DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the submission filed on 5/2/2023. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 6 contains text which is extremely small and difficult to discern. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Applicant is directed towards 37 CFR § 1.84 - Standards for drawings:
(3) Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. ( 1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 2-18 recite “A system according to..” and claim 20 recites “…a method according to claim 19.” The depending claims should be amended to recite “The system” and “the method” to properly refer back to the parent claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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: “each sub-simulator being configured to simulate”, “a controller configured to receive”, “an optimizer configured to determine” in claim 1.
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: however there is no corresponding structure for performing the claimed functions.
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 1-20 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.
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 limitations 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 limitations are: “each sub-simulator being configured to simulate”, “a controller configured to receive”, “an optimizer configured to determine” in claim 1. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof: however there is no corresponding structure for performing the claimed functions. Claims 2-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
The claims are replete with instances of lack of antecedent support. The claims appear to be a direct translation from a foreign document. The following is to be considered merely exemplary of the numerous issues of indefiniteness present in the claim language.
Claim 1:
Line 1, “the operation” lacks antecedent support
Line 2, “the behaviour” lacks antecedent support
Line 4, “the output” lacks antecedent support
Line 9, “the input” lacks antecedent support
Line 10, “other(s)” is it unclear why (s) is in parentheses
Line 11, “the course”, “the iteration” lack antecedent support
Lines 13-14, “…one or more elements of the co-simulator to adjust so as to optimise…” is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Line 14, “the process” lacks antecedent support
Claim 19 is rejected for similar reasoning. Claim 20 is rejected by virtue of its dependency.
Claim 2, line 2, “the respective”, line 4, “the models” lack antecedent support.
Claim 3, line 1, “the parameters” was previously “one or more parameters”. Consistency is required.
Claim 3, line 3, “the respective sub-simulator” lacks antecedent support.
Claim 4, “the one or more elements of the co-simulator comprise an interval at which the intermediate results are output…” It is unclear how one or more elements could be ‘an interval’. It is unclear how an interval is where results are output. The entire claim is indefinite and appropriate correction is required. In addition, line 2, “the intermediate results” lacks antecedent support.
Claim 5, line 2, “the intermediate results” lacks antecedent support.
Claim 7, recites “the two or sub-simulators” which is assumed to be “the two or more sub-simulators”. Line 3, “the estimated value”, line 4, “the next iteration” lack antecedent support.
Claim 8, line 2 recites “the optimisation algorithm being such as to determine” which is unclear and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10, “the course” lacks antecedent support.
Claim 12, “the latest iteration” lacks antecedent support.
Claim 14, “the one or more sub-simulators” was previously “two or more sub-simulators”. “The models” was previously “respective models”.
Claim 16, “the accuracy” is recited; however claim 16 depends from claim 15 which presents “accuracy” as only an option. Therefore “the accuracy” in claim 16 lacks antecedent support. Also, line 16 recites “the sub-simulator”; it is unclear which of the previously recited sub-simulator is referred to here.
Claim 17 “the one or more sub-simulators” was previously “two or more sub-simulators”.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the second system is a windmill”. However, a windmill uses wind to perform mechanical work (like grinding grain or pumping water), while a wind turbine converts wind energy into electricity using a generator. Windmills are older, smaller, and designed for torque-heavy tasks, whereas modern wind turbines are much larger and optimized for efficient power generation. It the context of the specification and claim language it is assumed that the claim should be directed to a wind turbine.
Applicant is required to review the claims thoroughly prior to submitting a response.
Any application of prior art is the Examiner’s best interpretation of the claimed subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of
nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements
that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.(See MPEP 2106).
Step 1: With respect to claims 1-20, applying step 1, the preamble of independent claims 1 and 19 claim a system and a method. As such these claims fall within the statutory categories of machine and a process.
Step 2A, prong one: In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
A system for controlling the operation of a co-simulator comprising two or more sub- simulators, each sub-simulator being configured to simulate the behaviour of a respective sub-system of a second system, the co-simulator being configured to perform one or more iterations of a simulation in which the output of the sub-simulators is combined to determine a value of one or more properties of the second system, the system comprising:
a controller configured to receive, at one or more time points during each iteration of the simulation, results of intermediate calculations performed by one or more of the sub-simulators, and to coordinate the input of the received results into other(s) of the sub-simulators for use in subsequent calculations to be performed during the course of the iteration; and
an optimiser configured to determine, at each of the one or more time points and based on the results of the intermediate calculations, one or more elements of the co-simulator to adjust so as to optimise the process of determining the value of the one or more properties of the second system (mental process – observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
The limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim involves determining. The determining step is simple enough/broadly claimed that it could be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, prong two: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “a controller configured to receive… and to coordinate the input of the received results into other(s) of the sub-simulators…” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b))/ (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g)), “an optimiser configured to determine” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as "apply it" or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards generic computer components carrying out the abstract idea and data gathering. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h).Furthermore, as Berkheimer evidence that the claim elements “--- receive… and to coordinate the input of the received results into other(s) of the sub-simulators…” are Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional, MPEP § 2106.05(d) (II) provides support that mere data collecting is well understood, routine, and conventional: "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well- understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra- solution activity:
• Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather
data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary
computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d
607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image
transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d
1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google,
Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives
and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
• Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP
Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788
F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
• Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115
USPQ2d at 1092-93
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Independent claim 1 is directed to substantially the same subject matter as independent claim 19 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. The same conclusion is reached for the dependent claims.
Claims 2-7, 9, 14, 16, and 18 are further directed towards concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claims involve simulating and determining. The steps are simple enough/broadly claimed that they could be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional limitations.
Claims 8, 10-11, 13, 15, and 17 are further directed towards directed to the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping of abstract ideas (including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C). The claims are directed towards using and selecting an optimization algorithm. Thus, claims noted above also fall into the "Mathematical Concepts" groupings of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional limitations.
Claim 12 is further directed towards additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of retaining input -insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards data gathering.
Claim 20 is further directed towards additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only presents generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20190370420 A1 (“Feng”).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Feng teaches:
A system for controlling the operation of a co-simulator comprising two or more sub- simulators, each sub-simulator being configured to simulate the behaviour of a respective sub-system of a second system, the co-simulator being configured to perform one or more iterations of a simulation in which the output of the sub-simulators is combined to determine a value of one or more properties of the second system (Feng: Abstract; para [0027]), the system comprising:
a controller configured to receive, at one or more time points during each iteration of the simulation, results of intermediate calculations performed by one or more of the sub-simulators, and to coordinate the input of the received results into other(s) of the sub-simulators for use in subsequent calculations to be performed during the course of the iteration (Feng: para [0126], “Co-simulation may be especially challenging when a connection is intended to be modeled at a continuous-time rate (e.g., the connection is declared as continuous-time). As used herein, continuous-time refers to a connection that is intended to have or represents a value that varies continuously with time but may in fact be discretized by a solver in order to be solved. This value may be approximated by a solver (e.g., a subordinate solver) at various intermediate points within a time step based on a numerical integration scheme to approximate the continuous-time. Such discretization and approximation for continuous-time is separate from the discretization that co-simulation introduces to the connection between two co-simulation components. When such a model is executed in a co-simulation manner, the communication rate for the connection may not be the same as the modeled-sample rate for the connection (e.g., that would be modeled if co-simulation was not used)”; para [0214], “the compensator may be an algorithm applied to the signal output from the co-simulation component 318 that modifies the signal to compensate for the intermediate data points generated by co-simulation component 318 that are lost during co-simulation. The compensation to the signal modifies the signal input into the co-simulation component 312. For example, the modification to the signal may cause an integration value output from the co-simulation component 318 to be closer to an integration value that would be calculated using all the intermediate data points generated by co-simulation component 318 than if no compensation was performed”); and
an optimiser configured to determine, at each of the one or more time points and based on the results of the intermediate calculations, one or more elements of the co-simulator to adjust so as to optimise the process of determining the value of the one or more properties of the second system (Feng: [0129], “The co-simulation component discovery engine 118 may automatically (e.g., independent of user input) identify one or more discrepancies between a sample rate of a connection between two of the available model components 302-320 and the communication rate that would be set if those particular model components were included in the realized model and connected across a co-simulation partition. In addition, the discovery engine 118 may find that two model components are tightly coupled, which means their dynamics are tightly coupled and signals between them change rapidly over time. The discovery engine 118 may identify these signals, and the constrained optimization processor 120 may place the two model components into one co-simulation partition, instead of splitting them into different partitions. For example, the co-simulation component discovery engine 118 may automatically identify continuous-time signals between two of the available model components that, if included in the realized model, would be discretized in co-simulation. The co-simulation component discovery engine 118 may compute compensation parameters to compensate for the inaccuracy caused by co-simulation”).
Regarding claim 2, Feng teaches:
A system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more sub-simulators simulate the behaviour of the respective sub-systems by executing respective models, and the one or more elements of the co-simulator comprise one or more parameters of at least one of the models (Feng: para [0233], “The realized model 800 may be executed producing co-simulation results. Like the model 700, the model 800, when executed, may simulate
the behavior of the high-level system design 128. The integration platform 102 may interface with the different simulation tools to execute functionalities for the selected co-simulation components to execute the realized model 800 in a co-simulation manner”; para [0054], “a user may run a high model fidelity component to identify parameters and
parameter values that result in highly accurate numeric simulation of the automobile. These parameter values may then be used with a low or medium model fidelity component to achieve similar numeric accuracy, but with the low or medium model fidelity component. In other embodiments, parameters and parameter values may be identified using experimental data”).
Regarding claim 3, Feng teaches:
A system according to claim 2, wherein the optimiser is configured to adjust the parameters of at least one of the models, such that the model can be executed more quickly by the respective sub-simulator (Feng: para [0204], “Changing one or more configuration
parameters of a model component may change one or more characteristics of the model component. For example, changing the solver and/or tolerance may change the simulation fidelity of the model component. In some embodiments, the solution determined by the objective function solver 126 may include changing and/or setting one or more parameters for a model component based on a specified weighting among fidelity, execution speed, and memory usage, e.g., to achieve the specified weighting among fidelity, execution speed, and memory usage. A single model component may thus represent multiple alternatives by changing one or more of its parameters. ”).
Regarding claim 4, Feng teaches:
A system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more elements of the co-simulator comprise an interval at which the intermediate results are output to the controller by the one or more sub-simulators (Feng: para [0041]).
Regarding claim 5, Feng teaches:
A system according to claim 1, wherein the optimiser is configured to abort a current iteration of the simulation based on determining that one or more of the intermediate results lie outside a predetermined range of values (Feng: para [0263]).
Regarding claim 6, Feng teaches:
A system according to claim 1, wherein the value of one or more properties of the second system comprises a measure of performance of the second system (Feng: para [0031]).
Regarding claim 7, Feng teaches:
A system according to claim 1, wherein for each iteration of the simulation, the two
or sub-simulators are provided with one or more input values; and the optimiser is configured to determine, based on the estimated value of the one or more properties of the second system, a revised set of input values to use in the next iteration (Feng: para [0253], [0078], [0030]).
Regarding claim 8, Feng teaches:
A system according to claim 7, wherein the revised set of input values is determined
using an optimisation algorithm, the optimisation algorithm being such as to determine a set of input values that result in an optimal value for the one or more properties of the
second system (Feng: para [0078], [0030]).
Regarding claim 9, Feng teaches:
A system according to claim 8, wherein the co-simulator is configured to determine
values of two or more properties of the second system and the optimisation algorithm is selected so as to determine a set of input values that will jointly optimise the values of
the two or more properties of the second system (Feng: para [0077], [0128]).
Regarding claim 10, Feng teaches:
A system according to claim 8, wherein the optimiser is configured to switch to
using an alternative optimisation algorithm during the course of the co-simulator performing multiple iterations of the simulation (Feng: para []).
Regarding claim 11, Feng teaches:
A system according to claim 10, wherein the optimiser is configured to switch to
using the alternative optimisation algorithm in response to adjusting the one or more
elements of the co-simulator (Feng: para [0078]).
Regarding claim 12, Feng teaches:
A system according to claim 10, wherein upon switching to using the alternative
optimisation algorithm, the optimiser is configured to retain, as input for the next
iteration of the simulation, the set of input values determined in the latest iteration of
the simulation (Feng: para [0198]).
Regarding claim 13, Feng teaches:
A system according to claim 8, wherein the optimisation algorithm is selected based on one or more properties of at least one of the two or more sub-simulators (Feng: para [0172]).
Regarding claim 14, Feng teaches:
A system according to claim 13, wherein:
the one or more sub-simulators simulate the behaviour of the respective sub-systems by executing respective models; the one or more elements of the co-simulator comprise one or more parameters of at least one of the models; and the optimisation algorithm is selected based on the one or more parameters (Feng: paras [0022-0027]).
Regarding claim 15, Feng teaches:
A system according to claim 13, wherein the optimisation algorithm is selected based on an accuracy or noise level associated with one or more of the sub-simulators (Feng: para [0027]).
Regarding claim 16, Feng teaches:
A system according to claim 15, wherein the accuracy of each sub-simulator is defined based on a difference between results of calculations for variables output by the sub-simulator and expected values for the variables in the real world (Feng: para [0128-0129]).
Regarding claim 17, Feng teaches:
A system according to claim 13, wherein the optimisation algorithm is selected based on a memory requirement of the one or more of the sub-simulators (Feng: para [0051]).
Regarding claim 20, Feng teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising computer executable instructions that when executed by a computer will cause the computer to carry out a method according to claim 19 (Feng: Fig. 1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190370420 A1 (“Feng”) in view of US 20230195521 A1 (“Bilgili”).
Regarding claim 18, Feng does not teach but Bilgili does teach:
A system according to claim 1, wherein the second system is a windmill (Biligili: Claim 1; para [0022] ).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Feng (directed to co-simulation) and Bilgili (directed to wind turbines) and arrived at co-simulation of a wind turbine. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for “using heterogenous processors to simulate the industrial system” (Bilgili: para [0002]).
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and are cited in the attached PTOL-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NITHYA J. MOLL whose telephone number is (571)270-1003. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm 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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/NITHYA J. MOLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
