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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments to the Claims filed 07/21/2026 have been entered. Claims 1 and 3-12 are pending in the application. Claims 2 and 13 have been canceled. Applicant’s amendment to the Claims have overcome each and every claim objection, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections previously set forth in the non-final rejection dated 04/29/2026. Due to amendments to the claims new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are presented below.
Claim Objections
As noted above the claim objections previously set forth have been overcome by amendment to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
As noted above the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth have been overcome by amendment to the claims. However, due to amendment to the claims, new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are presented below.
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 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “based thereon” in line 33. It is unclear from the language of the claim which limitations previously recited in the claim are being referenced by the recitation “thereon”. The claims are indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations recited after “based thereon” are determined used only the limitation regarding “detect a system-actual-property corresponding to the second system-reference-property” or if the subsequent limitations are based on other previously recited limitations. For the purposes of examination the limitation “based thereon” shall be interpreted as referring to the limitation regarding “detect a system-actual-property corresponding to the second system-reference-property”. This rejection could be overcome by amending the claim language to clarify what is used to determine whether the necessary condition of the second system-reference-property is fulfilled.
Claim 1 recite the limitation “each system-reference-property is assigned a necessary condition,” “the necessary condition of which is fulfilled by the detected at least one system-actual-property,” “whether the necessary condition assigned to the second system-reference-property,” “corresponding to the at least one second system-reference-property with the necessary condition detected as undetermined,” and “determining whether the necessary condition of the second system-reference-property is”. The antecedent basis for the necessary conditions assigned to the first and second system-reference-property are unclear. It is unclear from the language of the claim when the necessary condition is referring to a necessary condition assigned to a first system-reference-property or a necessary condition assigned to a second system-reference-property. The claims are indefinite because it is unclear what is required by the claims. For the purposes of examination the limitation “the necessary condition of which is fulfilled by the detected at least one system-actual-property” shall be interpreted as referring to the necessary condition assigned to the first system-reference-property. All other recitations of “the necessary condition” shall be interpreted as referring to the necessary condition assigned to the second system-reference-property. This rejection could be overcome by amending the claim language to clarity the antecedent basis for the different assigned necessary conditions.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the assigned necessary condition” in line 34. It is unclear from the language of the claim if the recited limitation is referencing the previously recited “the necessary condition assigned to the second system-reference-property” or a different necessary condition. The claims are indefinite because it is unclear what is required by the claims. For the purposes of examination the recited limitation shall be interpreted as referring the ” the necessary condition assigned to the second system-reference-property.” This rejection could be overcome by amending the claim language to clarify what necessary condition is being referenced at any given point in the claims. For example, the claims could recite “the necessary condition assigned to the second system-reference-property”.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
As noted above the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections previously set forth have been overcome by amendment to the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidl et al. (US 20050015217 A1) in view of Wittliff et al. (US 20130185093 A1) and Junk et al. (US 20040236472 A1).
Regarding Claim 1. Weidl teaches:
A computer-implemented method for diagnosing a control- and/or regulation system of a process plant with at least one actuator for adjusting a process fluid, the method comprising:
a) providing, by a computer-readable memory, a diagnostic database comprising an assignment of a plurality of state causes to a respective set comprising a plurality of predetermined system-reference-properties (See Fig. 4, Fig. 7, Fig. 10, para[0010], and para[0014]: storage means for storing a data model that associates with the facility, said data model containing information about possible events, hypotheses for the root causes of the possible events and symptoms for the hypotheses.),
wherein each system-reference-property is assigned a necessary condition (See Fig. 4, Fig. 8, para[0054] and para[0143]: The evidences may be provided as a combination of operator checked symptoms, new experiences the operator has within the problem domain, measurement results (e.g. performance metrics, temperature, quality metrics and so on), alarms, computed physical variables indicating a deviation (e.g. a failure), indications on true root causes, adaptation of any probability value and so on. The computed, measured or otherwise automatically supplied symptoms may be provided in the checklist e.g. if the value of a specific symptom parameter is greater or lower than a threshold for said parameter.);
b) providing, by the computer-readable memory, a test database comprising different diagnostic tests each assigned to at least one of the plurality of predetermined system-reference-properties See Fig. 9, Fig. 10, and para[0146]: Thus the FIG. 9 display also includes a frame wherein the user is enabled to input new symptoms and/or their diagnostic procedures.);
c) detecting, by a computer of the control- and/or regulation system, at least one system-actual-property of the control- and/or regulation system, wherein the at least one system-actual-property is a measured value or state value (See Fig. 4 and para[0125]: The gathering of evidences may occur simultaneously with the selection of the root cause analysis (RCA) at step 200. The step of gathering may comprise classification of evidence signals gathered as symptoms and additional information.);
d) determining, by the computer of the control- and/or regulation system, at least one first system-reference-property of the plurality of predetermined system-reference-properties, the necessary condition of which is fulfilled by the detected at least one system-actual-property (See Fig. 8, Fig. 10, and para[0143]: The computed, measured or otherwise automatically supplied symptoms may be provided in the checklist e.g. if the value of a specific symptom parameter is greater or lower than a threshold for said parameter.).
Weidl is silent as to the language of:
e) detecting, by the computer of the control- and/or regulation system, based on the detected at least one system-actual-property and using the diagnostic database, for at least one state cause, of the plurality of state causes, whose set of the plurality of predetermined system-reference-properties comprises the determined first system-reference-property, and for at least one second system-reference-property of this set, whether the necessary condition assigned to the second system-reference-property (i) is determined or (ii) is undetermined; and
f) determining, by the computer of the control- and/or regulation system, at least one diagnostic test, based on the test database, corresponding to the at least one second system-reference-property with the necessary condition detected as undetermined; and
(g) performing the determined at least one diagnostic test, by performing a specific influence on the at least one actuator, to:
detect a system-actual-property corresponding to the second system-reference-property; and
based thereon, determine, by the computer of the control- and/or regulation system, the assigned necessary condition, including determining whether the necessary condition of the second system-reference-property is (i) fulfilled or (ii) not fulfilled by this system-actual-property.
Nevertheless Wittliff teaches:
e) detecting, by the computer of the control- and/or regulation system, based on the detected at least one system-actual-property and using the diagnostic database, for at least one state cause, of the plurality of state causes, whose set of the plurality of predetermined system-reference-properties comprises the determined first system-reference-property, and for at least one second system-reference-property of this set, whether the necessary condition assigned to the second system-reference-property (i) is determined or (ii) is undetermined (See para[0031] and para[0093] – para[0095]: In operation, the vehicle/power tool/patient state tracker 20 typically can determine the preconditions required for a subsequent diagnostic test procedure before the completion of a current diagnostic test procedure in order to prevent or minimize redundant efforts at the completion of the current diagnostic procedure and at the initiation of the subsequent diagnostic procedure.); and
f) determining, by the computer of the control- and/or regulation system, at least one diagnostic test, based on the test database, corresponding to the at least one second system-reference-property with the necessary condition detected as undetermined (See Fig. 12, para[0011], para[0033], and para[0044] – para[0045]: arranging an order of a second plurality of diagnostic test procedures, which includes one diagnostic test procedure of the first plurality of diagnostic test procedures, during execution of the first plurality of diagnostic test procedures, and based on intermediate diagnostic test information obtained from execution of the first plurality of diagnostic test procedures.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weidl by detecting, by the computer of the control- and/or regulation system, based on the detected at least one system-actual-property and using the diagnostic database, for at least one state cause, of the plurality of state causes, whose set of the plurality of predetermined system-reference-properties comprises the determined first system-reference-property, and for at least one second system-reference-property of this set, whether the necessary condition assigned to the second system-reference-property (i) is determined or (ii) is undetermined; and determining, by the computer of the control- and/or regulation system, at least one diagnostic test, based on the test database, corresponding to the at least one second system-reference-property with the necessary condition detected as undetermined such as that of Wittliff. Wittliff teaches, “In operation, the vehicle/power tool/patient state tracker 20 typically can determine the preconditions required for a subsequent diagnostic test procedure before the completion of a current diagnostic test procedure in order to prevent or minimize redundant efforts at the completion of the current diagnostic procedure and at the initiation of the subsequent diagnostic procedure” (See para[0094]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Weidl, because determining a diagnostic test when a necessary condition is undetermined would have helped to prevent or minimize redundant efforts, as recognized by Wittliff.
Wittliff is silent as to the language of:
(g) performing the determined at least one diagnostic test, by performing a specific influence on the at least one actuator, to:
detect a system-actual-property corresponding to the second system-reference-property; and
based thereon, determine, by the computer of the control- and/or regulation system, the assigned necessary condition, including determining whether the necessary condition of the second system-reference-property is (i) fulfilled or (ii) not fulfilled by this system-actual-property.
Nevertheless Junk teaches:
(g) performing the determined at least one diagnostic test, by performing a specific influence on the at least one actuator (See Fig. 5, Fig. 9, para[0060] – para[0061], and para[0073] – para[0074]: The root cause of the deviation may then be identified by moving backwards through the tree. For situations in which a valve is on a travel stop, such as a valve seat, different diagnostic tests for the valve and the positioner may be required. A standard diagnostic test for a typical ESD device is a partial stroke test in which a reference signal to the servo moves along a predefined trajectory and sensor data are compared to a set of prediction data.), to:
detect a system-actual-property corresponding to the second system-reference-property (See para[0073] – para[0074]: a partial stroke test in which a reference signal to the servo moves along a predefined trajectory and sensor data are compared to a set of prediction data.); and
based thereon, determine, by the computer of the control- and/or regulation system, the assigned necessary condition, including determining whether the necessary condition of the second system-reference-property is (i) fulfilled or (ii) not fulfilled by this system-actual-property (See Fig. 5, Fig. 9, para[0060] – para[0061], para[0063], and para[0073] – para[0074]: a partial stroke test in which a reference signal to the servo moves along a predefined trajectory and sensor data are compared to a set of prediction data.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weidl performing the determined at least one diagnostic test, by performing a specific influence on the at least one actuator, to: detect a system-actual-property corresponding to the second system-reference-property; and based thereon, determine, by the computer of the control- and/or regulation system, the assigned necessary condition, including determining whether the necessary condition of the second system-reference-property is (i) fulfilled or (ii) not fulfilled by this system-actual-property such as that of Junk. Junk teaches, “Such blockages or leaks may slowly degrade the performance of the control valve, resulting in inefficiencies, or may cause complete failure of the control valve. In either event, it is difficult to determine that the positioner is the cause of the fault, let alone to determine the specific location of the fault within the positioner” (See para[0006]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Weidl, because performing a specific influence on an actuator would have helped to determine the cause of a fault in a control valve, as recognized by Junk.
Regarding Claim 3. Weidl teaches:
The method according to claim 1,
wherein the diagnostic test in step (g) is performed only in response to an operator release (See para[0124]: To initiate the analysis the operator selects appropriate function by means of the user interface of the analysis system, e.g. by the user terminal 10 or a portable user device 40 of FIG. 1.).
Regarding Claim 5. Weidl teaches:
The method according to, claim 1, wherein,
in step (f) the at least one diagnostic test is determined which corresponds to at least one second system-reference-property which is assigned to at least two different state causes (See Fig. 7 and para[0028]: The analysis is not necessarily limited to only one possible root cause but several root causes may be analysed simultaneously.).
Regarding Claim 6. Weidl teaches:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
(h) detecting, by the computer of the control- and/or regulation system, a corresponding state cause based on the system-reference-property determined in step (g) and the diagnostic database (See Fig. 4, Fig. 7, Fig. 10, para[0055]: After the analysis the inference engine 21 may produce a list of the most probable root causes for the event.).
Regarding Claim 7. Weidl teaches:
The method according to claim 6, wherein,
based on the state cause detected in step (h), a state message relating to this state cause (n) is provided (See Fig. 4, Fig. 7, Fig. 10, para[0055]: After the analysis the inference engine 21 may produce a list of the most probable root causes for the event.).
Regarding Claim 8. Weidl teaches:
The method according to claim 6, wherein,
based on the state cause detected in step (h), an action instruction relating to this state cause is provided to the control- and/or regulation system, the action instruction counteracting this state cause and/or a system-reference-property being assigned to this state cause (See para[0166]: The portable device 40 may comprise a display 41 or other user interface (e.g. one based on voice messages, indicator lights and so on) for representing a ranked list of possible causes and the optimal sequence of control and/or maintenance actions or any other actions the operator could take.).
Regarding Claim 9. Weidl teaches:
The method according to, claim 1, wherein,
in step (c), at least one system-actual-property is detected in the ongoing control- and/or regulation operation of the control- and/or regulation system (See para[0053]: At least a part of the symptoms can be gathered as real-time evidences in order to provide a substantially real-time root cause analysis. The real-time gathering of the symptom information may occur on-line.).
Regarding Claim 10. Weidl teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein,
in step (c), at least one system-actual-property is detected in a test operation of the control- and/or regulation system by performing the at least one diagnostic test (See Fig. 9, Fig. 10, para[0054]: The evidences may be provided as a combination of operator checked symptoms, new experiences the operator has within the problem domain, measurement results (e.g. performance metrics, temperature, quality metrics and so on), alarms, computed physical variables indicating a deviation (e.g. a failure).).
Regarding Claim 12. Weidl teaches:
A control- and/or regulation system for a process plant with at least one actuator for adjusting a process fluid flow, the system comprising:
one or more processors (See Fig. 2 and para[0011]: processor means for root cause analysis based on the data model.); and
at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform the method according to claim 1 (See Fig. 2 and para[0168]: The data may be stored e.g. in the fixedly mounted storage means 43 of the device (e.g. a memory chip or card), and/or in a replaceable data storage medium such as a data diskette 44.).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidl et al. (US 20050015217 A1) in view of Wittliff et al. (US 20130185093 A1) and Junk et al. (US 20040236472 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reddy (US 20090094076 A1).
Regarding Claim 4. Weidl is silent as to the language of:
The method according to claim 1,
wherein, in step (f) the at least one diagnostic test is determined with respect to the at least one state cause, of whose set of system-reference-properties at least one is present, and only a single second system-reference-property of the set being undetermined.
Nevertheless Reddy teaches:
wherein, in step (f) the at least one diagnostic test is determined with respect to the at least one state cause, of whose set of system-reference-properties at least one is present, and only a single second system-reference-property of the set being undetermined (See Fig. 2 and para[0025]: if the outcome is `No`, Test3 is recommended. As Test3 does not have any outcomes, it implies that it is a repair/replace action, implicating a specific LRU fault.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weidl wherein, in step (f) the at least one diagnostic test is determined with respect to the at least one state cause, of whose set of system-reference-properties at least one is present, and only a single second system-reference-property of the set being undetermined such as that of Reddy. Reddy teaches, “As Test3 does not have any outcomes, it implies that it is a repair/replace action, implicating a specific LRU fault” (See para[0025]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Weidl, because determining a diagnostic test for a single second system property would have helped to determine what action to take to repair a fault, as recognized by Reddy.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidl et al. (US 20050015217 A1) in view of Wittliff et al. (US 20130185093 A1) and Junk et al. (US 20040236472 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hosek et al. (US 20140201571 A1).
Regarding Claim 11. Weidl is silent as to the language of:
The method according to, claim 1, wherein,
in step (d), at least one first system-reference-property is determined based on the necessary condition, the necessary condition being defined as a history set of rules, that assigns of a predetermined temporal sequence and/or duration of system-actual-properties to the first system-reference-property.
Nevertheless Hosek teaches:
in step (d), at least one first system-reference-property is determined based on the necessary condition, the necessary condition being defined as a history set of rules, that assigns of a predetermined temporal sequence and/or duration of system-actual-properties to the first system-reference-property (See para[0011], para[0385], para[0398}: Spectrum analysis of plant measurements may also be used for detection and isolation. Most plant variables exhibit a typical frequency spectrum under normal operating conditions; any deviation from this may be an indication of abnormality. Certain types of faults may even have their characteristic signature in the spectrum, facilitating fault isolation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weidl wherein at least one first system-reference-property is determined based on the necessary condition, the necessary condition being defined as a history set of rules, that assigns of a predetermined temporal sequence and/or duration of system-actual-properties to the first system-reference-property such as that of Hosek. Hosek teaches, “Certain types of faults may even have their characteristic signature in the spectrum, facilitating fault isolation” (See para[0011]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Weidl, because using history rules as a necessary condition would have helped to isolate faults, as recognized by Hosek.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that: Weidl merely simulates the impacts of such action rather than using physical intervention to acquire diagnostic information. The concept of triggering a diagnostic test that physically influences an actuator in order to determine a previously undetermined necessary condition of a system-reference-property is entirely absent from Weidl.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that: By contrast, step (g) of claim 1, as amended, provides a distinct technical effect: a previously undetermined necessary condition is deterministically resolved by actively generating new diagnostic information through physical interaction with the actuator, enabling unambiguous identification of the state cause. This targeted physical intervention to close a specific information gap is neither taught nor suggested by the cited art. Reddy and Hosek fail to cure the deficiencies of Weidl and Wittliff.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Junk et al. (US 20180112798 A1) discloses a method for diagnosing a solenoid valve using different tests including a partial stroke test (See Abstract and fig. 12.)
Flanders (US 20060220844 A1) discloses a smart valve controller with diagnostic capabilities including running tests on a valve (See Abstract, para[0052], and fig. 3).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARTER W FERRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 8 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, Catherine T. Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/CARTER W FERRELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
