DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to the applicant’s filling the application on 06/09/2023.
The application has claims 1-15 present. All present claims have been examined.
This action is made Non-Final.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/09/2023, 03/05/2024, 06/25/2024, 11/08/2024 and 01/13/2025 filed before the mailing date of the non-final office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
Claim Interpretation
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:
Claims 1-3: environmental parameter obtaining unit; adjustment unit; control unit.
Claim 5: learning unit; optimal production plan determining unit.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: On page 7 line 28-34: provides structure for environmental parameter obtaining unit, adjustment unit and controlling unit.
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
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 5-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim(s) 5, 6, 8 and 9, the claim elements: “learning unit”, “an optimal production plan determining unit” and “external condition obtaining unit” are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. No clear algorithm is shown in the specification to correspond to each of the claimed means. This is required as described in MPEP 2181 II.B.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 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.
Additionally, claim 7 is rejected for its dependency to claim 6 and does not add or clarify the issues presented by the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In summary, claim 15 recites a “computer readable medium” storing instructions that perform various functions. In the Specification of the present application, the “computer readable medium” is expressly states that there is no particular limitation for the computer-readable media (see page 22 lines 9-19). Thus, the broadest, reasonable interpretation of “computer readable medium” encompasses nonstatutory subject matter (transmission media) that is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Accordingly, claim 15 fails to recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In regards to Claims 10-14, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 10 recites a “Method” comprising steps that may be mental process (prong 1). The overall process presented in the claim is for learning of a plan by collecting information and making a determination to select a plan based on the what was learned. See page 3 line 26 to page 4 line 4 of the specification.
Limitations under prong 1:
The specific limitations of
“an optimal production plan determining step,…” (this can be accomplished mentally by using the data that has been obtained).
Limitations under prong 2:
“Learning step…” (by receiving information from multiple devices e.g. “information obtained from a production control apparatus… and “obtained from an environmental protection device…”) is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – not significant more.
Thus, the recited “Method” is an abstract idea in that it is not tied to a particular machine or apparatus and it does not transform a particular article into a different state or thing. Furthermore, the additional element of using a computer and other devices mentioned on the claim as a tool to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the recited method is non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 11: The limitations for: “data obtaining step…., reward calculation step… and function updating step….” further describes the abstract idea for displaying as previously identified in the independent claims. It further describes the abstract idea as is interpreted as merely using instructions or a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 12: The limitations for: “data obtaining step…., reward calculation step…” further describes the abstract idea for displaying as previously identified in the independent claims. It further describes the abstract idea as is interpreted as merely using instructions or a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 13: The limitations for: “production plan provision step… and optimal production plan determining step” further describes the abstract idea for displaying as previously identified in the independent claims. It Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claims 14: The limitations for: “external condition obtaining step…, learning step… and optimal production plan determining step” further describes the abstract idea for displaying as previously identified in the independent claims. It Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In regards to Claim 15, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 15 has the limitation as per claim 10 in a computer readable medium form, as such, the claim is rejected along the same rationale as claim 10.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Ota et al. (US 20080210084).
In regards to claim 1. Ota Discloses an environmental protection device control apparatus, comprising: an environmental parameter obtaining unit to obtain environmental parameters in an operation process of an environmental protection device; an adjustment unit to adjust the environmental protection device; and a control unit to control the adjustment unit based on the environmental parameters obtained by the environmental parameter obtaining unit, such that an operation cost of the environmental protection device is reduced while the environmental parameters meet minimum environmental protection requirements (see para 116-117: “ the VOC contained in the treated gas are continuously monitored by the sensor 17. When a concentration of the VOC contained in the treated gas reaches to a predetermined value, a control signal is generated from the control device 18 in accordance with a signal f-rom the sensor 17 to move the absorption units 3. Depending on an amount of VOC absorbed by the absorbents 3A, electric power to be supplied by a discharge is controlled.” And “continuously keep the VOC contained in the exhaust gas to the predetermined amount or less as well as to maintain the absorption amount of the absorbent to a constant value, it is possible to efficiently treat VOC without consuming unnecessary electric power”).
In regards to claim 2, Ota Discloses wherein, the environmental protection device is a VOC treatment device including a VOC collection apparatus, a VOC treatment apparatus, and a purified gas discharge apparatus, the environmental parameter obtaining unit is a VOC concentration monitoring probe to obtain VOC concentrations from at least the VOC collection apparatus and the purified gas discharge apparatus, respectively and to use the VOC concentrations as the environmental parameters, the adjustment unit is a converter to adjust at least an operating frequency of a fan of the VOC treatment device, the control unit to control the converter based on the VOC concentrations, such that an operation cost of the VOC treatment device is reduced while the VOC concentrations meet the minimum environmental protection requirements (see para 116-117: “ the VOC contained in the treated gas are continuously monitored by the sensor 17. When a concentration of the VOC contained in the treated gas reaches to a predetermined value, a control signal is generated from the control device 18 in accordance with a signal from the sensor 17 to move the absorption units 3. Depending on an amount of VOC absorbed by the absorbents 3A, electric power to be supplied by a discharge is controlled.” And “continuously keep the VOC contained in the exhaust gas to the predetermined amount or less as well as to maintain the absorption amount of the absorbent to a constant value, it is possible to efficiently treat VOC without consuming unnecessary electric power”).
Claim(s) 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Morrison et al. (US 20070059838).
In regards to claims 10 and 15, Morrison discloses a production plan optimization method, comprising: a learning step, during which to learn a relationship between production demand information and costs of a plurality of production plans corresponding to the production demand information based on production-related information obtained from a production control apparatus that controls a production device according to a production plan, environmental protection device operation information obtained from an environmental protection device control apparatus that controls an environmental protection device according to the production plan, and the production demand information; and an optimal production plan determining step, during which to select a production plan with a lowest cost of the production plan from the plurality of production plans as an optimal production plan according to the production demand information based on a learning result of the learning step (see abstract and at least para 47, 84-106: “multivariable predictive control, which may be referred to as an advanced process controller (APC), and optimization technologies and methodologies, such as dynamic optimization, may be used to improve some aspects or attributes of a chemical manufacturing process, such as, for example, product yields and mixes, profitability, efficiency, and so forth “[para 104]. “Process Perfecter(R) may be used to optimize and perform closed-loop dynamic control on continuous industrial processes, such as production, energy, and environmental processes, using non-linear modeling technologies such as neural networks, support vector machines, etc. Using process data in the form of empirical models, this product optimizes based on current operating conditions, targets, constraints, and objectives, as described in detail above."[para 105]).
In regards to claim 11 Morrison further discloses wherein, the learning step including: a data obtaining step, during which to obtain the production-related information including at least a production speed, electricity consumption, and a production time period of the production device from the production control apparatus, to obtain the environmental protection device operation information including at least environmental parameters in an operation process of the environmental protection device as well as an operating frequency and operating hours of the environmental protection device from the environmental protection device control apparatus, and to obtain the production demand information (see abstract and at least para 105 “Process Perfecter.RTM. may be used to optimize and perform closed-loop dynamic control on continuous industrial processes, such as production, energy, and environmental processes, using non-linear modeling technologies such as neural networks, support vector machines, etc. Using process data in the form of empirical models, this product optimizes based on current operating conditions, targets, constraints, and objectives. See also at least para 7, 47, 84-106; In para 7: “the predictive models mentioned above may be used in an optimization process to test or characterize the behavior of the system or process under a wide variety of parameter values. The results of each test may be compared, and the parameter set or sets corresponding to the most beneficial outcomes or results may be selected for implementation in the actual system or process." In para 1-33, 47 and 84-106 discuses processes that take into consideration operation hours and electric consumption in production, manufacturing and other associated processes); a reward calculation step, during which to calculate electricity consumption of the environmental protection device based on the operating frequency and the operating hours of the environmental protection device, to calculate a cost of electricity of the production device and the environmental protection device as a cost of each production plan of the plurality of production plans by summing the electricity consumption of the environmental protection device and the electricity consumption of the production device and multiplying the sum by a unit price of electricity during the production time period, the reward calculation section to calculate a reward based on a cost of each production plan; and an action value function updating step, during which to update an action value function according to the reward calculated during the reward calculation step, the production demand information as well as a production speed and a production time period of the production device and an operating frequency and operating hours of the environmental protection device corresponding to each production plan (see abstract and at least para 7, 47, 84-106; In para 7: “the predictive models mentioned above may be used in an optimization process to test or characterize the behavior of the system or process under a wide variety of parameter values. The results of each test may be compared, and the parameter set or sets corresponding to the most beneficial outcomes or results may be selected for implementation in the actual system or process." In para 1-33, 47 and 84-106 discuses processes that take into consideration operation hours and electric consumption in production, manufacturing and other associated processes).
In regards to claim 12 Morrison further discloses wherein, during the data obtaining step further to obtain a maintenance period of the environmental protection device from the environmental protection device control apparatus, during the reward calculation step to calculate a maintenance cost of the environmental protection device according to the operating hours and the maintenance period of the environmental protection device, and to add the maintenance cost of the environmental protection device to the cost of electricity as a cost of each production plan of the plurality of production plans (see para 84-99, 101-105: In para 102 mentions “performance metric is a calculated or measured value of an interesting or key indicator of the operation of the process or unit. For example, common performance metrics include: throughput (production rate), quality, amount of off-spec material produced, cost of production, downtime, emissions or waste production, production efficiency, and conversion, among others”).
In regards to claim 13, Morrison further discloses wherein, further including an original production plan provision step, during which to determine and provide an original production plan according to a user input or a saved history of production plans, during the optimal production plan determining step to provide the original production plan to the production control apparatus and the environmental protection device control apparatus (see abstract and at least para 7, 47, 84-106; In para 7: “the predictive models mentioned above may be used in an optimization process to test or characterize the behavior of the system or process under a wide variety of parameter values. The results of each test may be compared, and the parameter set or sets corresponding to the most beneficial outcomes or results may be selected for implementation in the actual system or process." In para 1-33, 47 and 84-106 discuses processes that take into consideration operation hours and electric consumption in production, manufacturing and other associated processes).
In regards to claim 14, Morrison further discloses wherein, further including an external condition obtaining step, during which to obtain an external condition that changes over time during workday from outside, and to calculate cost reduction due to the use of non-conventional energy for the plurality of production plans corresponding to the production demand information based on the external condition, during the learning step further to learn the relationship between the production demand information and the costs of the plurality of production plans under different external conditions by taking into account the cost reduction due to the use of the non-conventional energy, during the optimal production plan determining step to determine the optimal production plan under different external conditions according to the production demand information based on the learning result of the learning step (see abstract and at least para 7, 47, 84-106, 140-142; In para 7: “the predictive models mentioned above may be used in an optimization process to test or characterize the behavior of the system or process under a wide variety of parameter values. The results of each test may be compared, and the parameter set or sets corresponding to the most beneficial outcomes or results may be selected for implementation in the actual system or process." In para 1-33, 47 and 84-106 discuses processes that take into consideration operation hours and electric consumption in production, manufacturing and other associated processes. Certain scenarios take external data and adjust based on such data [para 140-142]).
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(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota et al. (US 20080210084) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hatta et al. (US 20210171383).
In regards to claim 3, Ota doesn’t specifically teach, wherein, the environmental protection device is a water recycling device including an industrial water treatment apparatus, a water process section, an industrial wastewater treatment apparatus, and a recycled water treatment apparatus, the environmental parameter obtaining unit is a water quality monitoring probe and a flow meter, the water quality monitoring probe to obtain water quality parameters of industrial wastewater after being used from at least the water process section, the flow meter to obtain an amount of water from at least the industrial water treatment apparatus and the recycled water treatment apparatus, and the environmental parameter obtaining unit to use the water quality parameters and the amount of water as the environmental parameters, the adjustment unit is a solenoid valve controller to adjust a conductive direction of a solenoid valve disposed between the water process section and the industrial wastewater treatment apparatus, the control unit to control the solenoid valve controller based on the water quality parameters and the amount of water, such that an operation cost of the water recycling device is reduced while the water quality parameters meet the minimum environmental protection requirements.
Hatta teaches wherein, the environmental protection device is a water recycling device including an industrial water treatment apparatus, a water process section, an industrial wastewater treatment apparatus, and a recycled water treatment apparatus, the environmental parameter obtaining unit is a water quality monitoring probe and a flow meter, the water quality monitoring probe to obtain water quality parameters of industrial wastewater after being used from at least the water process section, the flow meter to obtain an amount of water from at least the industrial water treatment apparatus and the recycled water treatment apparatus, and the environmental parameter obtaining unit to use the water quality parameters and the amount of water as the environmental parameters, the adjustment unit is a solenoid valve controller to adjust a conductive direction of a solenoid valve disposed between the water process section and the industrial wastewater treatment apparatus, the control unit to control the solenoid valve controller based on the water quality parameters and the amount of water, such that an operation cost of the water recycling device is reduced while the water quality parameters meet the minimum environmental protection requirements (see para 27-36: Hatta teaches a water treatment plant includes a central monitoring device, a control device, a control device, and a computation unit, and causes a water treatment apparatus and a water treatment apparatus to execute water treatment. The central monitoring device monitors the water treatment apparatus and the water treatment apparatus. The control device performs a first control for the water treatment apparatus. The control device performs a second control for the water treatment apparatus[abstract]. “Control device 31 controls the water treatment apparatus 11 based on detection data output from the sensor 21" [para 29]. “The control unit 39 may be configured to control the water treatment apparatus 1 such that the state of water treatment in the water treatment apparatus 1 satisfies a preset water treatment condition"[para 34]).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Hatta and implement them with the VOT system taught by Ota, since a person skilled in the art who would have been motivated given it provides means to save money treating different environments with pollutant and that achieve that goal by e.g., adhering to the minimum required standards.
Claim(s) 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota et al. (US 20080210084), in view of Morrison et al. (US 20070059838).
In regards to claim 4, Ota teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further a production plan optimization system, comprising: an environmental protection device control apparatus to control an environmental protection device according to a production plan such that environmental parameters meet minimum environmental protection requirements, and to obtain environmental protection device operation information from the environmental protection device (see para 116-117: “ the VOC contained in the treated gas are continuously monitored by the sensor 17. When a concentration of the VOC contained in the treated gas reaches to a predetermined value, a control signal is generated from the control device 18 in accordance with a signal from the sensor 17 to move the absorption units 3. Depending on an amount of VOC absorbed by the absorbents 3A, electric power to be supplied by a discharge is controlled.” And “continuously keep the VOC contained in the exhaust gas to the predetermined amount or less as well as to maintain the absorption amount of the absorbent to a constant value, it is possible to efficiently treat VOC without consuming unnecessary electric power”).;
Ota doesn’t specifically teach a production control apparatus to control a production device according to the production plan, and to obtain production-related information from the production device; and a production plan optimization apparatus to obtain production demand information, to obtain the production-related information from the production control apparatus, and to obtain the environmental protection device operation information from the environmental protection device control apparatus, and to determine a plurality of production plans according to the production demand information, and to obtain a cost of each production plan of the plurality of production plans based on the production-related information and the environmental protection device operation information, and then to select a production plan with a lowest cost of the production plan from the plurality of production plans as an optimal production plan, and to provide the optimal production plan to the environmental protection device control apparatus and the production control apparatus.
Morrison teaches a production control apparatus to control a production device according to the production plan, and to obtain production-related information from the production device; and a production plan optimization apparatus to obtain production demand information, to obtain the production-related information from the production control apparatus, and to obtain the environmental protection device operation information from the environmental protection device control apparatus, and to determine a plurality of production plans according to the production demand information, and to obtain a cost of each production plan of the plurality of production plans based on the production-related information and the environmental protection device operation information, and then to select a production plan with a lowest cost of the production plan from the plurality of production plans as an optimal production plan, and to provide the optimal production plan to the environmental protection device control apparatus and the production control apparatus (see abstract and at least para 47, 84-106: “multivariable predictive control, which may be referred to as an advanced process controller (APC), and optimization technologies and methodologies, such as dynamic optimization, may be used to improve some aspects or attributes of a chemical manufacturing process, such as, for example, product yields and mixes, profitability, efficiency, and so forth “[para 104]. “Process Perfecter(R) may be used to optimize and perform closed-loop dynamic control on continuous industrial processes, such as production, energy, and environmental processes, using non-linear modeling technologies such as neural networks, support vector machines, etc. Using process data in the form of empirical models, this product optimizes based on current operating conditions, targets, constraints, and objectives, as described in detail above."[para 105].
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Morrison and implement them with the VOT system taught by Ota, since a person skilled in the art who would have been motivated given it provides means to save money and yield optimal results (see para 104-105).
In regards to claim 5, Ota doesn’t specifically teach wherein, the production plan optimization apparatus including: a learning unit to learn a relationship between the production demand information and costs of the plurality of production plans based on the production-related information, the environmental protection device operation information and the production demand information; and an optimal production plan determining unit to determine the optimal production plan according to the production demand information based on a learning result of the learning unit.
Morrison teaches wherein, the production plan optimization apparatus including: a learning unit to learn a relationship between the production demand information and costs of the plurality of production plans based on the production-related information, the environmental protection device operation information and the production demand information; and an optimal production plan determining unit to determine the optimal production plan according to the production demand information based on a learning result of the learning unit. (See abstract and at least para 47, 84-106: In para 94: Environmental Permit and Legal constraints on air emissions, waste water, and waste disposal systems. “Multivariable predictive control, which may be referred to as an advanced process controller (APC), and optimization technologies and methodologies, such as dynamic optimization, may be used to improve some aspects or attributes of a chemical manufacturing process, such as, for example, product yields and mixes, profitability, efficiency, and so forth “[para 104]. “Process Perfecter(R) may be used to optimize and perform closed-loop dynamic control on continuous industrial processes, such as production, energy, and environmental processes, using non-linear modeling technologies such as neural networks, support vector machines, etc. Using process data in the form of empirical models, this product optimizes based on current operating conditions, targets, constraints, and objectives, as described in detail above."[para 105].
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Morrison and implement them with the VOT system taught by Ota, since a person skilled in the art who would have been motivated given it provides means to save money and yield optimal results (see para 104-105).
In regards to claim 6, Ota doesn’t specifically teach wherein, the learning unit including: a data obtaining section to obtain the production-related information including at least a production speed, electricity consumption, and a production time period of the production device from the production control apparatus, to obtain the environmental protection device operation information including at least the environmental parameters as well as an operating frequency and operating hours of the environmental protection device from the environmental protection device control apparatus, and to obtain the production demand information; a reward calculation section to calculate electricity consumption of the environmental protection device according to the operating frequency and the operating hours of the environmental protection device, to calculate a cost of electricity of the production device and the environmental protection device as a cost of each production plan of the plurality of production plans by summing the electricity consumption of the environmental protection device and the electricity consumption of the production device and multiplying the sum by a unit price of electricity during the production time period, the reward calculation section to calculate a reward based on a cost of each production plan; and an action value function updating section to update an action value function according to the reward calculated by the reward calculation section, the production demand information as well as a production speed and a production time period of the production device and an operating frequency and operating hours of the environmental protection device corresponding to each production plan.
Morrison teaches wherein, the learning unit including: a data obtaining section to obtain the production-related information including at least a production speed, electricity consumption, and a production time period of the production device from the production control apparatus, to obtain the environmental protection device operation information including at least the environmental parameters as well as an operating frequency and operating hours of the environmental protection device from the environmental protection device control apparatus, and to obtain the production demand information; a reward calculation section to calculate electricity consumption of the environmental protection device according to the operating frequency and the operating hours of the environmental protection device, to calculate a cost of electricity of the production device and the environmental protection device as a cost of each production plan of the plurality of production plans by summing the electricity consumption of the environmental protection device and the electricity consumption of the production device and multiplying the sum by a unit price of electricity during the production time period, the reward calculation section to calculate a reward based on a cost of each production plan; and an action value function updating section to update an action value function according to the reward calculated by the reward calculation section, the production demand information as well as a production speed and a production time period of the production device and an operating frequency and operating hours of the environmental protection device corresponding to each production plan (see abstract and at least para 7, 47, 84-106; In para 7: “the predictive models mentioned above may be used in an optimization process to test or characterize the behavior of the system or process under a wide variety of parameter values. The results of each test may be compared, and the parameter set or sets corresponding to the most beneficial outcomes or results may be selected for implementation in the actual system or process." In para 1-33, 47 and 84-106 discuses processes that take into consideration operation hours and electric consumption in production, manufacturing and other associated processes).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Morrison and implement them with the VOT system taught by Ota, since a person skilled in the art who would have been motivated given it provides means to optimize the system and provided desired results by a use and also improved the system in order to save money (see para 7, 104-105).
In regards to claim 7, Ota doesn’t specifically teach wherein, the data obtaining section further to obtain a maintenance period of the environmental protection device from the environmental protection device control apparatus, the reward calculation section to calculate a maintenance cost of the environmental protection device according to the operating hours and the maintenance period of the environmental protection device, and to sum the maintenance cost of the environmental protection device and the cost of electricity of the production plan optimization system as a cost of each production plan of the plurality of production plans.
Morrison teaches wherein, the data obtaining section further to obtain a maintenance period of the environmental protection device from the environmental protection device control apparatus, the reward calculation section to calculate a maintenance cost of the environmental protection device according to the operating hours and the maintenance period of the environmental protection device, and to sum the maintenance cost of the environmental protection device and the cost of electricity of the production plan optimization system as a cost of each production plan of the plurality of production plans (see para 84-99, 101-105: In para 102 mentions “performance metric is a calculated or measured value of an interesting or key indicator of the operation of the process or unit. For example, common performance metrics include: throughput (production rate), quality, amount of off-spec material produced, cost of production, downtime, emissions or waste production, production efficiency, and conversion, among others”).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Morrison and implement them with the VOT system taught by Ota to include downtime and maintenance, since a person skilled in the art who would have been motivated given it provides means to enhance the calculations and optimize the system and provided desired results and save money (see para 102, 104-105).
In regards to claim 8, Ota doesn’t specifically teach wherein, the production plan optimization apparatus further including an original production plan provision section, the original production plan provision section to determine an original production plan according to a user input or a history of production plans saved in the original production plan provision section, and to provide the original production plan to the optimal production plan determining unit, the optimal production plan determining unit to provide the original production plan to the production control apparatus and the environmental protection device control apparatus.
Morrison teaches wherein, the production plan optimization apparatus further including an original production plan provision section, the original production plan provision section to determine an original production plan according to a user input or a history of production plans saved in the original production plan provision section, and to provide the original production plan to the optimal production plan determining unit, the optimal production plan determining unit to provide the original production plan to the production control apparatus and the environmental protection device control apparatus. (see abstract and at least para 7, 47, 84-106; In para 7: “the predictive models mentioned above may be used in an optimization process to test or characterize the behavior of the system or process under a wide variety of parameter values. The results of each test may be compared, and the parameter set or sets corresponding to the most beneficial outcomes or results may be selected for implementation in the actual system or process." In para 1-33, 47 and 84-106 discuses processes that take into consideration operation hours and electric consumption in production, manufacturing and other associated processes).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Morrison and implement them with the VOT system taught by Ota, since a person skilled in the art who would have been motivated given it provides means to optimize the system in many ways to improve user experience by improving a generated plan and provided desired results which would improve saving money (see para 7, 104-105).
In regards to claim 9, Ota doesn’t specifically teach wherein the production plan optimization apparatus further including an external condition obtaining unit, the external condition obtaining unit to obtain an external condition that changes over time during workday from outside the production plan optimization system, and to calculate cost reduction due to the use of non-conventional energy for the plurality of production plans corresponding to the production demand information based on the external condition, the learning unit further to learn the relationship between the production demand information and the costs of the plurality of production plans under different external conditions by taking into account the cost reduction due to the use of the non-conventional energy, the optimal production plan determining unit to determine the optimal production plan under different external conditions according to the production demand information based on the learning result of the learning unit.
Morrison teaches wherein the production plan optimization apparatus further including an external condition obtaining unit, the external condition obtaining unit to obtain an external condition that changes over time during workday from outside the production plan optimization system, and to calculate cost reduction due to the use of non-conventional energy for the plurality of production plans corresponding to the production demand information based on the external condition, the learning unit further to learn the relationship between the production demand information and the costs of the plurality of production plans under different external conditions by taking into account the cost reduction due to the use of the non-conventional energy, the optimal production plan determining unit to determine the optimal production plan under different external conditions according to the production demand information based on the learning result of the learning unit (see abstract and at least para 7, 47, 84-106, 140-142; In para 7: “the predictive models mentioned above may be used in an optimization process to test or characterize the behavior of the system or process under a wide variety of parameter values. The results of each test may be compared, and the parameter set or sets corresponding to the most beneficial outcomes or results may be selected for implementation in the actual system or process." In para 1-33, 47 and 84-106 discuses processes that take into consideration operation hours and electric consumption in production, manufacturing and other associated processes. Certain scenarios take external data and adjust based on such data [para 140-142]).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Morrison and implement them with the VOT system taught by Ota, since a person skilled in the art who would have been motivated given that it provides means to optimize the system using the collected data and provided desired results having flexibility to meet desired results (see para 140-142).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7971. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:30am-5:30pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118