The claims are unclear as to which controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables the limitation of “the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables” in lines 16-17 are directed to. Hence, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claims 2 and 5, dependent from claim 1, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “… previously defined controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables ...” in lines 3-4; “determining a respective operating point for each manipulated variable and a respective operating point and a respective standard deviation for each controlled variable from the historical measured data” in lines 9-11; “sampling the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables with a constant sampling time” in lines 16-17; “
“providing a respective low-pass filtration for the controlled variables …” in line 18;
“a) … a manipulated variable is excited in a ramp-shaped manner until a value of at least one of the controlled variables lies outside a tolerance band centered on respective operating points of the controlled variables …” in lines 24-28; and “b) … step a) for at least one of the controlled variables to depart from the tolerance band” in lines 30-32 . The claims are unclear as to which controlled variables the limitations of “the controlled variables” in lines 18, 24-28 and 30-32 are directed to. Hence, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claims 2 and 5, dependent from claim 1, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “… previously defined controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables ...” in lines 3-4; “providing historical measured data from a production operation of the process installation in an archive, the manipulated variables being constant during the production operation” in lines 6-8;
“sampling the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables with a constant sampling time” in lines 16-17; and “implementing consecutively each subsequent step for each manipulated variable” in lines 22-23. The claims are unclear as to which manipulated variables the limitation of “each manipulated variable” in lines 22-23 is directed to. Hence, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claims 2 and 5, dependent from claim 1, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “… previously defined controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables ...” in lines 3-4 and “sampling the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables with a constant sampling time” in lines 16-17. The limitation of “sampling” is described in the present tense and the limitations of controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables” are claimed as collected in the past. The claim is unclear as to when the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables with a constant sampling time is occurring (i.e. Is the sampling directed to previously gathered controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance or gathering the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance during a current control of a process installation?). Hence, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claims 2 and 5, dependent from claim 1, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “… a filter time constant of the low-pass filtration being selected such that the respective standard deviation of the respective controlled variable is smaller by a factor of 2 to 6 with the low-pass filtration than without the low-pass filtration” in lines 18-21 and claim 5 recites “the respective standard deviation of the respective controlled variable is smaller by a factor of 3 to 5” in lines 1-2. Claim 5 is unclear since the claim recites two different factors for the respective standard deviation of the respective controlled variable. Hence, claim 5 is rendered indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the … disturbance variables" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7, dependent from claim 6, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 6.
Claim 6 recites “provide historical measured data from a production operation of the technical installation in an archive, the manipulated variables being constant during the production operation” in lines 4-7; “sample the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables with a constant sampling time” in lines 16-17; and “implement consecutively each subsequent step for each manipulated variable” in line 23-24. The claims are unclear as to which manipulated variables the limitation of “each manipulated variable” in lines 23-24 is directed to. Hence, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 7, dependent from claim 6, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 6.
Claim 6 recites “… determine a respective operating point for each manipulated variable and a respective operating point and a respective standard deviation for each controlled variable from the historical measured data ...” in lines 8-11; “sample the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables with a constant sampling time” in lines 16-17; “ “provide a respective low-pass filtration for the controlled variables …” in line 18; “a) … a manipulated variable is excited in a ramp-shaped manner until a value of at least one of the controlled variables lies outside a tolerance band surrounding respective operating points of the controlled variables …” in lines 25-30; and “b) … step a) for at least one of the controlled variables to depart from the tolerance band” in lines 33-36 . The claims are unclear as to which controlled variables the limitations of “the controlled variables” in lines 18, 25-30 and 33-36 are directed to. Hence, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 7, dependent from claim 6, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 6.
Claim 6 recites “provide historical measured data from a production operation of the technical installation in an archive, the manipulated variables being constant during the production operation” in lines 4-7; determine a respective operating point for each manipulated variable and a respective operating point and a respective standard deviation for each controlled variable from the historical measured data” in lines 8-11; and “sample the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables with a constant sampling time” in lines 16-17 in lines 16-17. The limitation of “sampling” is described in the present tense and the limitations of the controlled variables and manipulated variables are claimed as collected in the past. The claim is unclear as to when the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance variables with a constant sampling time is occurring (i.e. Is the sampling directed to previously gathered controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance or gathering the controlled variables, manipulated variables and disturbance during a current control of a process installation?). Hence, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 7, dependent from claim 6, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 6.
Examiner’s Note:
The claims are replete with grammatical errors and indefinite claim language. The applicant is respectfully encouraged to carefully review the claims for any further issues that were inadvertently omitted by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to modeling a system and system control.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0028264 A1 discloses a control system for a plant includes a sliding mode controller for controlling the plant with a sliding mode control.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0081328 A1 discloses a method includes repeatedly identifying one or more values for one or more model parameters of at least one model associated with a process.
U.S. Patent No. 12,566,903 B2 discloses a method and apparatus for modelling system behaviour of a physical system and to a method and apparatus for controlling the behaviour of the physical system.
European Patent Publication No. 2 267 560 A1 discloses an adaptive process controller performs continuously scheduled process model parameter interpolation to determine a particular set of process model parameters which are used to develop controller tuning parameters for controller tuning.
European Patent Publication No. 3 629 543 A1 discloses an industrial automation system includes an automation device and a control system for monitoring, diagnostics, and/or modeling generation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights