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 .
Summary
Claims 1-6 and 9-20 are pending. Claims 1-6 and 9-20 are rejected herein. This is a Final Rejection as necessitated by the amendment and arguments (hereinafter “the Response”) dated 06 Nov 2025.
Terminology
The terms “soft sensor system” and “virtual measuring point” are used in the specification and claims of the present application. No special definition has been annexed to these terms. The Applicant has argued (page 11 of the Response) that “the virtuality in claim 1 and claim 11 is related to the measuring points themselves, i.e. a location in the apparatus where said points are considered exclusively virtual since there is no measuring device at the respective location.” It is the Examiner’s position that the specification and general definition of “soft sensor” do not support this exclusive interpretation. The term “soft sensor” is used 18 times in the specification. Para. 71 of the specification as published is illustrative. It states (emphasis added):
[0071] It may be provided within the scope of the invention that during processing an analysis is performed which comprises a calculation and/or estimation of detection values for further, exclusively virtually provided, measuring points of the apparatus. In the case of virtual measuring points, no real measured values of a measurement at this measuring point are available, and the measured value is therefore derived from the available detection values and from the apparatus information. By processing, for example, at least one soft sensor can be provided, which calculates at least one measured value for at least one measuring point of the apparatus, at which no real measurement is provided or available, and thus no detection values are obtained by a real measurement.
The Examiner has interpreted this to mean that any value that is not directly measured, but rather calculated from available data, can be considered “virtual value” from a “soft sensor” at a “virtual measurement point.” There is nothing in the language that requires this “virtual measuring point” to be a specific location in space. The location, virtual or otherwise, from which data is sensed is not discussed in the specification. This interpretation is further supported by discussion in the specification of operating points. One does not associate the operating point (e.g. rotational speed) of an apparatus, such as a pump, as being located at a specific point in space. Further investigation was made into soft sensors as a term of art. PERERA et a. (Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 121 (2023) 105988) is a survey of many different publications regarding soft sensors. The Examiner’s interpretation that “soft sensors” are not tied to a particular location in space is supported by this survey of the art. Page 3 section 2 states (emphasis added):
A soft sensor is a widely used term to describe software-based sensors, which is a technique of estimating ‘hard-to-measure’ quality-related parameters in industrial processes. They are also known as virtual sensors, inferential estimators/models, (Abeykoon, 2018; Fortuna et al., 2007), and observer-based sensors (Goodwin, 2000). Soft sensors are based on mathematical or empirical models that map a set of input process variables to a quality parameter so that ‘hard-to-measure’ quality parameters in process industries can be accurately estimated using a set of ‘easy-to-measure’ input process variables.
Therefore any “measuring point” associated with a “soft sensor” producing a “target variable” is not specific to a location in space. Furthermore, it does not make sense for some of the variables in claim 1 (e.g. rotational speed, power, result of vibrational analysis, stroke position) to be associated with a particular location in three-dimensional space.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-20 is/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.
Regarding claims 1 and 18: The phrasing in lines 15-20 and the list of parameters are unclear because a parameter is listed twice and the whole list is given two separate paragraphs. Within that list, “medium temperature” is listed twice. It appears that the first list is meant to pertain to “a pump” and the second list is meant to pertain to “a valve.” This does not come across in the language because it sounds like “a vibration analysis of the apparatus component in the form of a pump” is a single target variable, and similarly for “a device status of the component in the form of a valve.” The Examiner recommends using language such as “wherein the at least one target variable is at least one of the following: for a pump: a rotational speed, a flow rate…a result of a vibration analysis; for a valve: a stroke position, a flow velocity…” Furthermore, it is not necessary to use “a least one of” in these two lists because it is already in the phrase “wherein the at least one target variable is at least one of the following:” This language is also present in claim 18.
Regarding claims 2-6, 9-17, 19, and 20: These claims are rejected as indefinite for depending from an indefinite claim.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, 13, 14, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by BESCHORNER et al. (US 2017/0138018).
Regarding claim 1: As best understood, BESCHORNER discloses: A method for providing at least one piece of information about a hydraulic apparatus, wherein the following stages are performed: performing a detection of detection values at the apparatus (From sensors 94 in FIG. 2; para. 34. Other types of sensors are mentioned in para. 46.), wherein the detection values are specific for measurements at different measuring points and at different apparatus components of the apparatus (FIG. 2 shows all the different places where sensors 94 are installed in the hydraulic system 42.), performing a transmission of the detected detection values to a processing component (Processing component is controller 92 with FIG. 2 shows the connection between all the sensors 94 and the controller 92), providing an apparatus information about at least a specification of the apparatus or the measurements (expected values of performance parameters in para. 8), wherein providing of the apparatus information is performed at the processing component to provide the transmitted detection values with the apparatus information (Para. 10 states “The controller may be configured to receive input indicative of a suspected hydraulic component malfunction, and to determine at least one of a diagnostic movement and a diagnostic position of at least one of the fluid actuator and the valve required to perform a health check of the machine based on the suspected hydraulic component malfunction. The controller may also be configured to correlate the signals generated only during completion of the diagnostic movement or only when the at least one of the fluid actuator and the valve are in the diagnostic position to values of the performance parameters.”), performing processing of the transmitted detection values based on the provided apparatus information by the processing component, wherein as a result of the processing for at least one of the apparatus components at least one target variable is determined by at least a soft sensor system and at least one operating point (Operating points are discussed in para. 33-34.), wherein the at least one target variable is at least one of a first variable or a second variable:- where the first variable is at least one of a rotational speed (Speed is listed as a variable in para. 3, 17, 33, and the device will have rotational speeds as well as discussed in para. 24.), a flow rate (para. 28-29), an inlet pressure (para. 28-29, 34), a delivery head (para. 34), a power, a medium temperature (para. 46), or a result of a vibration analysis of the apparatus component in the form of a pump,- where the second variable is at least one of a stroke position (para. 17), a flow velocity, a differential pressure ratio (para. 33), an inlet and outlet pressure, a medium temperature, or a device status of the apparatus component in the form of a valve (para. 33), wherein the at least one operating point is calculated at least on the basis of the at least one target variable or on the basis of the at least one parameter (para. 29-30 and 33), and wherein an evaluation of the at least one apparatus component is carried out on the basis of the result of the processing (para. 29-30 and 33), and wherein the at least one target variable is a virtual value at the at least one operating point where no real measured values of the at least one target variable are available (para. 10, 28-29).
Regarding claim 2: As best understood, BESCHORNER discloses: comprising a subsequent stage of: performing processing of the transmitted detection values by the processing component (“comparing performance parameters to expected values” in para. 10), the transmitted detection values being compared with one another on the basis of the apparatus information in order to provide a soft sensor system at least for at least one further virtual measuring point of the apparatus or for at least one further apparatus component of the apparatus or for at least one further target variable in the apparatus (para. 10, 28-29).
Regarding claim 3: As best understood, BESCHORNER discloses: the detection values are thereby specific to the measurements (It is inherent that the detection values are specific to the measurements because the measurement of some physical quantity by a sensor is what determines the detection value.), in that the detection values are at least partially detected in the form of measured values by the measurements at least at the different measuring points or the different apparatus components of the apparatus (measured in the fluid circuit by sensors 94 in FIG. 2; para. 33-34), and in that the detection values are detected at least partially in the form of pre-processed values, at least by processing at least one of the measured values or by processing further measured values, at at least one of the apparatus components of the apparatus (Processing such as by the algorithms shown in FIGS. 4-6.; para. 36-39).
Regarding claim 4: As best understood, BESCHORNER discloses: the processing component (92) is configured as a central processing component for centrally providing the transmitted detection values with the apparatus information (as discussed in para. 27-30).
Regarding claim 5: As best understood, BESCHORNER discloses: the apparatus information (relationships between variables as discussed in para. 28-29) and the detection values are merged with each other in a common data structure to couple the measurements with the associated specification (Integrated with data from sensors 94 as discussed in para. 33).
Regarding claim 6: As best understood, BESCHORNER discloses: the apparatus information comprises at least one of the following static information about the apparatus: information about at least a structure or a technical configuration of the apparatus, information about at least a structure or a technical configuration of the apparatus components, information about a structural arrangement of the apparatus components with respect to each other in the apparatus, an information about the positions of the measuring points for the individual measurements in the apparatus, wherein the apparatus information is initially provided to the processing component prior to performing the transmission of the detected detection values, in order to evaluate the detection values transmitted at least during the transmission or during further transmissions based on the initially provided apparatus information (para. 33-34).
Regarding claim 10: As best understood, BESCHORNER discloses: the stages of the method are carried out repeatedly (signals monitored during operation of the machine), in each case at least the result of the processing or a result of an evaluation of the at least one apparatus component being visualized (touchscreen to receive recommendations in para. 18 and instructions to operator 625, 630, 635 in FIG. 6) for a user or the results of the processing being permanently stored centrally.
Regarding claim 13: As best understood, BESCHORNER discloses: during the processing, the detection values are at least partially compared with at least one threshold value (para. 33) in order to at least determine an operating state of the at least one apparatus component or to perform an evaluation of the at least one apparatus component (para. 33).
Regarding claim 14: As best understood, BESCHORNER discloses: at least during the detection or during the transmission, the detection values are each assigned a time stamp (Because the controller can monitor the time required to complete a cycle of operations as discussed in para. 33, then the data must be time-stamped.
Regarding claim 16: As best understood, BESCHORNER discloses: in the case of the processing component, the following stages are additionally carried out: providing at least further apparatus information on specifications of further apparatuses or further measurements at different measuring points and apparatus components of the further apparatuses, receiving detection values of the further apparatuses, wherein the detection values are specific for the measurements at the different measuring points and apparatus components of the further apparatuses (Para. 2 discusses multiple machines meaning that the method will be performed on several apparatuses.).
Regarding claim 17: As best understood, BESCHORNER discloses: a subsequent stage of: performing processing of the transmitted detection values by the processing component, wherein the transmitted detection values are processed together based on the apparatus information to identify at least one open circuit from at least one closed circuit of the apparatus, wherein the apparatus is modeled in the form of a hydraulic apparatus based on the specification and the measurements (The specification is the stored data and maps in para. 28-29. Valve position data is measured and transmitted in para. 33 which determines whether a particular hydraulic circuit is open or closed.)
Regarding claim 18: As best understood, BESCHORNER discloses: A system for providing at least one piece of information about a hydraulic apparatus (FIG. 2), comprising: a field component (sensors 94; para. 34, 46) for a detection of detection values at the apparatus (para. 46), wherein the detection values are specific for measurements at different measuring points and at different apparatus components of the apparatus (There are specific maps as discussed in para. 28-29 of expected values for different parameters measured on different components.), and for a transmission of the detected detection values to a processing component (92), a configuration component for providing at least an apparatus information about a specification of the apparatus or the measurements at the processing component (stored data in para. 28-29), wherein the processing component processes the transmitted detection values based on the provided apparatus information, wherein as a result of the processing for at least one of the apparatus components at least one target variable is determined by at least a soft sensor system and at least one operating point (Operating points are discussed in para. 33-34.), wherein the at least one target variable is at least one of a first variable or a second variable:- where the first variable is at least one of a rotational speed (Speed is listed as a variable in para. 3, 17, 33, and the device will have rotational speeds as well as discussed in para. 24.), a flow rate (para. 28-29), an inlet pressure (para. 28-29, 34), a delivery head (para. 34), a power, a medium temperature (para. 46), or a result of a vibration analysis of the apparatus component in the form of a pump,- where the second variable is at least one of a stroke position (para. 17), a flow velocity, a differential pressure ratio (para. 33), an inlet and outlet pressure, a medium temperature, or a device status of the apparatus component in the form of a valve (para. 33), wherein the at least one operating point is calculated at least on the basis of the at least one target variable or on the basis of the at least one parameter (para. 29-30 and 33), and wherein an evaluation of the at least one apparatus component is carried out on the basis of the result of the processing (para. 29-30 and 33), and wherein the at least one target variable is a virtual value at the at least one operating point where no real measured values of the at least one target variable are available (para. 10, 28-29).
Regarding claim 19: As best understood, BESCHORNER discloses: the apparatus components are each configured as hydraulic components (“particular components of the hydraulic systemin para. 33).
Regarding claim 20: As best understood, BESCHORNER discloses: the apparatus components at least comprise at least one pump (para. 33) or comprise a control valve (para. 34).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BESCHORNER in view of DRUMM et al.
Regarding claims 9, 11, and 12: As best understood, BESCHORNER discloses a display (para. 32, 39) but does not specify the visualization of the result of the evaluation comprises a graphical output for the respective apparatus component, at least on at least one photographic image or live image of the apparatus, the output being positioned in each case on the basis of a position of the apparatus component in the image.
DRUMM however does teach an automation monitoring system (abstract) that provides a visualization of the result of the evaluation comprising a graphical output for the respective apparatus component, at least on at least one photographic image or live image of the apparatus (real time structured display in para. 10), the output being positioned in each case on the basis of a position of the apparatus component in the image (field devices 3, which can be actuators, sensors, etc. in FIG. 1; para. 36-37. This can all be visualized as discussed in para. 41.). DRUMM also teaches that hardware components can be virtual to run simulations to determine automation solutions, thus meeting the limitations of claims 11 and 12.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the data display of DRUMM to show the sensors of BESCHORNER because it allows for simulations to be made to test modifications and hypothetical events (para. 41 of DRUMM.)
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BESCHORNER in view of ALTENDORF et al. (US 202/0012249).
Regarding claim 15: As best understood, BESCHORNER does not state that the signals sent between the sensors 94 and the controller 92 are wireless.
ALTENDORF however does teach a wireless data transmission or a transmission via the Internet or a transmission via a mobile network (para. 4), between components in a modern industrial plant (para. 4) which can include sensors and actuators (para. 2).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use wireless signal transmission as taught by ALTENDORF because it simplifies assembly and if a new sensor needs to be added to the system, the upgrade is simpler as well.
Response to Amendment
The replacement drawings are acknowledged and the previous objections to the drawings are accordingly withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims to overcome the previous objections are acknowledged and said objects are accordingly withdrawn.
The amendments to overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 are acknowledged. Some of said rejections are withdrawn. Please note that there are still outstanding 112 rejections.
The Applicant has argued (page 11 of the Response) that “virtual measuring points” refer to specific locations in space, which BESCHORNER does not disclose. This argument has been fully considered and is not persuasive. In the Terminology section above, the Examiner has laid out how one skilled in the art would understand these terms. Therefore the rejections based on BESCHORNER are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2896