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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 1 contains unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 9, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 9 use both a sequence of successive measures of the variable and later in the claims uses the sequence of successive measurements. For grammatical clarity and clarity of the claim in general all instances of measure or measures in the claims should be read as measurement or measurements respectively. For example, line 4 of claim 1 should read “for each variable of a plurality of variables of the system, obtaining a sequence of successive measurements of the variable, each measurement being performed at a corresponding measuring time,” and line 4 of claim 9 should read “for each variable of the plurality of variables of the system, to obtain a time series of measurements of variables of the system and a sequence of successive measurements of the variable,”
Claim 2 includes “a step of recording, over time, successive measures of the variables, so as to obtain the sequences of successive measures for each variable of the plurality of variables of the system.” In order to be consistent with the changes to claims 1 and 9, the limitations should read “a step of recording, over time, successive measurements of the variables, so as to obtain the sequences of successive measurements for each variable of the plurality of variables of the system.”
Claim 7 includes the limitation “replacing the first scenario.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “replacing the first control scenario.”
Claim 10 includes the limitation “comparing the score of the first scenario and the score of the second scenario.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “comparing the score of the first scenario and the score of the second scenario”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 9 include the limitation “and estimating the future value of the physical quantity of the system by the estimator, based on the value of the adjustment parameter”. Pg. 15 Ln(s). 15-17 of the specification describe the limitation with nothing beyond the claim language. Pg. 15 Ln(s). 18-35 further clarify that the adjusted value is received by the estimator and that the future estimates are improved because of the use of the adjustment parameter. However, it is unknown how the adjusted value is used to estimate the future value of the physical quantity just that some calculation is made. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP 2161.01.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35
U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 doesn’t require all the limitations of the method in claim 1 as it only requires “at least one of the steps of the method according to claim 1”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1 and 9, the following bold limitations are considered abstract:
“for each variable of a plurality of variables of the system, obtaining a sequence of successive measures of the variable, each measure being performed at a corresponding measuring time,
for each variable, defining a normalised variable as a ratio of the variable to a reference value, and determining a sequence of successive measures of the normalised variable, by calculating for each measure of the variable a measure of the normalised variable,
for each variable, determining a sequence of successive measures of a rate of variation of the normalised variable by calculating for each pair of following measures of the normalised variable a ratio of a difference between the following measures over a length of an interval of time between measuring times that correspond to the pair of following measures,
determining for each measuring time a measure of a stability parameter of the system by multiplying each measure of a rate of variation of a normalised variable by a predetermined coefficient, the measure of the rate of variation corresponding to the measuring time and adding results of the multiplication,
identifying a most recent stability time interval in which, for each measuring time comprised in the stability time interval, the stability parameter is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold for a duration greater than or equal to a predetermined duration,
estimating, for a particular variable of the plurality of variables, a part of the sequence of successive measurements of the particular variable, so as to obtain a sequence of successive estimates of the particular variable, a start time of the part of the sequence of successive measurements of the particular variable being comprised in the stability time interval, the estimating being carried out by an estimator of the estimation device,
comparing the sequence of successive estimates of the particular variable with the part of the sequence of successive measurements of the particular variable so as to determine a value of an adjustment parameter,
and estimating the future value of the physical quantity of the system by the estimator, based on the value of the adjustment parameter.”
The above bolded limitations are directed to abstract ideas and would fall within the “Mathematical Concept” and “Mental Process” groupings of abstract ideas. Normalizing is a well-known mathematical concept. As stated in the claim, determining a rate of variation is a calculation. Furthermore, determining a stability parameter is a mathematical concept as seen in page 12 of the specification. According to MPEP 2106.04(C) “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. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” Lastly, comparing estimates and estimating a future value of the physical quantity of the system can be done in the human mind using observation, judgement, and opinion.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements –
“for each variable of a plurality of variables of the system, obtaining a sequence of successive measures of the variable, each measure being performed at a corresponding measuring time,
the estimating being carried out by an estimator of the estimation device.”
Examiner views these limitations amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims
-Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP
2106.05(b)
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing -
see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally
linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the
claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP
2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Moreover, Examiner views the claims to be merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a computer system and generic data.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “for each variable of a plurality of variables of the system, obtaining a sequence of successive measures of the variable, each measure being performed at a corresponding measuring time, the estimating being carried out by an estimator of the estimation device” amounts to mere data gathering as data is just obtained at certain times and an estimator is viewed a computational device being used as a tool. Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by
Grossetete (US 20240194360 A1)
Emmerson (US 20180223243 A1)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claim fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception because the limitations “for each variable of a plurality of variables of the system, obtaining a sequence of successive measures of the variable, each measure being performed at a corresponding measuring time, the estimating being carried out by an estimator of the estimation device” just tie the claim to a generic sequence of measurements and a computer.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below:
The dependent claims are directed to further limit the data that is being used in the method and expanding upon the mathematical concepts of the method. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 and 10 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to a computer program per se see MPEP 2106.03.
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.
Claims 1-4, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grossetete (US 20240194360 A1) and Emmerson (US 20180223243 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 9,
Grossetete teaches,
for each variable of a plurality of variables of the system, obtaining a sequence of successive measures of the variable, each measure being performed at a corresponding measuring time, (Para(s). [0100-0104] teaches “This instrumentation and control system 53 includes an instrumentation 55 for directly measuring or determining a plurality of operating parameters of the nuclear reactor. These operating parameters comprise at least the following: power supplied by the turbine 15; temperature of the primary heat transfer fluid at the inlet and outlet of the core 3; position of the control rod groups 49; power supplied by the core 3 of the nuclear reactor; neutron flux distribution in the core 3.” Abstract teaches [0084] teaches “calculating an evolution in at least one magnitude characteristic of the state of the core of the nuclear reactor during this given time interval using a power program, current values of operating parameters and the injection sequence considered” i.e. a given time interval is viewed as successive measurements over a corresponding measurement time.)
and estimating the future value of the physical quantity of the system by the estimator, based on the value of the adjustment parameter. (Para. [0248] teaches “After this initial adjustment, the predictive model of the core calculates for each level of the core the evolution in time, over the given time interval, of the neutron concentration n.sub.i, the temperature T.sub.i and the xenon concentration X.sub.ei.”)
Grossetete does not explicitly teach,
for each variable, defining a normalised variable as a ratio of the variable to a reference value, and determining a sequence of successive measures of the normalised variable, by calculating for each measure of the variable a measure of the normalised variable,
for each variable, determining a sequence of successive measures of a rate of variation of the normalised variable by calculating for each pair of following measures of the normalised variable a ratio of a difference between the following measures over a length of an interval of time between measuring times that correspond to the pair of following measures,
determining for each measuring time a measure of a stability parameter of the system by multiplying each measure of a rate of variation of a normalised variable by a predetermined coefficient, the measure of the rate of variation corresponding to the measuring time and adding results of the multiplication,
identifying a most recent stability time interval in which, for each measuring time comprised in the stability time interval, the stability parameter is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold for a duration greater than or equal to a predetermined duration,
estimating, for a particular variable of the plurality of variables, a part of the sequence of successive measurements of the particular variable, so as to obtain a sequence of successive estimates of the particular variable, a start time of the part of the sequence of successive measurements of the particular variable being comprised in the stability time interval, the estimating being carried out by an estimator of the estimation device,
comparing the sequence of successive estimates of the particular variable with the part of the sequence of successive measurements of the particular variable so as to determine a value of an adjustment parameter,
Emmerson teaches,
for each variable, defining a normalised variable as a ratio of the variable to a reference value, and determining a sequence of successive measures of the normalised variable, by calculating for each measure of the variable a measure of the normalised variable, (Abstract teaches “obtaining measurements with respect to time of a signal representing a parameter modified by a perturbing influence and a signal representing the perturbing influence and storing the measurements for each time in a data array as parameter data and perturbation data respectively;” (i.e. measurements with respect to time are viewed as variable) Para. [0013] teaches “determining an error between the model and the data at each time; storing the errors in the data array as normalised parameter data and normalised perturbation data respectively;” (i.e. where the reference data is the model.))
for each variable, determining a sequence of successive measures of a rate of variation of the normalised variable by calculating for each pair of following measures of the normalised variable a ratio of a difference between the following measures over a length of an interval of time between measuring times that correspond to the pair of following measures, (Para. [0073] teaches “As described, the method utilises linear regression as the regression technique but there are several alternative methods that could be employed to determine for rates of change values. For example, the difference between two consecutive data points, the difference between two sets of averaged data points, or two rolling averages with different buffer sizes all yield rates of change information and could be used for the calculation.”)
determining for each measuring time a measure of a stability parameter of the system by multiplying each measure of a rate of variation of a normalised variable by a predetermined coefficient, the measure of the rate of variation corresponding to the measuring time and adding results of the multiplication, (Para. [0079] teaches “The time required to achieve a stable value varies significantly with process type and equipment location, so it is desirable to periodically test for stability so that the final correction calculation is only implemented when it will yield a good result. A variety of routines can be implemented to test for stability.” Para. [0072] teaches “gradient, or first degree coefficient, of the fitted line is the rate of change of the R.sup.2 value, and is labelled as R.sup.2_RoC, and in stored in the historical array against the current time stamp. Then, a “signal to noise ratio” for this R.sup.2 rate of change is calculated in the same way as the earlier CtN, being the delta of the fitted R.sup.2 values over the span of the linear regression divided by 2 times the average error of the fitted line, to yield the R.sup.2_RoC-N_Ratio. This is stored in the array also.” Fig(s). 9 and 10 show that the stability is based on the coefficients)
identifying a most recent stability time interval in which, for each measuring time comprised in the stability time interval, the stability parameter is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold for a duration greater than or equal to a predetermined duration, (Para. [0020] teaches “determining rates of change of the one or more statistical coefficients over the time of the data array; analysing the rates of change against one or more stability criteria to assess stability of the data over time;”)
estimating, for a particular variable of the plurality of variables, a part of the sequence of successive measurements of the particular variable, so as to obtain a sequence of successive estimates of the particular variable, a start time of the part of the sequence of successive measurements of the particular variable being comprised in the stability time interval, the estimating being carried out by an estimator of the estimation device, (Para. [0064] teaches “The start 600 of the loop can occur either at system power-up, when a sensor probe is attached to obtain the required measurement data, when a reactor ‘run’ (process to grow product) is about to be performed, or at any other time deemed useful by the user. It may be configured to begin automatically in response to a particular condition, such as attachment of the probe. At this initial point 601 a dynamic historical data array (such as comprised within the memory 124 of FIG. 1) is blanked (any existing data, such as was stored in a previous run, is deleted) and a variable Stable_Flag is set to 0 to indicate that there are known external reasons why a correction should not be applied at that time (in this case there has been no accumulation of data over time).”
comparing the sequence of successive estimates of the particular variable with the part of the sequence of successive measurements of the particular variable so as to determine a value of an adjustment parameter, (Para. [0059-0060] teaches “The compensation is based on correlating the two measurements, signal and reference. Using the correlation, a correction factor is calculated and applied to the signal data to achieve the compensated result.” (i.e. correction factor is viewed as adjustment parameter.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grossetete with determining for each measuring time a measure of a stability parameter of the system by multiplying each measure of a rate of variation of a normalised variable by a predetermined coefficient, the measure of the rate of variation corresponding to the measuring time and adding results of the multiplication, identifying a most recent stability time interval in which, for each measuring time comprised in the stability time interval, the stability parameter is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold for a duration greater than or equal to a predetermined duration, estimating, for a particular variable of the plurality of variables, a part of the sequence of successive measurements of the particular variable, so as to obtain a sequence of successive estimates of the particular variable, a start time of the part of the sequence of successive measurements of the particular variable being comprised in the stability time interval, the estimating being carried out by an estimator of the estimation device, comparing the sequence of successive estimates of the particular variable with the part of the sequence of successive measurements of the particular variable so as to determine a value of an adjustment parameter, such as that of Emmerson.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Grossetete, because as taught in Para. [0003] of Emmerson “Consider a system performing a process from which a measurement is made. The measured signal responds to all or much process information, some of which is genuine information in that it represents a parameter of interest, and some of which is not of interest. This latter information has a spurious perturbing or disrupting effect on the genuine information, so as to mask the genuine information and introduce errors into measurement or monitoring of the parameter of interest.” Therefore, one would introduce the method of Emmerson in order to reduce errors in the measurement of the parameters.
With respect to claim 2,
Grossetete further teaches,
The method according to claim 1, further comprising a step of recording, over time, successive measures of the variables, so as to obtain the sequences of successive measures for each variable of the plurality of variables of the system. (Para. [0100-105] teaches “This instrumentation and control system 53 includes an instrumentation 55 for directly measuring or determining a plurality of operating parameters of the nuclear reactor. These operating parameters comprise at least the following: power supplied by the turbine 15; temperature of the primary heat transfer fluid at the inlet and outlet of the core 3; position of the control rod groups 49; power supplied by the core 3 of the nuclear reactor; neutron flux distribution in the core 3.” Para. [0342-0343] teaches “Typically, the acquisition unit 67 retrieves the current values of the operating parameters from the instrumentation and control system 53. The plurality of nuclear reactor operating parameters comprises at least one parameter characterizing the power P supplied by the core of the reactor, and a parameter R characterizing the neutron fluid distribution in the core.” i.e. the acquisition unit is viewed as recording over time.)
With respect to claim 3,
Grossetete further teaches, the method according to claim 1,wherein, the industrial system is a nuclear reactor and the plurality of the variables comprises: a power of the nuclear reactor, an average temperature of a reactor vessel, an axial power imbalance, a concentration of a chemical species in a heat-transfer fluid, the heat transfer fluid circulating in the reactor, the chemical species being configured to absorb neutrons in the nuclear reactor, and a position of a device, the device being configured to absorb neutrons in the nuclear reactor, the particular variable being the axial power imbalance. (Para(s). [0100-105] teaches “This instrumentation and control system 53 includes an instrumentation 55 for directly measuring or determining a plurality of operating parameters of the nuclear reactor. These operating parameters comprise at least the following: power supplied by the turbine 15; temperature of the primary heat transfer fluid at the inlet and outlet of the core 3; position of the control rod groups 49; power supplied by the core 3 of the nuclear reactor; neutron flux distribution in the core 3.” (i.e. power of the reactor, temperature, position, heat transfer fluid) Para. [0383] teaches “The xenon Xe concentration, or the neutron poison concentration in the primary heat transfer fluid Cpn.” (i.e. concentration of a chemical in heat transfer fluid.) Para. [0097] teaches “The control rods are made of neutron-absorbing material.”) Para. [0077] teaches “a graphic representation of the evolution of the axial power imbalance (axial offset AO) obtained when the method of the present disclosure is implemented,”)
With respect to claim 4,
Grossetete further teaches, the method according to claim 3, wherein estimating the future value of the physical quantity takes into account a control scenario of the nuclear reactor, the control scenario corresponding to a sequence of successive values of at least one variable controllable by an operator. (Para. [0067] teaches “Advantageously, the control assembly is such that the calculation unit comprises a slope module programmed to determine an optimum slope for an evolution of the reactor power as a function of time during the power variation from the first power to the second power, said module being programmed to: [0068] have the predictive model of the core calculate the evolution of at least one magnitude characteristic of the state of the core of the nuclear reactor during said power variation, for several values of slope, the injection of neutron poison or water per unit of time being considered constantly equal to the maximum possible;” (i.e. where the injection of neutron poison or water is considered control scenario)
With respect to claim 6,
Grossetete further teaches, the method according to claim 4 further comprising a step of determining a score of the control scenario, the score being a value of a quantity chosen from among a volume of effluent produced by the nuclear reactor, an average deviation from a reference axial imbalance and an average distance to the limits of an operating range of the nuclear reactor. (Para. [0036] teaches “The cost function characterizes an evolution of a deviation between said parameter characterizing the neutron flux distribution in the core and a reference value over said given time interval.” Para. [0109] teaches “The parameter characterizing the neutron flux distribution in the core is, for example, the axial power distribution, or axial offset AO. The axial offset is calculated using the following formula” (i.e. axial offset is viewed as axial imbalance.))
With respect to claim 7,
Grossetete further teaches, the method according to claim 4, wherein the control scenario is a first control scenario, the estimation of the future value of the physical quantity being carried out a second time by replacing the first scenario by a second control scenario of the nuclear reactor corresponding to another sequence of successive values of at least one controllable variable. (Para. [0265] teaches “The first cost function considered, in such a situation, is constant whatever the values of Qp, and Q, injected. The second cost function, on the other hand, varies and allows to discriminate the different injection sequences under consideration. The second function allows, therefore, to take into account variations in the parameter R characterizing the distribution of neutron flux in the core, induced by the variations in Tmoy in its dead zone.”
With respect to claim 8,
Grossetete further teaches, a computer program comprising instructions suitable for implementing at least one of the steps of the method according to claim 1 when the program is executed on a computer. (Para. [0341] teaches “This unit 67 is a computer, or part of a computer.”)
With respect to claim 10,
Grossetete further teaches, the method according to claim 7 comprising a step of comparing the score of the first scenario and the score of the second scenario. (Para. [0272] teaches “On the contrary, if the convergence criterion is met, step S40 is carried out. During step S40, the optimum injection sequence, in other words, the one allowing the convergence criterion to be achieved,” (i.e. the injection sequences are compared and one is chosen.)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grossetete (US 20240194360 A1) and Emmerson (US 20180223243 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Takeuchi (US 20130058447 A1).
With respect to claim 5,
The combination of Grossetete and Emmerson does not explicitly teach,
The method according to claim 4, comprising a step of estimating future values of variables of the plurality of variables of the system, and a step of determining a future value of the stability parameter based on estimates of future values of the variables of the plurality of variables of the system.
Takeuchi teaches,
comprising a step of estimating future values of variables of the plurality of variables of the system, and a step of determining a future value of the stability parameter based on estimates of future values of the variables of the plurality of variables of the system. (Para. [0254] teaches “Based on the plant information, an expected state of the stability deterioration is predicted (S71). Based on the power distribution and the higher order mode distribution derived from the result, the nuclear instrumentation signals are grouped (S73).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Grossetete and Emmerson with comprising a step of estimating future values of variables of the plurality of variables of the system, and a step of determining a future value of the stability parameter based on estimates of future values of the variables of the plurality of variables of the system such as that of Takeuchi.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Grossetete and Emmerson, because determining the future stability of a reactor would allow operators to prevent or address periods of predicted future instability making the system safer and more reliable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to JOSHUA L FORRISTALL whose telephone number is 703-756-4554. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM- 5 PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOSHUA L FORRISTALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857