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 .
This is a first action on the merits of the application. Claims 1-12 are pending.
Examiner Note
In claim 4, “to repeatedly perform a self-diagnose at a preset cycle” may include a mistranslation wherein “cycle” is a mistranslation of “interval.”
In claim 8, in line 5, “detected” may be a mistranslation of “detectable.”
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 10-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: In line 8, “a operating unit” appears to be a typographical error for “an operating unit.”
Claim 3: In each instance, “a operable range” appears to be a misstatement of “an operable range.”
Claim 4: In line 3, “a self-diagnose” appears to be a misstatement of “a self-diagnosis.” See claim 10, lines 7-8.
Claim 10: Applicant is respectfully advised to provide the missing article in line 7 (“the self-diagnosis”).
Claim 11: In line 15, “a operating unit” appears to be a typographical error for “an operating unit.”
Claim 12: In lines 15-16, “a operating unit” appears to be a typographical error for “an operating unit.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1: In lines 8-10 (“a operating unit configured to operate the adsorption tower according to an adsorption cycle and a desorption cycle set based on the internal state of the adsorption tower”), it is unclear how the word “set” limits the claim. For example, it is unclear if “set” is a noun referring to both cycles as a single “set” (“an adsorption cycle and a desorption cycle set”), or if “set” is a verb in the past tense, which is intended to be interpreted as “an operating unit configured to operate the adsorption tower according to an adsorption cycle and a desorption cycle for which each include parameters set based on the internal state of the adsorption tower” or similar.
In lines 12-14, “output corresponding adsorption cycle and desorption cycle according to sensing data of the sensor unit using a trained artificial intelligence model” is unclear because (i) it is unclear what function the term “corresponding” performs, i.e., it is unclear what the adsorption cycle and the desorption cycle respectively correspond to; (ii) it is unclear what “using a trained artificial intelligence model” modifies, as it is unclear if the correct interpretation is that the output uses the model or the sensor unit, or something else, such as the manner in which parameters of each cycle are generated; (iii) the terms “adsorption cycle and desorption cycle” lack articles and do not acknowledge their apparent antecedents of “an adsorption cycle and a desorption cycle” (line 9), so it is unclear what the intended limitation is (e.g., output corresponding adsorption and desorption cycles; “output the corresponding adsorption cycle and the corresponding desorption cycle); and (iv) it is unclear what is meant by a processor configured to “output corresponding adsorption cycle and desorption cycle,” as the adsorption and desorption cycles presumably occur in the adsorption tower over time and represent physical processes, so it is unclear how such physical processes can be the “output” of a processor. It is noted that “output” must have a meaning distinct from “transmit” (line 16).
In lines 21-22, the limitations “according to preset exception adsorption cycle and exception desorption cycle” are unclear because: (i) they do not include an article, and (ii) it is unclear if “preset” is intended to refer to both the exception adsorption cycle and the exception desorption cycle, so it is unclear if the Applicant intends to recite “according to preset exception adsorption and exception desorption cycles”; “according to a preset exception adsorption cycle and a preset exception desorption cycle”; or “according to a preset exception adsorption cycle and an exception desorption cycle.”
Claims 2-10 are rejected because of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 4: The claim recites, “wherein the processor is further configured . . . to determine whether the sensing data measured by the sensor unit deviate from the optimal range.” The claim depends from claim 1, which recites, “the processor is configured to . . . in response to the sensing data exceeding the optimal range.” It is unclear if “deviate from the optimal range” and “exceeding the optimal range” refer to the same or different conditions.
Claims 5-7 are rejected because of their dependence from claim 4.
Claim 8: There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the abnormal state” (line 2) and “the normal state” (line 3). In line 5, it is unclear if “the process” refers to the “abnormal situation processing process.” In lines 2-3, it is unclear what is meant by “sensing data . . . are removed,” e.g., it is unclear if this references removing such data from training data of the “trained artificial intelligence model.” It is unclear what is meant by “wherein sensing data . . . are transmitted to the artificial intelligence model” since the “artificial intelligence model” of claim 1 appears to be instructions implemented by the processor rather than a physical location, which the specification states are stored in memory (p. 13, line 16).
Claim 9: In line 3, “an abnormal state” does not acknowledge the antecedent of “the abnormal state” of claim 8, so it is uncertain if these are the same limitations.
Claim 9 is rejected because of its dependence from claim 8.
Claim 11: In lines 8-9 (“operating the adsorption tower according to an adsorption cycle and a desorption cycle set based on the sensing data”), it is unclear how the word “set” limits the claim. For example, it is unclear if “set” is a noun referring to both cycles as a single “set” (“an adsorption cycle and a desorption cycle set”), or if “set” is a verb in the past tense, which is intended to be interpreted as “operating the adsorption tower according to an adsorption cycle and a desorption cycle for which each include parameters set based on the sensing data” or similar.
In lines 11-13, “outputting corresponding adsorption cycle and desorption cycle according to the sensing data using a trained artificial intelligence model” is unclear because (i) it is unclear what function the term “corresponding” performs, i.e., it is unclear what the adsorption cycle and the desorption cycle respectively correspond to; (ii) it is unclear what “using a trained artificial intelligence model” modifies, as it is unclear if the correct interpretation is that the output uses the model, or something else, such as the manner in which parameters of each cycle are generated; (iii) the terms “adsorption cycle and desorption cycle” lack articles and do not acknowledge their apparent antecedents of “an adsorption cycle and a desorption cycle” (lines 8-9), so it is unclear what the intended limitation is (e.g., outputting corresponding adsorption and desorption cycles; “outputting the corresponding adsorption cycle and the corresponding desorption cycle); and (iv) it is unclear what is meant by “outputting corresponding adsorption cycle and desorption cycle,” as the adsorption and desorption cycles presumably occur in the adsorption tower over time and represent physical processes, so it is unclear how such physical processes can be an “output” of a processor. It is noted that “outputting” must have a meaning distinct from “transmitting” (line 14).
In lines 19-20, the limitations “according to preset exception adsorption cycle and exception desorption cycle” are unclear because: (i) they do not include an article, and (ii) it is unclear if “preset” is intended to refer to both the exception adsorption cycle and the exception desorption cycle, so it is unclear if the Applicant intends to recite “according to preset exception adsorption and exception desorption cycles”; “according to a preset exception adsorption cycle and a preset exception desorption cycle”; or “according to a preset exception adsorption cycle and an exception desorption cycle.”
Claim 12: In lines 11-13, “output corresponding adsorption cycle and desorption cycle according to the sensing data using a trained artificial model” is unclear because (i) it is unclear what function the term “corresponding” performs, i.e., it is unclear what the adsorption cycle and the desorption cycle respectively correspond to; (ii) it is unclear what “using a trained artificial intelligence model” modifies, as it is unclear if the correct interpretation is that the output uses the model, or something else, such as the manner in which parameters of each cycle are generated; (iii) the terms “adsorption cycle and desorption cycle” lack articles and do not acknowledge their apparent antecedents of “an adsorption cycle and a desorption cycle” (lines 7-8), so it is unclear what the intended limitation is (e.g., output corresponding adsorption and desorption cycles; “output the corresponding adsorption cycle and the corresponding desorption cycle); and (iv) it is unclear what is meant by a processor configured to “output corresponding adsorption cycle and desorption cycle,” as the adsorption and desorption cycles presumably occur in the adsorption tower over time and represent physical processes, so it is unclear how such physical processes can be the “output” of a processor. It is noted that “output” must have a meaning distinct from “transmit” (line 16).
In lines 19-20, the limitations “according to preset exception adsorption cycle and exception desorption cycle” are unclear because: (i) they do not include an article, and (ii) it is unclear if “preset” is intended to refer to both the exception adsorption cycle and the exception desorption cycle, so it is unclear if the Applicant intends to recite “according to preset exception adsorption and exception desorption cycles”; “according to a preset exception adsorption cycle and a preset exception desorption cycle”; or “according to a preset exception adsorption cycle and an exception desorption cycle.”
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A thorough search for pertinent prior art did not locate any prior art that discloses or suggests the invention recited in claims 1-12.
The concept of a processor is configured to output corresponding adsorption cycle and desorption cycle according to sensing data of the sensor unit using a trained artificial intelligence model, in response to the sensing data being within a preset optimal range, transmit a command to operate the adsorption tower according to the output adsorption cycle and desorption cycle to the operating unit, and in response to the sensing data exceeding the optimal range, transmit a command to execute an abnormal situation processing process according to preset exception adsorption cycle and exception desorption cycle to the operating unit (claims 1, 11, 12)
is considered to define patentable subject matter over the prior art.
The closest prior art is Kim et al. (KR102144444B1), which discloses a pressure fluctuation adsorption device in which process information is collected, and the occurrence of abnormal operation is detected through an information pattern analysis unit that uses neural network learning ([0015], [0052]). However, Kim does not suggest an adsorption cycle and a desorption cycle along with a distinct exception adsorption cycle and a distinct exception desorption cycle that are used in response to sensing data exceeding an optimal range.
Other close prior art is Lai et al. (US 2022/0355242 A1), which discloses a VOC removal system that measures current VOC removal parameters and passes them to an analysis model trained with a machine learning process (Abstract) to generate recommended operational parameters that can be implemented to improve the VOC removal efficiency ([0046]). If a predicted future VOC removal efficiency is lower than a selected threshold (i.e., exceeding an optimal range), a set of recommended VOC process removal parameters are generated that will result in the higher VOC removal efficiency ([0059]). However, Lai does not suggest an adsorption cycle and a desorption cycle along with a distinct exception adsorption cycle and a distinct exception desorption cycle.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 4, 8, and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL E GITMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7934. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:15-5:45pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3471. 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.
/GABRIEL E GITMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights