DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “currently” should be deleted from line 2; --the-- should be added after “data of” in line 7; “and” should be changed to --that-- in lines 9 and 10; --a-- should be added before “temperature” and “pressure” in line 9; “steam flow” should be changed to --and a steam flow sensor-- in line 9; “temperature of the” should be changed to --and a temperature of a-- in line 12; --sensors-- should be added after “mill;” in line 12; the first instance of “the operational data” should be changed to --operational data-- in line 14; --a-- should be added before “lower” in line 15, before “turbine” in line 16, and before “composition” in line 18; “rate and” should be changed to --rate of the solid fuel,-- in line 15; “turbine, including” should be changed to --turbine of the system that includes-- in line 16; --the-- should be added before “at least” in line 18; --and a-- should be added before “power” in line 18; “the turbine generator set” should be changed to --a turbine generator set of the turbine-- in line 19-20; “an efficiency of the boiler” should be changed to --the boiler efficiency-- in line 22; --the-- should be added before “mill” and “operational” in respective lines 24 and 25; “a” should be changed to --the-- in line 24; “that” should be changed to --the-- in line 25; --and a-- should be added after “mill,” in line 28; “set” should be changed to --sets-- in line 30; “actual” should be deleted from line 32; --the-- should be added before “fuel” and before “measured” in line 35; and “currently” should be deleted from the last line; and there is no relationship between the step of calculating the energy balance, as recited in lines 19-21, with the remaining steps of the claim.
In claim 3, --and-- should be added after “pressure,” in line 4.
In claim 4, “currently” should be deleted from line 2; --the-- should be added after “data of” in line 6, before “historical” in lines 32 and 34, before “calorific” in line 33, before “fuel” in line 34, and before “measured” in line 34; --and-- should be added after “pressure,” in line 8; “temperature of the” should be changed to --and a temperature of a-- in line 11; “the power block” should be changed to --a power block of the system-- in line 14; --a-- should be added before “lower” in line 15 and before “composition” in line 18; “of turbine, including” should be changed to --of a turbine of the system that includes-- in line 16; --the-- should be added after “of” in line 18; --and a-- should be added before “power” in line 18; “the turbine generator set” should be changed to --a turbine generator set of the turbine-- in line 21; “on the basis of” should be changed to --based on the-- in lines 22-23; --the-- should be added before “boiler” in line 22, before “mill” in line 24, and before “operational” in line 25; “a” should be changed to --the-- in line 24; “that” should be changed to --the-- in line 25; --and a-- should be added after “mill,” in line 28; “the fuel” should be changed to --a fuel-- in line 30; “set” should be changed to --sets-- in line 30; “actual” should be deleted from line 32; “currently” should be deleted throughout line 36; and there is no relationship between the module for calculating energy balances, as recited in lines 19-21, with the remaining members and usage recited in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claims 1 and 4 claim a model based on artificial intelligence algorithms, hence the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (the claimed model does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
The recitation in lines 34-38 of claim 1 of training a model based on artificial intelligence algorithms to predict the calorific value using the historical data of the fuel calorific value and the measured operational data of the boiler is directed to ineligible subject matter under 35U.S.C. § 101 because it directed to the abstract idea of using a generic machine learning technique (artificial intelligence algorithm) in a particular environment with no inventive concept. Training a model is not a practical application, but is abstract math using an undisclosed artificial intelligence algorithm to determine a calorific value. There is nothing in the claim that would transform the artificial intelligence algorithm into something significantly more than an abstract idea of determining a calorific value through the application of an undisclosed artificial intelligence algorithm.
The recitation in lines 33-37 of claim 4 of the system comprising a model based on artificial intelligence algorithms to predict the calorific value using the historical data of the fuel calorific value and the measured operational data of the boiler is directed to ineligible subject matter under 35U.S.C. § 101 because it directed to the abstract idea of using a generic machine learning technique (artificial intelligence algorithm) in a particular environment with no inventive concept. Training a model is not a practical application, but is abstract math using an undisclosed artificial intelligence algorithm to determine a calorific value. There is nothing in the claim that would transform the artificial intelligence algorithm into something significantly more than an abstract idea of determining a calorific value through the application of an undisclosed artificial intelligence algorithm.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 1-4 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 enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In claims 1 and 4, the recitation of the training of a model based on artificial intelligence algorithms to predict the calorific value using the historical data of fuel calorific value and measured operational data of the boiler are not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The specification does not disclose any artificial intelligence algorithm to determine the claimed calorific value.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 101, and the objections set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the following in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims:
A method for on-line monitoring and determining a calorific value of a solid fuel that is combusted in a boiler, the method comprising collecting historical data of measurements of the calorific value of the solid fuel and the operational data of a power block, as claimed; calculating energy balances of the steam production system, as claimed; iteratively determining an efficiency of the boiler based on the historical data, as claimed; training a model based on artificial intelligence algorithms to predict the calorific value, as claimed; and determining the calorific value of the solid fuel using the trained model (claim 1).
A system for on-line monitoring and determining a calorific value of a solid fuel that is combusted in a boiler, the system comprising an archive module for collecting historical data of solid fuel calorific value measurements and operational data of the power block, as claimed; a module for calculating energy balances of the steam production system, as claimed; a module for iterative determination of boiler efficiency on the basis of historical data, as claimed; and a model based on artificial intelligence algorithms for predicting calorific value, as claimed (claim 4).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The references made of record and not relied upon by the examiner are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure by disclosing monitoring a calorific value of a solid fuel, but do not disclose the allowable subject matter stated above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRELLYS JAGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2247. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday 8-6.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/MIRELLYS JAGAN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
12/13/25