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 Objections
Claims 19-20, 22, 25-26, 32 and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 recites “at least five of said variable” that has typo, should be “at least five of said variables”.
Claim 20 recites “the at least five variables includes at least one of the following variables …” that has typo, should be “the at least five variables include at least one of the following variables …”
Claim 20 recites “kiln ROM” that has typo, should be “kiln RPM”.
Claims 22, 25-26 and 32 recite “ID fan” where the recited “ID” is an abbreviation not specified in the claims. Should be “Induced Draft (ID) fan”.
Claim 34 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 34 has not been further treated on the merits.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
"recording device" and "model" in claim 32.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 15-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim 32 recites:
A system for observing a behaviour of a cement kiln process, the system comprising:
a recording device for data of sensor signals, wherein the sensor signals are related to at least one of the following signals: kiln main drive current, kiln rotation speed, kiln feed, ID fan rotation speed, kiln inlet pressure, calciner head pressure, kiln inlet temperature, calciner head temperature, sintering zone temperature, tertiary air temperature, carbon monoxide before filter, oxygen before filter, NOx at kiln inlet, oxygen at kiln inlet, main burner coal feed, main burner refuse-derived-fuel feed, main burner gas consumption, calciner coal feed, calciner refuse-derived-fuel feed, kiln satellite burner feed, urea consumption, oxygen after calciner and/or carbon monoxide after calciner;
a model designed to calculate a forecast of a variable, wherein the variable depends on the kiln process; and
a user interface designed to display the forecast of the variable.
Step 1:
The claim recites a system. Thus, the claim is directed to a product, which belongs to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong one:
Claim 32 recites the limitations of “a model designed to calculate a forecast of a variable”. The recited “calculate …” step, but for “a model designed to”, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, calculate a forecast of a variable in the mind or with pen and paper by multiplying the current value by 1.01. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two:
Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional elements of 1) “system for observing a behaviour of a cement kiln process”, “wherein the sensor signals are related to at least one of the following signals: kiln main drive current, kiln rotation speed, kiln feed, ID fan rotation speed, kiln inlet pressure, calciner head pressure, kiln inlet temperature, calciner head temperature, sintering zone temperature, tertiary air temperature, carbon monoxide before filter, oxygen before filter, NOx at kiln inlet, oxygen at kiln inlet, main burner coal feed, main burner refuse-derived-fuel feed, main burner gas consumption, calciner coal feed, calciner refuse-derived-fuel feed, kiln satellite burner feed, urea consumption, oxygen after calciner and/or carbon monoxide after calciner” and “wherein the variable depends on the kiln process” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional limitations of 2) “a recording device for data of sensor signals”, these additional limitations represent mere receiving, transmitting and storing data that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, and are recited at a high level of generality (For example, see MPEP 2106.05(g), which notes that mere data gathering, outputting and storing can be seen as insignificant extra-solution activity). These limitations are thus insignificant extra-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional limitations of 3) “model designed to”, this additional limitation is recited at high level of generality (no details whatsoever are provided other than “model”) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See also MPEP 2106.05(f).
The recited 4) “system” is additional element which are to implement the system. But the “system” is recited at high level of generality (no details whatsoever are provided other than it is “system”) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See also MPEP 2106.05(f).
The recited 5) “a user interface designed to display the forecast of the variable” is additional limitation that is recited at high level of generality (no details what so ever are provided other than causing to act), it is a general field of use and mere instruction to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) or mere field of use and technological environment (MPEP 2016.05(h)) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional limitation and additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The claim has the following additional limitations and elements:
1) “system for observing a behaviour of a cement kiln process”, “wherein the sensor signals are related to at least one of the following signals: kiln main drive current, kiln rotation speed, kiln feed, ID fan rotation speed, kiln inlet pressure, calciner head pressure, kiln inlet temperature, calciner head temperature, sintering zone temperature, tertiary air temperature, carbon monoxide before filter, oxygen before filter, NOx at kiln inlet, oxygen at kiln inlet, main burner coal feed, main burner refuse-derived-fuel feed, main burner gas consumption, calciner coal feed, calciner refuse-derived-fuel feed, kiln satellite burner feed, urea consumption, oxygen after calciner and/or carbon monoxide after calciner” and “wherein the variable depends on the kiln process”;
2) “a recording device for data of sensor signals”;
3) “model designed to”;
4) “system”;
5) “a user interface designed to display the forecast of the variable”.
Regarding 1), as explained previously, merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept.
Regarding 2), as explained previously, are extra-solution activities, which for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two was considered insignificant. As indicated in MPEP 2016.05(d) II, receiving, transmitting and storing data are considered well-known, routine and conventional activities in the field, and do not add inventive concept into the claim.
Regarding 3) “model designed to”, is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding 4) “system” is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding 5) “a user interface designed to display the forecast of the variable” is additional limitation that is a general field of use and mere instruction to apply an exception or mere field of use and technological environment and does not add an inventive concept.
Therefore, the claim directs to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is not patent eligible.
Claim 33 depends on claim 32, and recites additional limitations of “different models are stored” that represent mere receiving, transmitting and storing data that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, or mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer, and are recited at a high level of generality. These limitations are thus insignificant extra-solution activities and are considered well-known, routine and conventional activities in the field, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 33 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15,
Step 1: The claim recites a method. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which belongs to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A and Step 2B: Similarly, as recited in the rejection of claim 32, claim 15 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The additional elements "artificial intelligence model'' are recited at high level of generality (no details whatsoever are provided other than merely use an artificial model) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions, is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See also MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, claim 15 is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 depends on claim 15, The additional elements "machine learning'' are recited at high level of generality (no details whatsoever are provided other than merely use a machine learning model) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions, is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See also MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 depends on claim 15, and recites additional elements of “the variable is a critical kiln dependent variable” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 depends on claim 17, and recites additional elements of “the critical kiln dependent variable is based on a sintering zone temperature, a kiln main drive current, a tertiary air temperature, a kiln Inlet pressure and/or a kiln inlet temperature” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 18 is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 depends on claim 15, and recites additional limitation of “forecasting at least five of said variable which are critical kiln dependent variables, wherein the five variables are based on a sintering zone temperature, a kiln main drive current, a tertiary air temperature, a kiln inlet pressure and a kiln inlet temperature” that merely specifies some details of the “forecasting …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 19 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 19 is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 depends on claim 19, and recites additional limitation of “the forecasting of the at least five variables includes at least one of the following variables which are based on data related to: kiln Main Drive Current, kiln RDM, kiln inlet temperature, kiln inlet pressure, kiln inlet NOx, calciner outlet pressure, calciner outlet temperature, calciner O2, calciner CO, sintering zone temperature, pre heater fan RPM, pre heater outlet O2, pre heater outlet CO, tertiary air temperature, main Burner Coal and/or NH3 consumption” that merely specifies some details of the “forecasting …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 20 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 20 is not patent eligible.
Claim 21 depends on claim 15, and recites additional elements of “the variable is impacted by a controlled variable” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 21 is not patent eligible.
Claim 22 depends on claim 21, and recites additional elements of “the controlled variable is related to a fuel burnt in the kiln, a kiln rotation speed and/or an ID fan rotation speed” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore claim 22 is not patent eligible.
Claim 23 depends on claim 15, and recites additional limitation of “building a window statistic, including a mean, max or min of the variable which is forecasted” that merely specifies some details of the “forecasting …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 23 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 23 is not patent eligible.
Claim 24 depends on claim 23, and recites additional limitation of “the window is of 10 to 40 minutes length” that merely specifies some details of the “forecasting …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 24 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 24 is not patent eligible.
Claim 25 depends on claim 15, and recites additional limitation of “training the artificial intelligence model on historical data from a historian of a kiln control system” are recited at high level of generality (no details whatsoever are provided other than merely training) and merely add additional detail to the “artificial intelligence model” the that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions, and they do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical applicant and do not add an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 25 is not patent eligible.
The recited additional elements of “the historical data include at least one of the following sensor signals: kiln main drive current, kiln rotation speed, kiln feed, ID fan rotation speed, kiln inlet pressure, calciner head pressure, kiln inlet temperature, calciner head temperature, sintering zone temperature, tertiary air temperature, carbon monoxide before filter, oxygen before filter, NOx at kiln inlet, oxygen at kiln inlet, main burner coal feed, main burner refuse-derived-fuel feed, main burner gas consumption, calciner coal feed, calciner refuse-derived-fuel feed, kiln satellite burner feed, urea consumption, oxygen after calciner and/or carbon monoxide after calciner” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept.
Therefore, claim 25 is not patent eligible.
Claim 26 depends on claim 15, and recites additional limitation of “training the artificial intelligence model on historical data from a historian of a kiln control system” are recited at high level of generality (no details whatsoever are provided other than merely training) and merely add additional detail to the “artificial intelligence model” the that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions, and they do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical applicant and do not add an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 25 is not patent eligible.
The recited additional elements of “the historical data include at least ten of the following sensor signals: kiln main drive current, kiln rotation speed, kiln feed, ID fan rotation speed, kiln inlet pressure, calciner head pressure, kiln inlet temperature, calciner head temperature, sintering zone temperature, tertiary air temperature, carbon monoxide before filter, oxygen before filter, NOx at kiln inlet, oxygen at kiln inlet, main burner coal feed, main burner refuse-derived-fuel feed, main burner gas consumption, calciner coal feed, calciner refuse-derived-fuel feed, kiln satellite burner feed, urea consumption, oxygen after calciner and/or carbon monoxide after calciner” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept.
Therefore, claim 26 is not patent eligible.
Claim 27 depends on claim 26, and recites additional elements of “the historical data includes all of the sensor signals” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore, claim 27 is not patent eligible.
Claim 28 depends on claim 26, and recites additional elements of “at least a variety of the sensor signals have a resolution of at least 60 seconds” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore, claim 28 is not patent eligible.
Claim 29 depends on claim 26, and recites additional elements of “a resolution of different ones of the sensor signals is adjustable differently” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore, claim 29 is not patent eligible.
Claim 30 depends on claim 29, and recites additional elements of “the resolution of the different ones of the sensor signals is adjustable between 1 to 60 seconds” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept. Therefore, claim 30 is not patent eligible.
Claim 31 depends on claim 15, and recites additional limitation of “calculating an accuracy of the forecasting” that merely specifies some details of the “forecasting …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 31 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 31 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 17-20, 27 and 33 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.
Claims 17-19 recite “critical kiln dependent variable” or “critical kiln dependent variables”. “critical” directs to a subjective term, the specification does not provide some standard for measuring the scope of the term therefore render the claim indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
Claims 19 and 20 recite “forecasting at least five of said variables”, “wherein the five variables are based on” a list of different parameter types. It is not clear whether the at least five of said variables” are five different sensed signals for one parameter type or five different sensed signals from five parameter types respectively.
Claims 19 recites “at least five of said variable”. Claim 20, depends on claim 19, recites “the five variables includes at least one of the following variables …” that is directed to use of a narrow range that falls within a broader range in the same claim, renders the claim indefinite because the boundaries of the claim are not discernible. See MPEP § 2173.05(c)(I).
Claim 20 recites “the at least five variables include at least one of the following variables which are based on data related to: …”. It is not clear how five variables include list of variables. It is indefinite for variables to further included list of variables.
Claim 26 recites “at least ten of the following sensor signals” that only need 10 out of 23. Claim 27, depends on claim 26, recites all sensor type that is directed to use of a narrow range that falls within a broader range in the same claim, renders the claim indefinite because the boundaries of the claim are not discernible. See MPEP § 2173.05(c)(I).
Claim 33 recites “different models are stored”. The relationship between “different models” and “a model” in claim 32 is not clear.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BROWN EP 1145087 B1.
Regarding claim 1, BROWN teaches a method for observing a behaviour of a cement kiln process (Fig. 2 [0044]), the method comprising:
using an artificial intelligence model ([0016] [0020] machine learning implementing a case-base-like reasoning (CBR)); and
forecasting a variable based on an artificial intelligence model, wherein the variable depends on the kiln process ([0020] [0023] applying CBR to predict future sensors values i.e. “variable” in kiln process).
Regarding claim 16, BROWN further teaches the artificial intelligence is based on machine learning ([0016] [0020] machine learning implementing a case-base-like reasoning (CBR)).
Regarding claim 17, BROWN further teaches the variable is a critical kiln dependent variable ([0020] a small number of signature sensors selected by a user).
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 18, 21-22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BROWN as applied to claims 15-17 above, in view of XU CN 113537579 A.
Regarding claim 18, BROWN does not explicitly further teach the critical kiln dependent variable is based on a sintering zone temperature, a kiln main drive current, a tertiary air temperature, a kiln Inlet pressure and/or a kiln inlet temperature.
XU explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the critical kiln dependent variable is based on a sintering zone temperature, a kiln main drive current (page 3 paragraph 3, rotary kiln motor current), a tertiary air temperature, a kiln Inlet pressure and/or a kiln inlet temperature.
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 BROWN to incorporate the teachings of XU, because they all directed to kiln process, to make the method wherein the critical kiln dependent variable is based on a sintering zone temperature, a kiln main drive current, a tertiary air temperature, a kiln Inlet pressure and/or a kiln inlet temperature. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to predict the behavior of kiln, as XU teaches in page 3 paragraph 3.
Regarding claim 21, XU further teaches the variable is impacted by a controlled variable (page 3 paragraph 3, the temperatures and pressures are impacted by controlled variables).
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 BROWN to incorporate the teachings of XU, because they all directed to kiln process, to make the method wherein the variable is impacted by a controlled variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to predict the behavior of kiln, as XU teaches in page 3 paragraph 3.
Regarding claim 22, XU further teaches the controlled variable is related to a fuel burnt in the kiln, a kiln rotation speed and/or an ID fan rotation speed (page 3 paragraph 3, the temperatures and pressures is impacted by the coal powder flow i.e. “fuel burnt in the kiln”).
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 BROWN to incorporate the teachings of XU, because they all directed to kiln process, to make the method wherein the controlled variable is related to a fuel burnt in the kiln, a kiln rotation speed and/or an ID fan rotation speed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to predict the behavior of kiln, as XU teaches in page 3 paragraph 3.
Regarding claim 25, BROWN further teaches training the artificial intelligence model on historical data from a historian of a kiln control system ([0044] database 201 containing all sensor data); and
XU further teaches the historical data include at least one of the following sensor signals: kiln main drive current (page 3 paragraph 3, rotary kiln motor current), kiln rotation speed, kiln feed, ID fan rotation speed, kiln inlet pressure, calciner head pressure, kiln inlet temperature, calciner head temperature, sintering zone temperature, tertiary air temperature, carbon monoxide before filter, oxygen before filter, NOx at kiln inlet, oxygen at kiln inlet, main burner coal feed, main burner refuse-derived-fuel feed, main burner gas consumption, calciner coal feed, calciner refuse-derived-fuel feed, kiln satellite burner feed, urea consumption, oxygen after calciner and/or carbon monoxide after calciner.
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 BROWN to incorporate the teachings of XU, because they all directed to kiln process, to make the method wherein the historical data include at least one of the sensor signals in XU’s list. Brown teaches the historical data include sensor signals, XU teaches the historical data include another list of sensor signals. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine XU’s list of sensor signals into the historical data used for training the artificial intelligence model so as to predict the behavior of kiln, as XU teaches in page 3 paragraph 3.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BROWN as applied to claims 15-17 above, in view of XU and JIANG CN 110766234 A.
Regarding claim 19, BROWN further teaches forecasting at least five of said variable which are critical kiln dependent variables ([0020] a small number of signature sensors selected by a user).
BROWN does not explicitly further teach the five variables are based on a sintering zone temperature, a kiln main drive current, a tertiary air temperature, a kiln inlet pressure and a kiln inlet temperature.
XU explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the five variables are based on a kiln main drive current, a tertiary air temperature, a kiln inlet pressure and a kiln inlet temperature (page 3 paragraph 3, rotary kiln motor current, tertiary air temperature, rotary tail pressure and rotary tail temperature); and
JIANG explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the five variables are based on a sintering zone temperature (page 2 paragraph 10 from the bottom, the kiln burning temperature).
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 BROWN to incorporate the teachings of XU and JIANG, because they all directed to kiln process, to make the method wherein the five variables are based on a sintering zone temperature, a kiln main drive current, a tertiary air temperature, a kiln inlet pressure and a kiln inlet temperature. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to predict the behavior of kiln, as XU teaches in page 3 paragraph 3.
Regarding claim 20, XU further teaches the forecasting of the at least five variables includes at least one of the following variables which are based on data related to: kiln Main Drive Current, kiln RDM, kiln inlet temperature, kiln inlet pressure, kiln inlet NOx, calciner outlet pressure, calciner outlet temperature, calciner O2, calciner CO, sintering zone temperature, pre heater fan RPM, pre heater outlet O2, pre heater outlet CO, tertiary air temperature (Note: claim recites Markush group such as “at least one” that only requires the mapping of one element in the list. page 3 paragraph 3, rotary kiln motor current, rotation speed, tertiary air temperature, rotary tail pressure and rotary tail temperature), main Burner Coal and/or NH3 consumption.
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 BROWN to incorporate the teachings of XU, because they all directed to kiln process, to make the method wherein the forecasting of the at least five variables includes at least one of the following variables which are based on data related to: kiln Main Drive Current, kiln RDM, kiln inlet temperature, kiln inlet pressure, kiln inlet NOx, calciner outlet pressure, calciner outlet temperature, calciner O2, calciner CO, sintering zone temperature, pre heater fan RPM, pre heater outlet O2, pre heater outlet CO, tertiary air temperature, main Burner Coal and/or NH3 consumption. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to predict the behavior of kiln, as XU teaches in page 3 paragraph 3.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BROWN as applied to claims 15-17 above, in view of LI CN 112712861 A.
Regarding claim 23, BROWN does not explicitly further teach building a window statistic, including a mean, max or min of the variable which is forecasted.
LI explicitly teaches in an analogous art that building a window statistic, including a mean, max or min of the variable which is forecasted (page 5 paragraphs 6-8, time sliding window, average, and standard deviation).
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 BROWN to incorporate the teachings of LI, because they all directed to kiln process, to make the method wherein building a window statistic, including a mean, max or min of the variable which is forecasted. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to predict the behavior of kiln, as LI teaches in page 6 paragraph 2.
Regarding claim 24, BROWN further teaches the window is of 10 to 40 minutes length ([0066] monitoring cycle of 15 minute).
Claims 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BROWN as applied to claims 15-17 above, in view of XU and FUJIWARA JP 2019114168 A.
Regarding claim 26, BROWN further teaches training the artificial intelligence model on historical data from a historian of a kiln control system ([0044] database 201 for training).
BROWN does not explicitly further teach the historical data include at least ten of the following sensor signals: kiln main drive current, kiln rotation speed, kiln feed, ID fan rotation speed, kiln inlet pressure, calciner head pressure, kiln inlet temperature, calciner head temperature, sintering zone temperature, tertiary air temperature, carbon monoxide before filter, oxygen before filter, NOx at kiln inlet, oxygen at kiln inlet, main burner coal feed, main burner refuse-derived-fuel feed, main burner gas consumption, calciner coal feed, calciner refuse-derived-fuel feed, kiln satellite burner feed, urea consumption, oxygen after calciner and/or carbon monoxide after calciner (Note: “oxygen after calciner and/or carbon monoxide after calciner” is in alternative from so not both elements need to be mapped. Also note: claim recites at least ten, wherein the list is more than 10, so only 10 required to map from least number of references).
XU explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the historical data include at least six of the following sensor signals: kiln main drive current, kiln rotation speed, kiln feed, kiln inlet pressure, tertiary air temperature, and main burner coal feed (page 3 paragraph 3, rotary kiln motor current, rotating speed, feeding amount, kiln tail pressure, kiln tail temperature, tertiary air temperature); and
FUJIWARA explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the historical data include at least four of the following sensor signals: NOx at kiln inlet, oxygen at kiln inlet, oxygen after calciner and/or carbon monoxide after calciner (FUJIWARA: the oxygen, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide sensors 14 at outlet of the calciner 11b, and at buttock 12c i.e. “kiln inlet”).
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 BROWN to incorporate the teachings of XU and FUJIWARA, because they all directed to kiln process, to make the method wherein the historical data include at least ten of the following sensor signals: kiln main drive current, kiln rotation speed, kiln feed, ID fan rotation speed, kiln inlet pressure, calciner head pressure, kiln inlet temperature, calciner head temperature, sintering zone temperature, tertiary air temperature, carbon monoxide before filter, oxygen before filter, NOx at kiln inlet, oxygen at kiln inlet, main burner coal feed, main burner refuse-derived-fuel feed, main burner gas consumption, calciner coal feed, calciner refuse-derived-fuel feed, kiln satellite burner feed, urea consumption, oxygen after calciner and/or carbon monoxide after calciner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to predict the behavior of kiln, as XU teaches in page 3 paragraph 3.
Regarding claim 28, BROWN further teaches at least a variety of the sensor signals have a resolution of at least 60 seconds ([0004] once a minute or more frequent).
Claims 29-30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BROWN in view of XU and FUJIWARA as applied to claims 26 and 28 above, further in view of LI.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of BROWN, XU and FUJIWARA does not explicitly further teach a resolution of different ones of the sensor signals is adjustable differently.
LI explicitly teaches in an analogous art that a resolution of different ones of the sensor signals is adjustable differently (page 5 paragraph 10, different sampling interval for different process parameters).
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 BROWN, XU and FUJIWARA to incorporate the teachings of LI, because they all directed to kiln process, to make the method wherein a resolution of different ones of the sensor signals is adjustable differently. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to predict the behavior of kiln, as LI teaches in page 6 paragraph 2.
Regarding claim 30, BROWN further teaches the resolution of the different ones of the sensor signals is adjustable between 1 to 60 seconds ([0004] once a minute or more frequent).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BROWN as applied to claims 15-17 above, in view of Li J US 20220147002 A1.
Regarding claim 31, BROWN does not explicitly further teach calculating an accuracy of the forecasting.
Li J explicitly teaches in an analogous art that calculating an accuracy of the forecasting ([0030] calculating a prediction error indicating accuracy of the prediction model).
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 BROWN to incorporate the teachings of Li J, because they all directed to kiln process, to make the method wherein calculating an accuracy of the forecasting. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to predict the behavior of kiln, as Li J teaches in [0030].
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIANG in view of BROWN.
Regarding claim 32, JIANG teaches a method for observing a behaviour of a cement kiln process (Fig. 1 page 4 last paragraph to page 5 paragraph 5, method for observing behavior of a cement kiln process), the method comprising:
data of sensor signals, the sensor signals are related to at least one of the following signals
a model designed to calculate a forecast of a variable, wherein the variable depends on the kiln process (page 5 paragraph determining multi-model neural network for cement behavior prediction).
JIANG does not explicitly further teach:
A system and a recording device for the data of sensor signals to implement the method; and
a user interface designed to display the forecast of the variable.
BROWN explicitly teaches in an analogous art that:
A system and a recording device for the data of sensor signals to implement the method (Fig. 2 [0044] units 201-210, database 201); and
a user interface designed to display the forecast of the variable ([0044] display of the predictions).
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 JIANG to incorporate the teachings of BROWN, because they all directed to kiln process, to make the system wherein the method is implemented by a system and a recording device for the data of sensor signals; and a user interface designed to display the forecast of the variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to assist a human controller, as BROWN teaches in [0044].
Regarding claim 33, JIANG further teaches different models are stored (page 7 paragraphs 2-6, multi-model fusion neural network comprising three or more single models).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 27 depends on claim 26, BROWN, XU and FUJIWARA together teach the claim limitations of claim 26. However, BROWN, XU and FUJIWARA do not teach or suggest individually or in combination:
the historical data includes ID fan rotation speed, calciner head pressure, calciner head temperature, sintering zone temperature, carbon monoxide before filter, oxygen before filter, main burner refuse-derived-fuel feed, main burner gas consumption, calciner coal feed, calciner refuse-derived-fuel feed, kiln satellite burner feed, and urea consumption.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ZHAO CN 113268871 A teaches NOx prediction by machine learning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tang whose telephone number is (571)272-7437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached on (571)272-2279. 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.
/M.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights