CTNF 18/777,163 CTNF 87778 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION 2. This action is responsive to the Application filed on 7/18/2024. A filing date 7/18/2024 is acknowledged. The sought benefit of JP application 2023-117295 (which was filed on 7/19/2023) is acknowledged. Claims 1-16 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 13, 15 and 16 are independent claims. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 3. 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 limitation(s) is/are: a topology diagram creation unit, a topology information generation unit, a model expression generation unit in claim 1. 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. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: These constituent elements included in the control unit 110 are realized by a hardware processor such as a central processing unit executing a program (software), for example. Some or all of these components may be realized by hardware (circuit unit; including circuitry) such as a large scale integration (LSI), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), or a graphics processing unit (GPU), or may be realized by software and hardware in cooperation ([0030]). 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 § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA 4. Claim s 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kika Kawata et al (US Publication 20150058270 A1, hereinafter Kawata), and in view of Alexander Smith et al (US Publication 20120239169 A1, hereinafter Smith) . As for independent claim 1, Kawata discloses: An operation plan creation device (Kawata: Abstract, An operation plan decision method) comprising: a [topology] diagram creation unit configured to create a topology diagram in which a plurality of nodes are connected by an edge ([222]-[0229], The energy flow diagram preparation module 13 includes the following 1) to 7) objects as the stencils. 1) Equipment objects (a generator, a boiler, heat source equipment, a heat storage tank, and the like); 2) Node objects (electricity, various vapors, hot and cold water, and the like); 3) Fuel objects (electricity, various vapors, hot and cold water, and the like); 4) Demand objects (electricity, various vapors, hot and cold water, and the like); 5) Connector objects (electricity, various vapors, hot and cold water, and the like); 6) Constraint condition definition objects (generation, registration, and selection of constraint conditions between equipment); Pallets (connection objects between a plurality of pages)) ; a [topology] information generation unit configured to generate characteristic information of the plurality of nodes in the topology diagram and connection information of the plurality of nodes connected by the edge (Kawata: [0243], The energy flow diagram preparation module 13 generates a GUI illustrated in FIG. 9A, and the user prepares the energy flow diagram via the energy flow diagram preparation module 13 by using the generated GUI. The user prepares the entire chart of the plant on the work sheet by connecting the equipment object, the node object, and the like via the connector object. The user can impose the constraint conditions between the objects connected via the connector object by disposing the constraint condition definition object between the objects, for example, between the equipment objects via the connector object) ; and a model expression generation unit configured to generate a model expression representing characteristics of a system including a plurality of pieces of equipment based on the characteristic information and the connection information (Kawata: [0021], A characteristic expression using the amount of input and output energy and the coefficients of performance for the equipment is defined (equipment characteristics)) . Kawada does not expressly disclose a topology diagram, in an analogous art of graphically modeling used to optimize and control operation, Smith discloses: a topology diagram creation unit (Smith: [0079], the graphical presentation has a direct translation into the optimization problem statement. Network topology, and any modification to the network topology via graphical interactions with the network 84 (e.g. adding a node 92, removing a connection 94), can be captured by linear matrix operations) Kawada and Smith are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, graphically modeling used to optimize and control operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Kawada using the teachings of Smith to include a topology information system. It would provide Kawada’s device with enhanced capabilities of including allowing user to intuitively view and manage the operation control via graphical interactions. As for claim 2, Kawada-Smith discloses: an operation plan creation unit configured to create an optimized operation plan of the plurality of pieces of equipment by solving the model expression generated by the model expression generation unit (Kawata: Abstract, An operation plan decision method includes deriving an feasible solution by using a constraint violation minimization model, updating candidates for an optimum solution and adding the updated candidates to a candidate list by taking the derived feasible solution, as an initial value of a candidate for the optimum solution, and by using a time cross-section division model that is obtained by dividing an optimization model for each time cross-section, and selecting the optimum solution from the candidate list to which the updated candidates are added) . As for claim 3, Kawada-Smith discloses: wherein the model expression generated by the model expression generation unit is composed of an objective function to be minimized or maximized (Kawada: [0015], C: unit cost, .eta.: coefficient of performance (COP), .epsilon.: the amount of bias, Demand: the amount of demand, MinY: minimum output rating, MaxY: maximum output rating, and N: minimum period of operation) and a constraint condition representing a condition that the system satisfies, to create the operation plan (Kawada: [0003], an operation plan is determined to satisfy constraint conditions) . As for claim 4, Kawada-Smith discloses: wherein the topology diagram creation unit adds a branch for performing branching of information flowing through the edge, function setting, or value setting in the topology diagram (Kawada: [0242], the user prepares the energy flow diagram of the plant by disposing the object registered as the stencil of Microsoft Visio on the work sheet by means of a drag and drop function) . As for claim 5, Kawada-Smith discloses: wherein the topology diagram creation unit adds an objective function branch for setting an objective function as the branch to the topology diagram (Kawada: [0242], the user prepares the energy flow diagram of the plant by disposing the object registered as the stencil of Microsoft Visio on the work sheet by means of a drag and drop function) . As for claim 6, Kawada-Smith discloses: wherein the topology diagram creation unit adds a target value branch for setting a target value as the branch to the topology diagram (Kawata: [0076], provide an algorithm that models the plant which becomes large-scale and complicated because of the expansion of an energy saving target range, for example, particularly, supply-demand cooperation in which production equipment and supply equipment are integrated, and that can execute in a short time period of an optimum scheduling consisting of start-stop or input-output of many groups of equipment, while warranting feasibility) . As for claim 7, Kawada-Smith discloses: an operation plan creation unit configured to create an optimized operation plan of the plurality of pieces of equipment by solving the model expression generated by the model expression generation unit; and a target value setting unit configured to set the target value for each of a plurality of time period in the target value branch, wherein the operation plan creation unit performs an optimization operation to calculate a solution satisfying the objective function for each of the plurality of time periods (Kawata: [0021], A characteristic expression using the amount of input and output energy and the coefficients of performance for the equipment is defined (equipment characteristics)) . As for claim 8, Kawada-Smith discloses: a graph display control unit configured to display, on a display unit, a graph that shows a result of the optimization operation (Kawada: [0208], A graph of the amount of input and output of the equipment is prepared based on the optimum solution (the optimum operation plan) 503 derived by the optimum solution selection process execution unit 501, and an operation Gantt chart is prepared based on the equipment operation signal. The graph and the Gantt chart are used to support the operation of the plant, or used as control indication values. FIG. 6 illustrates examples of a graph of time series data of the equipment energy output, and an illustration of an operation Gantt chart. The time series data of the equipment energy output such as a total sum of the equipment energy output and details of each piece of equipment is illustrated by a bar graph. In the operation Gantt chart, the vertical axis indicates the equipment, and the horizontal axis indicates time) . As for claim 9, Kawada-Smith discloses: a numerical value output unit configured to output a file in which a numerical value indicating a result of the optimization operation is described (Kawada: [0218], output definition file) . As for claim 10, Kawada-Smith discloses: wherein the topology diagram creation unit adds an auxiliary branch for setting a function used to avoid a situation in which a result of the optimization operation has no solution, to the topology diagram as the branch (Kawata: [0149], when the solution candidate list 208 does not contain the feasible solution as an initial value, the solution candidates added to the list are derived in a state of the constraint conditions being relaxed) . As for claim 11, Kawada-Smith discloses: a numerical value addition unit configured to add a numerical value indicating a result of the optimization operation of at least one of the plurality of nodes, the edge, and the branch to the topology diagram (Kawada: [0242], the user prepares the energy flow diagram of the plant by disposing the object registered as the stencil of Microsoft Visio on the work sheet by means of a drag and drop function) . As for claim 12, Kawada-Smith discloses: a time period selection unit configured to select one time period among the plurality of time periods, wherein the numerical value addition unit adds the numerical value of the time period selected by the time period selection unit to the topology diagram (Kawada: [0208], A graph of the amount of input and output of the equipment is prepared based on the optimum solution (the optimum operation plan) 503 derived by the optimum solution selection process execution unit 501, and an operation Gantt chart is prepared based on the equipment operation signal. The graph and the Gantt chart are used to support the operation of the plant, or used as control indication values. FIG. 6 illustrates examples of a graph of time series data of the equipment energy output, and an illustration of an operation Gantt chart. The time series data of the equipment energy output such as a total sum of the equipment energy output and details of each piece of equipment is illustrated by a bar graph. In the operation Gantt chart, the vertical axis indicates the equipment, and the horizontal axis indicates time) . As per claim 13, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim1, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 1 are incorporated herein. As for claim 14, Kawada-Smith discloses: a site terminal device configured to transmit site information indicating an actual value obtained at a site ([0094], information of demand side (an estimate value and an actual value) , wherein the model expression generation unit generates the model expression based on the site information received from the site terminal device, the characteristic information, and the connection information (Kawata: [0021], A characteristic expression using the amount of input and output energy and the coefficients of performance for the equipment is defined (equipment characteristics)) . As per claim 15, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim1, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 1 are incorporated herein. As per claim 16, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim1, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 1 are incorporated herein. Examiner’s Note Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action . Ohara (US Publication 20170132538) PLANT MODEL CREATING DEVICE, PLANT MODEL CREATING METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM Liu (US Publication 20240047974) METHOD AND APPARATUS OF FREQUENCY REGULATION OF POWER SYSTEM INVOLVING RENEWABLE ENERGY POWER GENERATION, DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck , 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson , 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Lu whose telephone number is 571-270-1410 and fax number is 571-270-2410. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached on 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-273-8300. 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. /Hua Lu/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/777,163 Page 2 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/777,163 Page 3 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/777,163 Page 4 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/777,163 Page 5 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/777,163 Page 6 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/777,163 Page 7 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/777,163 Page 8 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/777,163 Page 9 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/777,163 Page 10 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/777,163 Page 11 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/777,163 Page 12 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/777,163 Page 13 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/777,163 Page 14 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/777,163 Page 15 Art Unit: 2118 Application/Control Number: 18/777,163 Page 16 Art Unit: 2118
Prosecution Insights