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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 27 are 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 § 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 21 – 23 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.
Regarding claims 21 – 23, the phrase “such as” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 16, 20 – 26, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Hall et al. US 2020/0313539 (hereinafter Hall).
Regarding claim 16, Hall teaches: a system for controlling a marine vessel comprising a number of devices, the devices comprising a number of power generators and consumers, comprising sensors for monitoring the activity of the devices (Fig. 1 - - power stages, sensors), the system comprising:
at least one processor calculating device score values of the devices;
a control unit connected to the devices and being configured to calculate an efficiency score value based on the device score values, the efficiency score value defining the efficiency of the system ([0086] - - a performance metric is energy conversion efficiency);
wherein the system is configured to calculate the redundancy of the system based on the operation mode and/or load of the devices, and to calculate a redundancy margin index indicating the redundancy of the system devices ([0145] - - a performance metric is standby power, THD metric, ripple metric, emission metric or transient response metric, one of these can be redundancy margin index), according to predetermined scores for each operation mode and computing the efficiency and redundancy values ([0097] - - compute the performance metrics based on measured conditions; [0098] - - the conditions includes operation mode parameters);
wherein the system is configured to calculate a combined index based on the efficiency score value and redundancy margin index ([0115] - - obtain weighted combination of the computed metrics);
a set of setup configurations for the devices included in the system ([0116] - - control parameters are setup configurations); and
wherein the system is configured to, at the instance of the combined index being outside a predetermined range, calculating the combined index for at least one alternate device setup and indicating the preferred setup based on a comparison between the combined index values ([0123] - - update control parameters in response to a trigger event, the trigger event includes detection of the performance metric not achieving the threshold condition).
Claim 26 is substantially similar to claim 16 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 20, Hall teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hall further teaches: the comparison of the combined indexes also comprises a comparison of the computed or calculated scores, indexes and alternative device setups provided by a machine learning unit for optimization the system efficiency and redundancy ([0115] - - AI algorithm selects the values for the control parameters that correspond to the maximum weighted combination).
Claim 30 is substantially similar to claim 20 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 21, Hall teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hall further teaches: the sensors comprising one or more sensors for monitoring the vessel environment such as waves, current, wind ([0095] - - environment conditions includes temperature) and/or for monitoring of the vessel behavior, such as position, motion, speed, heading of the vessel.
Regarding claim 22, Hall teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hall further teaches: the system is also configured to receive information regarding the vessel environment, such as a weather forecast, and being configured to take the environment information into account by a vessel response simulator, providing input to the system related to future conditions in the environment ([0130] - - determine a first value of the control parameter for a first environment condition, determine a second value of the control parameter for a second environment condition).
Regarding claim 23, Hall teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hall further teaches: the devices are grouped in clusters, such as a cluster for power generation, a cluster for thrusters, whereby the system calculates a common device score for each of the clusters ([0086] - - multiple power stages is a cluster, the energy conversion efficiency is an overall efficiency of the power stages).
Regarding claim 24, Hall teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hall further teaches: a user interface comprising a display for allowing an operator to choose a setup based on the combined indexes ([0096] - - a display device providing an input/output interface to modify the control).
Regarding claim 25, Hall teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hall further teaches: the power generator comprises at least one of genset, fuel cell and battery (Abstract - - power converters).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 18 – 19, 28 – 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. US 2020/0313539 (hereinafter Hall) in view of Koval et al. US 2019/0260204 (hereinafter Koval).
Regarding claim 18, Hall teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Hall does not explicitly teach: the predetermined scores and/or the predetermined range are obtained from a machine learning unit.
However, Koval teaches: the predetermined scores and/or the predetermined range are obtained from a machine learning unit ([0017] - - predetermined threshold is determined by a machine learning module).
Hall and Koval are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy management system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by Hall, and incorporating determining a predetermined threshold by a machine learning unit, as taught by Koval.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve automation, as suggested by Koval ([0002]).
Claim 28 is substantially similar to claim 18 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Hall and Koval teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Koval further teaches: the scores and range obtained from the machine learning unit are based on an analysis of previous data sampled in previous cases and/or feedback registered from system operators ([0019] - - machine learning model is trained using training data which are historical readings).
Hall and Koval are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Claim 29 is substantially similar to claim 19 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM 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, 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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights