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 .
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, 3-11, 14-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sankar et al “3D Modeling of Fuel Handling System for PFBR Operator Training Simulator1”.
Claim 1: Sankar et al provides a teaching of a system for simulating an operation of one or more automated tools within a nuclear facility (see abstract), the system comprising:
a) a communication component to provide access to one or more computing devices (see FIG 1, and page 2 paragraph 1 connection between instructor station, operator information consoles/panel and simulation server);
b) one or more local controllers for processing command requests from the one or more computing devices for the one or more automated tools, the one or more local controllers generating process values for the one or more automated tools in response to the command requests (see page 2 first full paragraph simulator controller takes request from the operator control consoles/panel; page 6 last paragraph describe the operator actuating different component e.g.: transfer pot or primary ramp and paragraph and page 8 last paragraph showing the user series of sequential steps that can be taken by the user ); and
c) a processor in communication with the communication component and the one or more local controllers (see page 2 first full paragraph and FIG. 1 showing server in network communication with the Handling Control Room (HCR), main control room and the instructor station),
Sankar et al provides a teaching of the processor being operable to:
use the process values to animate a three-dimensional model of the one or more automated tools operating within the nuclear facility (see page 7 paragraph 3 example of user input being received from the hardware control panel and page 7 last paragraph user input is used to animation system to animate the component); and
generate one or more views of the animation of the three- dimensional model to be displayed at the one or more computing devices see page 5 last paragraph and FIG. 3 showing scene of the transfer arm and the inclined fuel transfer movement based on the user’s input).
Claim 3: The Sankar reference provides a teaching of wherein the processor is operable to calculate motion of one or more parts in the three-dimensional model to animate the three-dimensional model (see page 6 section 5.2 animation of raise or lowering of the guide tube and FIG.3).
Claim 4: The Sankar reference provides a teaching of wherein the processor is operable to use stored data values for motion of one or more parts in the three-dimensional model to animate the three-dimensional model (see page 6 section 5.2 animation of raise or lowering of the guide tube and FIG. 3).
Claim 5: The Sankar reference provides a teaching of wherein the stored data values are values that were obtained from a physical operation of the one or more automated tools (see paragraph 4 creat(ing) a scene graph, such that, various rigid body motion such as rotation and translation can be simulated… ).
Claim 6: The Sankar reference provides a teaching of wherein the command requests are related to a series sequence of a plurality of series sequences, and animating the three-dimensional model comprises determining an order of operations between the one or more parts within the series sequence (see page 9 2nd full paragraph “… visualize placement of components in the PFBR building”, “placement of the valve with respect to component”).
Claim 7: The Sankar reference provide awherein the operations comprise at least one of a motion of the one or more parts (see page 6 last paragraph triggering primary ramp when the operator presses lower/raise button from the HCR panel).
Claim 8: The Sankar reference provides a teaching of wherein the one or more parts comprises a cylinder (see FIG 3 as example of one cylinder) and the motion of the cylinder is synchronized with real-time (see page 8 last paragraph motion after user selection).
Claim 9: The Sankar reference provides a teaching wherein the one or more parts comprises a motor (see page 6 movement of the Guide Tube or Gripper) and the motion of the motor comprises at least one of velocity (see FIG. 6 showing speed of the Guide Tube or speed of the Gripper Hoist).
Claim 10: The Sankar reference provides a teaching of wherein the value of a sensor output comprises an analog distance value of at least one of a reference surface that is part of the nuclear facility; and the analog distance value is coupled to a position of a motor (see FIG. 6 item distance travelled of the Grip Hoist).
Claim 11: The Sankar reference provides teaching of wherein the one or more automated tools comprises at least one of a generic tool (see page 5 last paragraph “transfer arm”).
Claim 14: The Sankar reference provides a teaching wherein the command requests are further received from one or more control devices (see page 6 last paragraph user triggering movement of primary ramp or transfer pot).
Claim 15: The Sankar reference wherein a computing device at which the one or more views are displayed is separate from at least one of the one or more computing devices from which the command requests are received (see page 6 last paragraph “viewer is created and configured to display and an event loop is triggered to get the transformation function response”).
Claim 16: The Sankar reference provides a teaching of wherein the command requests are received from a plurality of computing devices, the plurality of computing devices comprising a first area computing device (see FIG 1 HCR (handling control station) and see page 8 last paragraph) and second area computing device for operating one or more automated tools (see FIG. 1 instruction station and page 7 last paragraph).
The Sankar reference is silent on the teaching of the operating one or more automated tools in a first area of the nuclear facility and a second area computing device for operating one or more automated tools in a second area of the nuclear facility. The examiner takes the position the exact position of the first and second computing device for operating the one or more automated tools in the nuclear facility is a matter of intended use that do not result in a structural difference between the Sankar reference and the claimed limitation. The Sankar reference, without being modified, shows multiple computers connected by a network that can be placed in different location of a nuclear facility.
Claim 17: The Sankar reference provides a teaching wherein the views of the animation generated for display at the first area computing device correspond to a view from the first area of the nuclear facility (see page 6 last paragraph animation of the Guide Tube) and the views of the animation generated for display at the second area computing device correspond to a view from the second area of the nuclear facility (see page 6 last paragraph animation of the vessel plug opening and closing ).
Claim 19: The Sankar reference provides a teaching of wherein the one or more computing devices at which the one or more views are displayed are located in at least one of a control room or training room within the nuclear facility.
The examiner takes the position the exact position of where the displayed is located is a matter of intended use that do not result in a structural difference between the Sankar reference and the claimed limitation. The Sankar reference, without being modified, shows multiple computers connected by a network that can be displayed in different location of a nuclear facility.
Claim 20: The Sankar reference provides a teaching of a method for simulating an operation of one or more automated tools within a nuclear facility (see abstract), the method comprising:
a) using one or more local controllers for processing command requests received from one or more computing devices to generate process values for the one or more automated tools (see page 2 first full paragraph simulator controller takes request from the operator control consoles/panel; page 6 last paragraph describe the operator actuating different component e.g.: transfer pot or primary ramp and paragraph and page 8 last paragraph showing the user series of sequential steps that can be taken by the user); and
b) operating a processor in communication with the one or more local controllers and the one or more computing devices (see page 2 first full paragraph and FIG. 1 showing server in network communication with the Handling Control Room (HCR), main control room and the instructor station), to:
use the process values to animate a three-dimensional model of the one or more automated tools operating within the nuclear facility (see page 7 paragraph 3 example of user input being received from the hardware control panel and page 7 last paragraph user input is used to animation system to animate the component); and
generate one or more views of the animation of the three-dimensional model to be displayed at one or more computing devices (see page 5 last paragraph and FIG. 3 showing scene of the transfer arm and the inclined fuel transfer based on the user’s input).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankar et al “3D Modeling of Fuel Handling System for PFBR Operator Training Simulator” and in view of Russell EP 1083576
Claim 2: The Sankar reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the three-dimensional model of the one or more automated tools operating within the nuclear facility is based on geometrical designs of the components and devices within the nuclear facility and the one or more automated tools.
However, the Russell reference provides a teaching of wherein the three-dimensional model of the one or more automated tools operating within the nuclear facility is based on geometrical designs of the components and devices within the nuclear facility and the one or more automated tools (see FIG 3-5 showing 3-D model of the automated tools i.e. fuel bundles and control blade).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the with the feature of wherein the three-dimensional model of the one or more automated tools operating within the nuclear facility is based on geometrical designs of the components and devices within the nuclear facility and the one or more automated tools; as taught by the Russell reference, in order to allow the user an intuitive interface to review vast amount of time-dependent performance parameter data.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankar et al “3D Modeling of Fuel Handling System for PFBR Operator Training Simulator” and in view of Kawaguchi US 20130187751
Claim 12: Sankar is silent on the teaching of wherein the processor is further operable to generate data corresponding to the animation to be used by a supervisory control and data acquisition system.
However, the Kawaguchi reference provides a teaching of wherein the processor is further operable to generate data corresponding to the animation to be used by a supervisory control and data acquisition system (see paragraph 72 instructor providing to control of the simulation state).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the with the Sankar reference feature of wherein the processor is further operable to generate data corresponding to the animation to be used by a supervisory control and data acquisition system, as taught by the Kawaguchi reference, in order to provide an intuitive display of the working of the power plant as a result of the user’s action.
Claim 13: Sankar is silent on the teaching of wherein the command requests are received via the supervisory control and data acquisition system.
However, the Kawaguchi reference provides a teaching of wherein the command requests are received via the supervisory control and data acquisition system (see paragraph 71 receiving simulation command from the instruction station).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the with the feature of wherein the command requests are received via the supervisory control and data acquisition system, as taught by the Kawaguchi reference, in order to provide an intuitive display of the working of the power plant as a result of the user’s action.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankar et al “3D Modeling of Fuel Handling System for PFBR Operator Training Simulator” and in view of Guo CN-208335756-U
Claim 18: The Sankar reference is silent on the teaching wherein the first area is proximal to the second area such that the views of the animation generated for display at the first area computing device reflect the operation of the one or more automated tools in the second area of the nuclear facility and the views of the animation generated for display at the second area computing device reflect the operation of the one or more automated tools in the first area of the nuclear facility.
However, the Guo reference provides a teaching of the first area is proximal to the second area such that the views of the animation generated for display at the first area computing device reflect the operation of the one or more automated tools in the second area of the nuclear facility and the views of the animation generated for display at the second area computing device reflect the operation of the one or more automated tools in the first area of the nuclear facility (see page 9 first full paragraph showing animation of the control rod animation as controlled by the user control).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Sankar reference with the feature of wherein the first area is proximal to the second area such that the views of the animation generated for display at the first area computing device reflect the operation of the one or more automated tools in the second area of the nuclear facility and the views of the animation generated for display at the second area computing device reflect the operation of the one or more automated tools in the first area of the nuclear facility, as taught by the Guo reference, in order to provide an intuitive display of the working of the power plant as a result of the user’s action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 See IDS submitted 02/09/2024