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 .
Status of Claims
The present application is being examined under the claims filed 07/16/2024.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/16/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for containing an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites the abstract ideas of:
assessing the behavioral model on a basis of the simulation parameter by way of the electronic computing device — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to evaluating a model based on known reference values.
and generating the behavior prediction on a basis of an evaluation by way of the electronic computing device — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to evaluating a situation to determine an expected behavior.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements:
A method for generating a behavior prediction for a device by way of an electronic computing device — This limitation is directed to merely applying an abstract idea using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)).
the method comprising: providing an initial model of the device by way of the electronic computing device — This limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
recording at least one behavior parameter currently characterizing the device by way of a recording device of the electronic computing device — This limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
adapting the initial model, on a basis of the recorded behavior parameter, so as to form a behavioral model of the device by way of the electronic computing device — This limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. Using model parameter adjustments to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Even if the model parameter adjustments is implemented on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)), the limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
recording a simulation parameter for the device by way of a further recording device of the electronic computing device — This limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
A method for generating a behavior prediction for a device by way of an electronic computing device — Using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
the method comprising: providing an initial model of the device by way of the electronic computing device — This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering of transmitting and receiving data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.), which cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
recording at least one behavior parameter currently characterizing the device by way of a recording device of the electronic computing device — This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering of transmitting and receiving data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.), which cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
adapting the initial model, on a basis of the recorded behavior parameter, so as to form a behavioral model of the device by way of the electronic computing device — Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
recording a simulation parameter for the device by way of a further recording device of the electronic computing device — This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering of transmitting and receiving data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.), which cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 2
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the at least one behavior parameter is recorded continuously and the behavioral model is adapted continuously — This limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. Using continuous/repeated operations to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Even if the continuous/repeated operations is implemented on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)), the limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein the at least one behavior parameter is recorded continuously and the behavioral model is adapted continuously — Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 3
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 1:
wherein the generated behavior prediction is compared with an actual behavior of the device — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to an observation of the similarities/differences between a prediction and what actually happens.
Step 2A Prong 2:
and the behavioral model is adapted on a basis of a comparison — This limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. Using model parameter adjustments to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Even if the model parameter adjustments is implemented on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)), the limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
and the behavioral model is adapted on a basis of a comparison — Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 4
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein a control parameter for the device is recorded as simulation parameter — This limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein a control parameter for the device is recorded as simulation parameter — This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering of storing and retrieving information in memory, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.), which cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 5
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein an environmental parameter for the device is recorded as simulation parameter — This limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein an environmental parameter for the device is recorded as simulation parameter — This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering of storing and retrieving information in memory, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.), which cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 6
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the electronic computing device is provided with a neural network — This limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. Using neural networks to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Even if the neural network is implemented on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)), the limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein the electronic computing device is provided with a neural network —Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 7
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 6 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 6). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the neural network is provided for reinforcement learning — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the judicial exception to the technological environment of reinforcement learning.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein the neural network is provided for reinforcement learning — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 8
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein an actual behavior of the device is recorded as behavior parameter — This limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein an actual behavior of the device is recorded as behavior parameter — This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering of storing and retrieving information in memory, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.), which cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 9
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein current environmental conditions are recorded at the device -— This limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
and taken into account when adapting the behavioral model — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the data operated on by the behavior model adaptions.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein current environmental conditions are recorded at the device — This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering of storing and retrieving information in memory, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.), which cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
and taken into account when adapting the behavioral model — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 10
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 1:
wherein a usability of the device for a specific intended purpose is assessed on a basis of the behavior prediction — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to making a judgement about whether a device is appropriate for a given task.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 11
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 1:
wherein a maintenance operation and/or a maintenance interval for the device is suggested on a basis of the behavior prediction — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to making an opinion that maintenance is required or a timeframe in which maintenance is required.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 12
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 1:
wherein replacement of the device is suggested on a basis of the behavior prediction — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to making an opinion that replacement is required.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 13
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
A computer program product, comprising a computer readable hardware storage device having computer readable program code stored therein, said program code executable by a processor of a computer system to implement a method as claimed in claim 1 when the program code means are executed by the electronic computing device — Using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
A computer program product, comprising a computer readable hardware storage device having computer readable program code stored therein, said program code executable by a processor of a computer system to implement a method as claimed in claim 1 when the program code means are executed by the electronic computing device — Using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 14
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 13 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 13). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
A computer-readable storage medium comprising a computer program product as claimed in claim 13 —- This limitation is directed to merely applying an abstract idea using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
A computer-readable storage medium comprising a computer program product as claimed in claim 13 —- Using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 15
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
An electronic computing device for generating a behavior prediction for a device, having at least one recording device and a further recording device, wherein the electronic computing device is configured to perform a method as claimed in claim 1 — This limitation is directed to merely applying an abstract idea using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
An electronic computing device for generating a behavior prediction for a device, having at least one recording device and a further recording device, wherein the electronic computing device is configured to perform a method as claimed in claim 1 — Using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
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 1-6, 8-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nasle et al. (PGPUB no. US20160247065A1) herein referred to as Nasle in view of NPL reference Hou et al. “NBPE：Neural Network Based Power Estimation Simulator for Specification Design” herein referred to as Hou.
Regarding Claim 1
Nasle teaches:
A method for generating a behavior prediction for a device by way of an electronic computing device, the method comprising: providing an initial model of the device by way of the electronic computing device;
(paragraph [0268]) “That is, the power analytics server can include a virtual system modeling engine that utilizes dynamic control logic stored in the virtual system model to generate the predicted output data. The predicted data is supposed to be representative of data that should actually be generated and output from the monitored system.”; (Figure 26)
recording at least one behavior parameter currently characterizing the device by way of a recording device of the electronic computing device;
(paragraph [0266]) “Method 2600 begins with operation 2602 where the analytics engine receives real-time data output from one or more sensors that are interfaced with the electrical system (i.e., monitored system).”
adapting the initial model, on a basis of the recorded behavior parameter, so as to form a behavioral model of the device by way of the electronic computing device; (paragraph [0269]) “In operation 2606, the virtual system model of the monitored system is calibrated if a difference between the real-time data output and the predicted data output exceeds a threshold.”
and generating the behavior prediction on a basis of an evaluation by way of the electronic computing device.
(paragraph [0268]) “In operation 2604, predicted data output for the one or more sensors interfaced to the monitored system utilizing can be generated utilizing a virtual system model of the electrical system.”; (paragraph [0272]) “In operation 2612, an aspect of the monitored system is forecast using the neural network algorithm.”
Nasle does not explicitly teach:
recording a simulation parameter for the device by way of a further recording device of the electronic computing device;
assessing the behavioral model on a basis of the simulation parameter by way of the electronic computing device;
However, Hou teaches:
recording a simulation parameter for the device by way of a further recording device of the electronic computing device;
(page 1 abstract) “This paper forwards a neural network based VLSI power estimation Simulator (NBPE) for VLSI specification design with a graphical user interface developed. The user can enter parameters from VLSI specification such as IO number, frequency, flash depth and parameters on neural network structure such as layer number, learning algorithm etc.”
assessing the behavioral model on a basis of the simulation parameter by way of the electronic computing device;
(page 2 column 2) “By trigger “Train!” button, a certain feed-forward back propagation (BP) network is constructed. Its training simulation result is shown in bottom-left window. Its testing result is shown in bottom-right window.”; (Figure 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
372
325
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nasle, Hou, and the instant application are analogous because they are all directed to machine learning and simulations.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the behavior predictions of Nasle by allowing for simulation parameters as taught by Hou because (Hou page 4 column 1) “Developed as a comprehensive analysis tool, NBPE also simplifies the design of VLSI specification by simplifying power estimation simulation method so that it can be achieved for a given choice of parameters. The simulator has been successfully used in our research on VLSI power estimation and analysis.”
Regarding Claim 2
Nasle in view of Hou teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1
(see rejection of claim 1)
Nasle further teaches:
wherein the at least one behavior parameter is recorded continuously and the behavioral model is adapted continuously.
(paragraph [0266]) “Method 2600 begins with operation 2602 where the analytics engine receives real-time data output from one or more sensors that are interfaced with the electrical system (i.e., monitored system).”; (paragraph [0271]) “That is, the internal weighting factors of the neural network algorithm automatically self-adjusts to minimize the measure of error between the known monitored system output values (i.e., target output values) measured in real-time by sensors dispersed throughout the monitored system and the estimated/predicted output values that the neural network algorithm generates based on the same given set of input values.”; [*Examiner notes: The neural network simulation is optimized and calibrated in real-time as the sensor parameters are recorded in real-time.]; (Figure 26)
PNG
media_image2.png
570
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3
Nasle in view of Hou teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1
(see rejection of claim 1)
Nasle further teaches:
wherein the generated behavior prediction is compared with an actual behavior of the device and the behavioral model is adapted on a basis of a comparison.
(paragraph [0271]) “In step 2610, the neural network algorithm is optimized by minimizing a measure of error between the real-time data output and an estimated data output predicted by the neural network algorithm.”
Regarding Claim 4
Nasle in view of Hou teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1
(see rejection of claim 1)
Hou further teaches:
wherein a control parameter for the device is recorded as simulation parameter.
(page 2 end of column 1) “The NBPE GUI is shown in Fig. 1. The interface accepts the following parameters: […] -Train process control parameters: ‘lr’, ‘show’, ‘mc’, ‘epochs’, ‘goal’.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine Nasle with Hou for the same reasons given in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 5
Nasle in view of Hou teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1
(see rejection of claim 1)
Hou further teaches:
wherein an environmental parameter for the device is recorded as simulation parameter.
(page 1 column 2 section II A) “The training and testing vector are extracted from the real chip’s specifications. The chosen parameters are selected on the rule that these parameters could be the requirement of the chip’s specification before the chip is design. Therefore, whenever a new chip alike this type is planning to be designed, the power consumption can be obtained in the method proposed in this paper.”; [*Examiner notes: The “environmental parameters” can include physical hardware specifications of the device being simulated]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine Nasle with Hou for the same reasons given in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 6
Nasle in view of Hou teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1
(see rejection of claim 1)
Nasle further teaches:
wherein the electronic computing device is provided with a neural network.
(paragraph [0265]) “FIG. 26 is an illustration of a flow chart describing a method for utilizing a neural network algorithm utilized to make real-time predictions about the health, reliability, and performance of an electrical system, in accordance with one embodiment.”
Regarding Claim 8
Nasle in view of Hou teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1
(see rejection of claim 1)
And Nasle further teaches:
wherein an actual behavior of the device is recorded as behavior parameter.
(paragraph [0050]) “For example, in an electrical power generation system, the current output or voltage readings for the various components that comprise the power generation system is indicative of the overall health and/or operational condition of the system.”
Regarding Claim 9
Nasle in view of Hou teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1
(see rejection of claim 1)
Nasle further teaches:
wherein current environmental conditions are recorded at the device and taken into account when adapting the behavioral model.
(paragraph [0050]) “In one embodiment, the sensors are configured to also measure additional data that can affect system operation. For example, for an electrical power distribution system, the sensor output can include environmental information, e.g., temperature, humidity, etc., which can impact electrical power demand and can also affect the operation and efficiency of the power distribution system itself.”
Regarding Claim 10
The method as claimed in claim 1
(see rejection of claim 1)
wherein a usability of the device for a specific intended purpose is assessed on a basis of the behavior prediction
(paragraph [0272]) “Power System Health and Performance Variations or deviations of electrical system performance from the power system design parameters. That is, the ability of the electrical system to resist system output variations or deviations from defined tolerance limits of the electrical system[*Examiner notes: usability for intended purpose]”
Regarding Claim 11
Nasle in view of Hou teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1
(see rejection of claim 1)
wherein a maintenance operation and/or a maintenance interval for the device is suggested on a basis of the behavior prediction.
(paragraph [0066]) “In still another embodiment, the alarm or notification message is sent to both the client 128 display and the wireless mobile device. The alarm can be indicative of a need for a repair event or maintenance to be done on the monitored system.”
Regarding Claim 13
Nasle in view of Hou teaches the method according to claim 1, and Nasle further teaches:
A computer program product, comprising a computer readable hardware storage device having computer readable program code stored therein, said program code executable by a processor of a computer system to implement a method as claimed in claim 1 when the program code means are executed by the electronic computing device.
(paragraph [0290]) “The embodiments described herein can also be embodied as computer readable code on a computer readable medium.”; (paragraph [0287]) “The embodiments described herein, can be practiced with other computer system configurations including hand-held devices, microprocessor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, minicomputers, mainframe computers and the like.”
Regarding Claim 14
Nasle in view of Hou teaches the method according to claim 13, and Nasle further teaches:
A computer-readable storage medium comprising a computer program product as claimed in claim 13
(paragraph [0290]) “The embodiments described herein can also be embodied as computer readable code on a computer readable medium.”
Regarding Claim 15
Nasle in view of Hou teaches:
wherein the electronic computing device is configured to perform a method as claimed in claim 1
(see rejection of claim 1)
Nasle further teaches:
An electronic computing device for generating a behavior prediction for a device, having at least one recording device and a further recording device,
(paragraph [0049]) “FIG. 1 is an illustration of a system for utilizing real-time data for predictive analysis of the performance of a monitored system, in accordance with one embodiment. As shown herein, the system 100 includes a series of sensors (i.e., Sensor A 104, Sensor B 106, Sensor C 108) interfaced with the various components of a monitored system 102, a data acquisition hub 112, an analytics server 116, and a thin-client device 128.”; (Figure 1)
PNG
media_image3.png
489
662
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nasle in view of Hou, and further in view of NPL reference Huang et al. “Adaptive Power System Emergency Control Using Deep Reinforcement Learning” herein referred to as Huang.
Regarding Claim 7
Nasle in view of Hou teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 6
(see rejection of claim 6)
wherein the neural network is provided for reinforcement learning.
(page 1171 abstract) “To address these challenges, this paper developed novel adaptive emergency control schemes using deep reinforcement learning (DRL) by leveraging the high-dimensional feature extraction and non-linear generalization capabilities of DRL for complex power systems.”
Nastle, Hou, Huang, and the instant application are analogous because they are all directed to machine learning and simulations.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the behavior predictions of Nastle in view of Hou by applying the reinforcement learning technique as taught by Huang because (Huang page 1171 abstract) “Robustness of the developed DRL method to different simulation scenarios, model parameter uncertainty and noise in the observations is investigated. Extensive case studies performed in both the two-area, four-machine system and the IEEE 39-bus system have demonstrated excellent performance and robustness of the proposed schemes.”
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nasle in view of Hou, and further in view of Guo et al. (PGPUB no. US20230400847A1) herein referred to as Guo.
Regarding Claim 12
Nasle in view of Hou teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1
(see rejection of claim 1)
Nasle in view of Hou does not explicitly teach:
wherein replacement of the device is suggested on a basis of the behavior prediction.
However, Guo teaches:
wherein replacement of the device is suggested on a basis of the behavior prediction.
(paragraph [0072]) “In some embodiments, by predicting a time until failure or a time until maintenance will be required, the predictive maintenance system described herein can allow for significantly less downtime of manufacturing equipment due to unforeseen failures. Additionally, the predictive maintenance system described herein can allow for just-in-time part ordering that allows components identified as likely to fail soon to be replaced prior to failure.”
Nasle, Hou, Guo, and the instant application are analogous because they are all directed to machine learning and simulations.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the behavior predictions of Nasle in view of Hou by suggesting replacement of device components as taught by Guo because (Guo paragraph [0072]) “In some embodiments, by predicting a time until failure or a time until maintenance will be required, the predictive maintenance system described herein can allow for significantly less downtime of manufacturing equipment due to unforeseen failures. Additionally, the predictive maintenance system described herein can allow for just-in-time part ordering that allows components identified as likely to fail soon to be replaced prior to failure.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Meagher et al. (PGPUB no. US20120191439A1) teaches real-time device simulations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ezra J Baker whose telephone number is (703)756-1087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 8:00 pm ET.
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, David Yi can be reached at (571) 270-7519. 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.
/E.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2126
/DAVID YI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2126
Prosecution Insights