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 .
Claims 1-5 have been presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 9/11/23 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. It also appears that applicant possibly signed and dated the IDS intended for the examiner. This would be improper.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
MPEP 608.01(m) states that:
“[w]hile there is no set statutory form for claims, the present Office practice is to insist that each claim must be the object of a sentence starting with "I (or we) claim," "The invention claimed is" (or the equivalent). If, at the time of allowance, the quoted terminology is not present, it is inserted by the Office of Data Management. Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i).”
Therefore, the use of periods on lines 13 and 21 of claim 1 is improper. Additionally, the use of capital letters for each limitation (i.e., “The step to” on lines 3, 7, etc…) are also improper since introduces improper sentence structure. Furthermore, each limitation should be separated by a line indentation. Claims 3 and 5 also include the same errors as indicated above that must be corrected. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 1, there should be a “:” after wherein.
Lines 3-4 and lines 8-9 should not be broken up into separate lines.
On line 7, filter should end with a semi-colon instead of a comma.
Since each claim is written as a sentence, capital letters should only be used to begin the claim or used for proper nouns (i.e., Kalman filter). Beginning each limitation with a capital letter is grammatically incorrect. Lastly, each limitation should end with a semi-colon “;” rather than a period “.”, comma “,” while the claim should be terminated with a period “.”.
The examiner requests applicant’s assistance to review all the claims and make any necessary corrections. While the examiner has made a good faith effort to point out each of the major issues, due to the number errors present, it is improbable that the examiner would be able to address each one based on the time allotted for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
"The Kalman filter” on line 1
“The step to receive operation data” on line 3
“The step to obtain assembly angles” on line 7
“The step to generate weight data” on line 13-14
“The step to generate an actor-critic flow detection angle” on line 21
“The step to predict non-stationary flow deflection angles” on line 24
“the weight data” on lines 24-25
“the actor-critic flow deflection angle” on lines 26-27
“The step of estimating and calibrating yaw misalignment values” on line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the above as:
"A Kalman filter” on line 1
“a step to receive operation data” on line 3
“a step to obtain assembly angles” on line 7
“a step to generate weight data” on line 13-14
“a step to generate an actor-critic flow detection angle” on line 21
“a step to predict non-stationary flow deflection angles” on line 24
“weight data” on lines 24-25
“an actor-critic flow deflection angle” on lines 26-27
“a step of estimating and calibrating yaw misalignment values” on line 29.
The term “certain” in line 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “certain” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear how many sequences the “certain number of sequences” refers to.
In addition:
On line 8, the claim refers to “a Kalman filter”. It is unclear if this instance of a Kalman filter is the same instance as recited in line 1 or an additional Kalman filter.
On line 8, it is unclear what applicant refers to by “really measured”
On lines 30-31, the claim refers to a “deflection angle prediction deep learning model” while on lines 27-28, the claim refers to a “deflection angle prediction deep reinforcement learning model”. It is unclear of these are intended to recite the same term or if these are different deep learning models.
Similar instances of the issues listed above are also present in claims 3-5 and the examiner requests applicant’s assistance to review the claims and make corrections as necessary. One major point of focus is directed to antecedent basis. Simply put, when using the term “the” to refer to a claim limitation, that limitation must be previously recited in order to provide proper antecedent basis. If the term was not previously recited, then usage of “the” or “said” is not proper. If a term that was previously used is later recited, then it is necessary to use the term “the” or “said” to properly provide antecedent basis back to that term.
Referring to claim 5, this claim is not written as a proper claim. It is not a proper independent claim nor a proper dependent claim since it does not depend from another claim.
The examiner requests applicant’s assistance to review all the claims and make any necessary corrections. While the examiner has made a good faith effort to point out each of the major issues, due to the number errors present, it is improbable that the examiner would be able to address each one based on the time allotted for examination.
Conclusion
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A CONNOLLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Thomas Lee can be reached at 571-272-3667. 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.
/MARK A CONNOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 8/7/25