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 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 use the word “means,” 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 limitation(s) is/are: “processing means” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure appears to be a processor.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herzog US20080071501.
Regarding claim 1, Herzog discloses a method (Fig 1) for detecting a gaseous and/or liquid leakage in an industrial processing plant or processing plant equipment (boiler-205, 505), based on data being provided by at least one sensor (first and second sets of sensors 510, 515), wherein process-related data and environmental data (Paragraphs 0055) are provided in order to combine the process-related data and the environmental data (Paragraph 0055-0056), and wherein, for the evaluation of a potential leakage, a similarity measure between the process-related data and the environmental data is determined (Paragraphs 0055-0063). (See also 0017-0044, Fig 5)
Regarding claim 2, Herzog discloses the similarity measure is determined by means of a correlation analysis, similarity analysis or root cause analysis. (Paragraphs 0017, 0025-0028, 0038, 0056-0057)
Regarding claim 3, Herzog discloses evaluating a pre-determined limit of a sensor value for an environment based on a threshold. (Paragraph 0026, 0034-0035)
Regarding claim 4, Herzog discloses evaluation of a process is accomplished by means of an FDI scheme and wherein a leakage event is defined as a parameter fault in the FDI scheme. (Paragraphs 0022, 0038-0039, 0042-0044, 0055-0057)
Regarding claim 5, Herzog discloses the input and output variables for the FDI scheme are measured process-related variables which are evaluated based on a model description for the industrial processing plant or processing plant equipment (boiler-205, 505). (Paragraphs 0017-0030, 0037-0041, 0053-0060)
Regarding claim 6, Herzog discloses the process-related data and the environmental data comprise respective input data and output data. (Paragraphs 0017-0030, 0037-0041, 0053-0060)
Regarding claim 7, Herzog discloses a process-environment system (Fig 5 show system) which uses data from a process and its environment in a joint manner (uses sensors 510 and 515 in boiler-205, 505) and which is used for modelling changing aspects of the interconnection between a separate process model and a separate environment model, based on respective input variables. (Paragraphs 0017-0030, 0037-0041, 0053-0060)
Regarding claim 8, Herzog discloses the evaluation of a potential leakage is based on the relationship between the process and the environment wherein it is separated between the process and the environment, based on physical boundaries, wherein a fault-free case is assumed to be a closed system which thermodynamically allows energy but no mass transfer between the process and the environment and wherein a faulty case is assumed to be an open system enabling mass and energy to be transferred between the process and the environment. (Paragraphs 0005, 0037, 0062)
Regarding claim 9, Herzog discloses it is assumed that the environment can, in turn, influence the process. (Paragraph 0049-0061)
Regarding claim 10, Herzog discloses the relationship between the process and the environment is evaluated by means of at least one underlying model (Paragraphs 0017-0030, 0037-0041, 0053-0060) which is based on input variables and output variables of the process-environment system, wherein directions of cause and effect between the process and the environment are synchronized, and wherein measured process-related data and environmental data are separated into cause- variables and effect-variable (Paragraphs 0022-0024, 0038, 0051).
Regarding claim 11, Herzog discloses the evaluation of a potential leakage is based on a two-fold feature generation, including a first feature generation step where the process-related data are mapped into a suitable feature space (See figs 3-4, Paragraphs 0053-0054), and including second feature generation steps using the process-environment system for performing a PES identification, wherein the second feature generation steps are performed in a recurring way, and wherein both types of generated features are fed into a classifier (Paragraphs 0020-0022, 0043, claims 21-23).
Regarding claim 12, Herzog discloses a method (See Fig 1) for condition monitoring of an industrial processing plant or processing plant equipment (boiler-205, 505) in order to detect a gaseous and/or liquid leakage or to localize an incipient leakage or to detect processing faults, or for providing an according root-cause analysis, based on the method according to claim 1. (See Paragraphs 0055-0063). 0017-0044, Fig 5)
Regarding claim 13, Herzog discloses a system (see fig 5) for the detection of a gaseous and/or liquid leakage in an industrial processing plant or processing plant equipment (boiler-505), comprising at least one sensor (first and second set of sensors -510, 515) for providing process-related data and environmental data (Paragraphs 0055) and comprising processing means (processor-525) in order to combine the process-related data and the environmental data (Paragraphs 0055) and to evaluate a potential leakage based on a similarity measure between the process-related data and the environmental data (See also 0017-0044, Fig 5)
Regarding claim 14, Herzog discloses the at least one sensor (set of sensors-510, 515) comprises one or more of the following sensors: at least one gas detector; at least one ambient temperature sensor; at least one humidity sensor; at least one line- and area sensor; at least one monitoring camera; at least one acoustic sensor; or at least one autonomous vehicle equipped with at least one gas detector and/or any of the preceding detectors/sensors. (Paragraph 0055)
Regarding claim 15, Herzog discloses a computer-implemented method or system (See Figs 1-2, and 5, Paragraph 0045) for the detection of a gaseous and/or liquid leakage in an industrial processing plant or processing plant equipment (boiler-205, 505), based on process-related data and environmental data (first and second set of sensors-510, 515) which are combined in order to evaluate a potential leakage based on a similarity measure between the process-related data and the environmental data (Paragraphs 0055-0063). (See also 0017-0044, Fig 5)
Regarding claim 16, Herzog discloses the process-related data and the environmental data (first and second set of sensors -510, 515) comprise respective input data and output data of one or more of the following physical properties of the industrial processing plant or processing plant equipment (boiler-205, 505): a temperature of the industrial processing plant or processing plant equipment; a pressure of the industrial processing plant or processing plant equipment; an electrical current of the industrial processing plant or processing plant equipment; a performance indicator of the industrial processing plant or processing plant equipment; an environmental temperature; or an environmental humidity. (Paragraphs 0017-0030, 0037-0041, 0053-0060)
Conclusion
The prior art as cited on the PTO-892 is made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIGEL H PLUMB whose telephone number is (571)272-8886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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 (USA or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIGEL H PLUMB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights