DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kephart et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0027704 A1 (hereinafter: ‘704).
As per claim 1, ‘704 discloses a system comprising:
a controller (e.g., See ‘704; [0002] which discloses the utilization of one or more process controllers);
a first device controllable by the controller to have an operation state changed (e.g., See ‘704; [0002]; which discloses a controller sending a control signal to a field device (valve), to control the field device);
a second device subject to a change in the operation state of the first device (e.g., See ‘704; [0027] and [0030], which discloses that when the controller changes a device, like a valve, other equipment or process variables also change);
a prediction input unit configured to receive a prediction input, which is an input for predicting an operation state of the first device to be changed by a control of the controller and an impact on the second device (e.g., See ‘704; [0016], [0019] and [0021], which discloses that a user can enter “what if” inputs to preview how changing one device will affect other parts of the system); and
a state prediction unit configured to, when the prediction input is input, on the basis of state information on the first device at a time when the prediction input is input and state information on the second device at the time when the prediction input is input, predict operation prediction information that includes information on an operation state of the first device to be changed by a control of the controller in a state of the first device at the time when the prediction input is input and information on an impact on the second device due to the operation state of the first device to be changed (e.g., See ‘704; [0011] which discloses the simulator acquiring current controller and process state information at the time the prediction is initiated; also see [0042] which discloses the simulator predicting process behavior after user-specified control changes).
As per claim 2, ‘704 further discloses that the operation prediction system further comprises:
in order for the state prediction unit to determine the state information on the first device at the time when the prediction input is input and the state information on the second device at the time when the prediction input is input (e.g., See ‘704; [0039] and [0040] which discloses that the simulator stays synched to the plant by constantly receiving current state data, so that the simulator “knows” device states at prediction time);
a first information acquisition unit configured to, when the prediction input is input, acquire real-time state information on the first device and transmit the acquired state information to the state prediction unit (e.g., See ‘704; [0011] and [0056], which discloses that an update module collects current controller or device state data from the actual system and feeds it to the simulator for predictions); and
a second information acquisition unit configured to, when the prediction input is input, acquire real-time state information on the second device and transmits the acquired state information to the state prediction unit (e.g., See ‘704; [0011] and [0056], which discloses collecting real time process or field measurements for other equipment and sending them to the simulator to predict other device effects).
As per claim 3, ‘704 further discloses that the operation prediction system further comprises:
a control input unit configured to receive a plurality of operation inputs for inducing operation of the first device (e.g., See ‘704; [0023], which discloses an operator interface allowing a user to enter control actions to control setpoints and other control variables),
wherein the controller controls the first device when the plurality of operation inputs is input (e.g., See ‘704; [0002] which discloses the control system taking operator inputs and sending them as control signals to operate devices, such as valves), and
wherein the prediction input comprises a plurality of corresponding prediction inputs respectively corresponding to the plurality of operation inputs (e.g., See ‘704; [0019] and [0021], which discloses that for different control actions, the user can run matching “what if” simulations to predict each actions effect on other devices).
As per claim 7, ‘704 further discloses that the operation prediction system further comprises that:
the state prediction unit comprises a simulator that simulates operations of the first device and the second device on the basis of the state information on the first device at the time when the prediction input is input, the state information on the second device at the time when the prediction input is input, and information on the prediction input (e.g., See ‘704; [0039] and [0047], which discloses a simulation model being kept current with live device and process states, then operating using a “what if” input to simulate the results), and
the operation prediction information is predicted on the basis of simulated information by the simulator (e.g., See ‘704; [0042] and [0044], which discloses the simulator producing predicted results from the simulation).
As per claim 8, ‘704 further discloses that the operation prediction system further comprises:
a display unit configured to display, on the basis of the operation prediction information, on the screen, the information on the operation state of the first device to be changed by the control of the controller and the information on the impact on the second device by the operation state of the first device to be changed (e.g., See ‘704; [0044] and [0059] which discloses that the predicted results are displayed on the operator’s screen so the user can see device changes and their effects).
As per claim 9, ‘704 further discloses that the operation prediction system further comprises:
a first information acquisition unit configured to acquire real-time state information on the first device and transmit the acquired information to the display unit (e.g., See ‘704; [0011] and [0023], which discloses the system collecting live device or controller state data and sending it to the operator display software); and
a second information acquisition unit configured to acquire real-time state information on the second device and transmit the acquired information to the display unit (e.g., See ‘704; [0011] and [0023], which discloses collecting live process or field measurements for other equipment and making that information available on the operator display),
wherein the display unit further displays a current state of the first device and a current state of the second device on the screen on the basis of the real-time state information on the first device and the real-time state information on the second device (e.g., See ‘704; [0016] and [0023], which discloses the operator screen showing live, current device and process conditions using real time data from the system).
As per claim 10, since this claim is believed to be a counterpart to claim 1, therefore it recites the same predictive control concept but in a different structural form, the core features appear to be the same; that is, the receiving an operation input to control a first device, receiving a prediction (“what-if”) input, and using current state information to predict the resulting state of the first device and its impact on the second device. Therefore, for the same reasons and rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1, the features of claim 10 are also anticipated over ‘704.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘704, as applied to claim 3, from above, in further view of Dayama et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0081421 A1 (hereinafter: ‘421).
As per claim 4, ‘704 does not specifically disclose the operation prediction system further comprising:
an operation record database communicatively connected to the state prediction unit and configured to, when one operation input among the plurality of operation inputs is input to the control input unit, record operation record information that includes information on the inputted operation input, first pre-state information which is state information on the first device at a time before the operation input is input, first post-state information which is state information on the first device at a time after the operation input is input, second pre-state information which is state information on the second device at a time before the operation input is input, second post-state information which is state information on the second device at a time after the operation input is input (e.g., As best understood, these features are interpreted to correspond to a database that saves a record for each operation input, including the first and second devices’ states before the action and after the action; See ‘421; [0019] – [0021] and [0023], which collectively disclose saving past control actions in a database along with the system conditions and results those actions caused),
wherein when one corresponding prediction input among the plurality of corresponding prediction inputs is input to the prediction input unit, the state prediction unit predicts the operation prediction information on the basis of state information on the first device at the time when the corresponding prediction input is input, state information on the second device at the time when the corresponding prediction input is input, and the operation record information (e.g., As best understood, these features are interpreted to correspond to a feature whereby when a preview is requested, it uses current device states and saved past records to predict what will happen; See ‘421; [0019] – [0021], which discloses using historical records of control settings with corresponding operating performance in order to determine future outcomes and recommendations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘421 into ‘704 for the purpose of reusing stored past operation results to make predictions faster, more accurate and more reliable, instead of always needing to run a new simulation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As per claim 5, the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest the operation prediction system, wherein when one corresponding prediction input among the plurality of corresponding prediction inputs is input to the prediction input unit, if a plurality of operation record information recorded in the operation record database has matching information, which is operation record information that includes information on the operation input corresponding to the corresponding prediction input inputted to the prediction input unit, the first pre-state information matching the state information of the first device at the time when the corresponding prediction input is input to the prediction input unit, and the second pre-state information matching the state information of the second device at the time when the corresponding prediction input is input to the prediction input unit, the state prediction unit predicts the operation prediction information on the basis of the first post-state information and the second post-state information included in the matching information, in combination with the other claimed features and or limitation as claimed.
As per claim 6, the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest the operation prediction system, wherein the state prediction unit comprises a simulator that simulates operations of the first device and the second device on the basis of the state information on the first device at the time when the corresponding prediction input is input to the prediction input unit, the state information on the second device at the time when the corresponding prediction input is input to the prediction input unit, and the corresponding prediction input to the prediction input unit, and when the matching information does not exist, the operation prediction information is predicted on the basis of information simulated by the simulator, in combination with the other claimed features and or limitation as claimed.
References Considered but Not Relied Upon
The following references were considered but were not relied upon with respect o any prior art rejections:
(1) US 8,977,527 B2, which discloses automatically building a plant simulator from control system design data for checkout and operator training;
(2) US 8,332,193 B2, which discloses automatically creating simulator content to validate control logic and support operator training;
(3) US 9,904,746 B2, which discloses another patent directed towards automatically creating simulator content to validate control logic and support operator training;
(4) US 10,198,536 B2, which discloses integrating simulation into the control system platform so the same environment can run real control to simulate the plant and devices;
(5) US 4,512,747 A, which discloses real time simulator connection to a controller, that mimics sensor or actuator behavior, and displays system state so operation can be observed and tested; and
(6) US 20130116802 A1, which discloses running a parallel simulator that stays accurate by continuously correcting itself with real process measurements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30 EST.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/RONALD D HARTMAN JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 December 27, 2025
/RDH/