DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to the applicant’s filing the application on 08/15/2024.
The application has claims 1-11 present. All present claims have been examined.
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) and cited references filed 8/15/2024, have been reviewed by the examiner.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their 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. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3, 5 and 7 recites the term "and/or", which is selective language, the examiner suggests using either the "and" term or the "or" term, otherwise the claim should be worded in a clearer fashion to claim both terms. For the purpose of this examination the examiner is selecting the "or" term from this selective language.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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:
Claim 1: input module; configuration module; optimization module; uncertainty quantification module; output module
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: In para 17, it mentions that the processor executes the module instructions.
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.
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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piche et al. (US 6278899).
In regards to claims (1, 8 and 11), Piche teaches a controller for providing an optimized control signal for controlling a technical system, the controller comprising: an input module configured to read in sensor data related to the technical system (see at least FIG. 6, Col 10 lines 34-55, Col 31 lines 16-28: obtains sensor data for the system), a configuration module configured to provide a first configuration parameter for configuring an optimization module and a second configuration parameter for configuring an uncertainty quantification module, the optimization module configured to provide a control signal depending on the first configuration parameter (see FIG. 6 and at least Col 9, lines 21-30; Col 10 to Col 11 line 37 and Col 19: 28-40: provides teaching configuring parameters which are used within the model, taking into consideration error associated with the model “compensate for the errors associated with the dynamic model wherein the value of k.sub.d is determined based on perturbations in the plant on a given set of operating conditions.”).
However, Piche doesn’t specifically mention the uncertainty quantification module configured to provide an uncertainty range or statistical distribution for the control signal depending on the second configuration parameter, to determine respective performance values for said or a given control signal within the uncertainty range or the statistical distribution by a computer-aided simulation of the technical system considering the sensor data and to analyze the respective performance values and to provide an analysis result, and an output module configured to output an optimized control signal for controlling the technical system by selecting, by the optimization module, the control signal as optimal according to the analysis result.
Piche does teach as shown in FIG. 6, 9 and 11 and at least Col 10, lines 34 to Col 11 line 29, Col 15 line 53 to Col 16 line 7, Col 19 lines 28-56, Col 28 lines 10-15 and Col 31 lines 16-28, that the system obtains sensor data and uses it to input into the model to optimize for future values. As mentioned above, it takes into consideration associated errors. The system provides analysis results using performance values (see at least Col 1 lines 30-33, Col 28 lines 9-60 and Col 29 lines 10-33). Using the values on the mathematical model and simulate and providing an optimized control signal to be used based on the analysis (see at least Col 28 lines 40-60).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings taught by Piche in order to simulate using sensor values and taking into account uncertainties/errors in order to analyze and provide optimized output/performance values since a person skilled in the art who would have been motivated in order to provide an optimizer for modeling the operation of the plant and for receiving target plant output values and optimization criteria for generating plant input values that are optimized in accordance with the optimization criteria and with respect to predetermined operating parameters (see Col 4 lines 9-13).
In regard to claim 2. Piche teaches wherein the optimization module is further configured to select an optimized control signal or to provide another control signal depending on the analysis result provided by the uncertainty quantification module (see at least Col 28 lines 38-60: “As the strength of the relationship increases as a function of the delay value, then it would be noted that the points tend to come together in a strong relationship, and the value of MI increases. The delay d.sub.j having the strongest relationship will therefore be selected as the proper delay for that given u.sub.i (t))”.
In regard to claim 3. Piche teaches wherein the first configuration parameter and/or the second configuration parameter depend on the sensor data (see at least Col 14 lines 58-62 and Col 31 lines 20-25: “There are various inputs provided to the plant in the form of u(t). This will provide an actual output y.sup.a (t). Although not illustrated, the plant has a number of measurable state variables which constitute the output of various sensors such as flow meters, temperature sensors, etc. These can provide data that is utilized for various training operations,)”.
In regard to claim 4. Piche teaches wherein the first configuration parameter relates to a predefined range of control signals (see Col 28 lines 10-45 teaches predefined range used for analysis).
In regard to claim 6. Piche teaches wherein the optimizing module is configured to provide a control signal by an optimization algorithm (see FIG. and at least Col 10 lines 14-22:” the dynamic model 22 has the output thereof input to a parameter-adaptive control algorithm block 60 which adjusts the parameters in the coefficient storage block 38, which also receives the scaled values of k, b.sub.i. This is a system that is updated on a periodic basis, as defined by timing block 62. The control algorithm 60 utilizes both the input u and the output y for the purpose of determining and updating the parameters in the storage area 38.”).
In regard to claim 7. Piche doesn’t specifically teach wherein the uncertainty quantification module is configured to determine the respective performance values for control signals within the uncertainty range or the statistical distribution by the computer-aided simulation of the technical system considering also a given measurement uncertainty of the sensor data and/or a given parameter uncertainty of a parameter of the computer-aided simulation.
Piche does teaches in Col 19 lines 28-56, Col 28 lines 10-15 within the analysis and calculation taking into account error and accuracy “uncertainty factor” in the optimization process to output the control signal.
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings taught by Piche in order to simulate using sensor values and taking into account uncertainties/errors in order to analyze and provide optimized output/performance values since a person skilled in the art who would have been motivated in order to provide an optimizer for modeling the operation of the plant and for receiving target plant output values and optimization criteria for generating plant input values that are optimized in accordance with the optimization criteria and with respect to predetermined operating parameters (see Col 4 lines 9-13).
In regard to claim 9, Piche teaches further comprising: depending on the analysis result, outputting the optimized control signal or providing another control signal and repeating d)-f) (see at least Col 14 lines 58-62 and Col 31 lines 20-25: “There are various inputs provided to the plant in the form of u(t). This will provide an actual output y.sup.a (t). Although not illustrated, the plant has a number of measurable state variables which constitute the output of various sensors such as flow meters, temperature sensors, etc. These can provide data that is utilized for various training operations,)”.
In regard to claim 10, Piche doesn’t specifically teaches wherein more than one control signal and corresponding uncertainty ranges or statistical distributions are provided and e)-f) are performed for each of these control signals in parallel.
Piche does teaches in Col 19 lines 28-56, Col 28 lines 10-15 within the analysis and calculation taking into account error and accuracy “uncertainty factor” in the optimization process to output the control signal.
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings taught by Piche in order to simulate using sensor values and taking into account uncertainties/errors in order to analyze and provide optimized output/performance values since a person skilled in the art who would have been motivated in order to provide an optimizer for modeling the operation of the plant and for receiving target plant output values and optimization criteria for generating plant input values that are optimized in accordance with the optimization criteria and with respect to predetermined operating parameters (see Col 4 lines 9-13).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piche et al. (US 6278899), in view of Provost et al. (EP0315307) as provided by the IDS.
In regard to claim 5, Piche doesn’t specifically teach wherein the second configuration parameter relates to a given measurement uncertainty of the sensor data and/or a given parameter uncertainty of a parameter of the computer-aided simulation.
Provost teaches wherein the second configuration parameter relates to a given measurement uncertainty of the sensor data and/or a given parameter uncertainty of a parameter of the computer-aided simulation (see page 3 lines 32-43 and page 6 lines 21-40: calculating using sensor uncertainty/biases).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings taught by Provost in combination with Piche in order take into account uncertainty since a person skilled in the art who would have been motivated in order to account for those biases in order to provide an optimizer output which takes into account measurement uncertainty of the sensor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7971. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:30am-5:30pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights