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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/01/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the KR office action dated September 18 2025 is not translated into English.. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
The information disclosure statement filed 10/01/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the NPL document Development of Gas Turbine NOx Prediction Model March 20th, 2024 is cut off on the left side. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-10 and 13-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angel et al (US PUB. 20190056702, herein Angel) in view of Mehendale et al (US PUB. 20100251699 , herein Mehendale).
Regarding claim 1, Angel teaches A method of predicting exhaust emissions, the method comprising:
collecting, by a collection unit, raw data in real time from a power generation facility comprising a gas turbine (0034);
extracting, by a prediction unit, analysis data from the raw data (0040 “tuned models may then be used to determine (block 94) operational state(s) of device or systems, such as model predicted combustion reference temperature(s) (CRT), temperatures for other components, pressures, speed (e.g., RPM), turbine 44 power levels, flow rates, generation levels (e.g., megawatts), and so on. The operational state may additionally include emissions such as NOx levels, carbon oxides (COx) levels, particulate counts, sulfur oxides (Sox) levels, N.sub.2 levels, O.sub.2 levels, H.sub.2O levels, hydrocarbon (e.g., CxHx) and so on”);
and predicting, by the prediction unit, the exhaust emissions to be emitted from the power generation facility [a pre-derived delay time] after the collecting of the raw data by analyzing the analysis data using a prediction model trained by learning (0040 “tuned models may then be used to determine (block 94) operational state(s) of device or systems, such as model predicted combustion reference temperature(s) (CRT), temperatures for other components, pressures, speed (e.g., RPM), turbine 44 power levels, flow rates, generation levels (e.g., megawatts), and so on. The operational state may additionally include emissions such as NOx levels, carbon oxides (COx) levels, particulate counts, sulfur oxides (Sox) levels, N.sub.2 levels, O.sub.2 levels, H.sub.2O levels, hydrocarbon (e.g., CxHx) and so on”, 0007 “nstructions are further configured to continuously tune the emissions model during operations of the machinery via tuning system to derive a setpoint via machine learning, and to adjust the setpoint by applying a tuning bias, wherein the tuning bias is continuously updated via segmented linear regression. The instructions are additionally configured to control one or more actuators coupled to the machinery based on the setpoint”).
The cited prior art do not teach a pre-derived delay time.
Mehendale teaches a pre-derived delay time (0007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Angel with the teachings of Mehendale since Angel teaches a means for optimal estimate readings (abstract).
Claim 11 are rejected using similar reasoning as the rejection of claim 1 due to reciting similar limitations but directed towards a device.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angel et al (US PUB. 20190056702, herein Angel) in view of Mehendale et al (US PUB. 20100251699 , herein Mehendale) in further view of Lim et al (US PUB. 20230297895, herein Lim).
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art teach The method of claim 1.
Angel teaches further comprising: selecting, by a learning unit before the step of extracting, the analysis data from among the raw data according to correlations with the exhaust emissions; preparing, by the learning unit, a plurality of training data sets; generating, by the learning unit, a plurality of candidate prediction models for predicting the exhaust emissions from the power generation facility after different delay times through learning using the plurality of training data sets (0020 “techniques such as segmented linear regression may be used to dynamically tune, for example, a bias used to improve or otherwise “correct” a transfer function. The transfer function may model emissions, such as NOx emissions based on a combustion reference temperature (CRT). The tuning techniques described herein may be “turn key.” That is, no previous training of data may be required, the tuning may “learn” from an in situ installation simply by observing operational data”.
The cited prior art do not teach and selecting, by the learning unit, a candidate prediction model, from among the plurality of candidate prediction models, having the highest prediction accuracy for the exhaust emissions as the prediction model.
Lim teaches and selecting, by the learning unit, a candidate prediction model, from among the plurality of candidate prediction models, having the highest prediction accuracy for the exhaust emissions as the prediction model (0013, 0017).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Angel and Mehendale with the teachings of Lim since Lim teaches a means for offsetting errors caused by selecting prediction results having large errors (0004).
Claim 12 are rejected using similar reasoning as the rejection of claim 2 due to reciting similar limitations but directed towards a device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMEEM SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1627. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/TAMEEM D SIDDIQUEE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights