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 in response to the correspondence filed on 4/30/2026.
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 10, 12-23, and their dependent claims, 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.
Claims 10 and 18: in “a frequency analysis on vibration due to a pressure or an acceleration inside a combustor of a gas turbine”, it is unclear what “acceleration” is referring it, it is unclear what is accelerating.
Claim 12, 19: The term “region” in “a region to which the operating point belongs out of a plurality of areas” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term region” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how big the region is and how it affects “a plurality of areas”.
Claim 12, 19: The term “range” in “an operating point range” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The “range” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how big the range is and how big “a plurality of areas” are.
Claims 13 and 20 recite the limitation " the waiting time". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 14 and 21 recite the limitation "the search routes" in “select the search candidate operating point from one of the search routes”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 14, 21: it is unclear how the process amount relates to “a second virtual space” in ”a second virtual space having dimensions corresponding to the process amount”. The specification describes “the process amount” in paragraph [0026] as “Here, for example, the process amount is generated power (generated current and generated voltage) of the generator 121, an air temperature and humidity around the gas turbine 2, a fuel flow rate and pressure in each part of the gas turbine 2, an air flow rate and pressure, a combustion gas temperature in the combustor 111, a combustion gas flow rate, a combustion gas pressure, a rotation speed of the compressor 101 or the turbine 104, and concentration of emission including nitrogen oxide (NOx) contained in an exhaust gas of the turbine 104 and carbon monoxide (CO)”, but it is unclear how a second virtual space is has dimensions corresponding to the items in the list, and what the dimensions are.
Claims 14, 21: in “select the search candidate operating point from one of the search routes having a highest uncertainty”, it is unclear how ‘search candidate operating point” relates to “search routes”, it is unclear how the point is selected from the route, which appears to be in a virtual space defined by a process amount, such as generated power (see previous 112 rejection of claim 14 above).
Claim 14: recites the limitation “the search routes” in “select the search candidate operating point from one of the search route routes”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15: in “a route including operating points where process amounts are different”, it is unclear if “a route” is related to “a plurality of search routes” recited earlier in claim 14.
Claim 15: in “a route including operating points where process amounts are different”, it is unclear if “process amounts” is related to “process amounts” recited earlier in claim 10.
Claim 15: it is unclear if “operating points” is related to “operating points” recited earlier in claim 10.
Claims 16, 22: it is unclear what the limitation “a change speed” in “a change speed of the control signal” means. It is unclear if it refers to a) a signal sent by the control signal, or b) a change to the control signal, or c) something else. It is also unclear if it describes a specific amount of change in speed, or a signal to change speed, or something else.
Claims 17 and 23 recites the limitation “a state ascertaining unit for ascertaining a state of the gas turbine at the operating point, based on the process amount”, but it is unclear if the state of the gas turbine is ascertained based on the process amount, or, if the operating point is based on the process amount, or something else.
The rejections above are based on the best attempt to interpret and understand the limitations. Additional rejections under 112(b) may apply to the present claims upon further clarification, understanding and interpretation of the language in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10-13, 16-20, 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nomura 20090125207.
The rejection below is based on the best attempt to understand the limitation, see 112(b) rejections above.
Regarding claim 10, Nomura teaches:
A gas turbine control device (100, Fig. 2) comprising:
a frequency analysis unit (a frequency analyzing unit 25, Abstract) for outputting a frequency analysis result by performing a frequency analysis on vibration due to a pressure or an acceleration inside a combustor of a gas turbine (“a frequency analyzing unit 25 performs a frequency analysis of combustion oscillation of a combustor”, abstract) at operating points (a frequency analysis of combustion oscillation of a combustor and splits a result of the analysis into respective frequency bands, abstract) within a management range (Fig. 8, “a pilot ratio of the fuel to be supplied to all the combustors 111-1 to 111-m” [0102], where the ratio of fuel is managed within a range, and Nomura’s management range can be understood as the range of different values found during operation of operation of the gas turbine engine), the operating points corresponding to process amounts of the gas turbine (the analysis of the combustion oscillation and process value of the gas turbine, abstract), the management range including at least one of (i) a range of vibration frequencies inside the combustor, (ii) a range of fuel flow rates to the combustor (“a pilot ratio of the fuel to be supplied to all the combustors 111-1 to 111-m” [0102]), and (iii) a range of power levels generated by the gas turbine (power level is related to, inter alia, fuel flow rate, which is discussed above; vibration, fuel flow and power are known to be managed during operation of a gas turbine engine);
a database for storing the frequency analysis result and the process amount as analysis data for each of the operating points (the database for the data concerning combustion stability are switched along with the change in the fuel characteristic, [0261]);
a combustion state prediction unit (estimating unit 400 determines the category based on the ratio between the power generator output (the gas turbine output) and the fuel flow rate, while the state grasping unit 22 accumulates the category determined by the fuel characteristic estimating unit 400 as well as the various process amounts and the maximum values of the oscillation intensity in the data table for state check, and so forth, [0260]) for predicting a combustion state of the gas turbine by using a prediction model constructed by using the analysis data (“the data table for state check used for modeling the combustion characteristic are switched in response to the category of the fuel characteristic” [0261]); and
a correction amount calculation unit (countermeasure determining unit 23 [0206]) for calculating a correction amount to be added to a control signal of the gas turbine to operate the gas turbine (the amounts of correction applicable to the state change amounts obtained by the countermeasure determining unit 23 [0206]) at a second operating point (“the pilot ratio set up as the state change amounts so as to increase the thermal efficiency of the gas turbine system 1 confirmed by the performance characteristic grasping unit 29” [0206] and also as discussed in [0207]) corresponding to a search candidate operating point searched for starting from a first operating point (“A countermeasure determining unit 23 conducts a countermeasure for controlling an operating action of the gas turbine on the basis of the operating state thus checked” Abstract) and having the combustion state predicted by the state prediction unit which does not deviate from the management range (“a state grasping unit 22 checks an operating state of the gas turbine on the basis of the result of the analysis of the combustion oscillation and process value of the gas turbine, and corrects the checked operating state on the basis of a fuel composition or a heat capacity of fuel gas measured by a fuel characteristic measuring unit 200” Abstract), when a set waiting time based on a past search result in an operating point range including the first operating point has elapsed (“capable of changing an amount of correction in response to variation with time of the gas turbine” Abstract; “the oscillation intensity and the various process amounts Xi1, Xi2, Xx1, Xx2, Xy1, and Xy2, which are stored for the respective time t1, t2, and so on in the data table for state check as shown in FIG. 8” [0160]).
Regarding claim 11, Nomura teaches the invention as discussed for claim 10. Nomura further teaches:
The gas turbine control device according to Claim 10,
wherein when the past search result in the operating point range is present, the correction amount calculation unit is configured to set as the set waiting time a second waiting time which is longer than a first waiting time corresponding to when there is no past search result in the operating point (“Meanwhile, when the countermeasure to take priority is determined in each of the frequency bands in STEP 115, it is also possible to determine the countermeasure having the second highest priority if the combustion oscillation does not disappear after performing the countermeasure having the highest priority continuously for a predetermined number of times of the processing cycles. Similarly, when the priorities are set to each of the frequency bands, it is also possible to determine the countermeasure having the second highest priority if the combustion oscillation does not disappear after performing the countermeasure corresponding to the same frequency band continuously for a predetermined number of times of the processing cycles” [0140]; “combustor 111 is set up with the function applying the output of the gas turbine 2 (the power generator output), so that the timing (time) when the fuel gas reaches the combustor 111 can be synchronized with the timing (time) of taking the measured value into the state grasping unit 22 and the combustion characteristic grasping unit 28 on the basis of this time delay” [0242]; “, it is possible to shorten a sampling cycle (a measurement cycle) of the fuel gas by installing the multiple fuel characteristic detecting units and shifting the timing for measuring the fuel” [0030]).
Regarding claim 12, Nomura teaches the invention as discussed for claim 10. Also see rejection under 112(b) above. Nomura teaches the invention as discussed for claim 10. Nomura further teaches:
The gas turbine control device according to Claim 10, wherein the operating point range (inter alia, alpha.1) is defined as a region to which the operating point (Coordinate positions Q1-Q4) belongs within a plurality of areas of a divided a first virtual space defined by the process amount (space in Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 13, see rejection under 112(b) above. Nomura teaches the invention as discussed for claim 10. Nomura further teaches:
The gas turbine control device according to Claim 10, wherein the waiting time is set to become shorter as an amount of data included in the operating point range in the analysis data stored in the database decreases (inter alia, “According to the eighth embodiment, the sampling cycle (the measurement cycle) of the fuel gas can be shortened” [0232], the system is capable of being set as necessary).
Regarding claim 16, see rejections under 112(b) above. Nomura teaches the invention as discussed for claim 10. Nomura further teaches:
The gas turbine control device according to Claim 10, wherein the correction amount calculation unit is configured to calculate the correction amount so that a change speed of the control signal becomes variable by adding the correction amount, based on at least one of the amount of data included in the past search result or stability of the combustion state predicted by the combustion state prediction unit at the search candidate operating point (as already discussed, and “to provide a gas turbine control device which is capable of performing correction on the basis of a fuel composition of fuel gas to be supplied to a gas turbine, and is capable of changing an amount of correction in response to variation with time of the gas turbine. To attain this, a frequency analyzing unit 25 performs a frequency analysis of combustion oscillation of a combustor and splits a result of the analysis into respective frequency bands. Then, a state grasping unit 22 checks an operating state of the gas turbine on the basis of the result of the analysis of the combustion oscillation and process value of the gas turbine, and corrects the checked operating state on the basis of a fuel composition or a heat capacity of fuel gas measured by a fuel characteristic measuring unit 200. A countermeasure determining unit 23 conducts a countermeasure for controlling an operating action of the gas turbine on the basis of the operating state thus checked.” Abstract)
Regarding claim 17, see rejections under 112(b) above. Nomura teaches the invention as discussed for claim 10. Nomura further teaches:
The gas turbine control device according to Claim 10, further comprising: a state ascertaining unit for ascertaining a state of the gas turbine at the operating point (“a state grasping unit 22 checks an operating state of the gas turbine”, Abstract), based on the process amount (“a state grasping unit 22 checks an operating state of the gas turbine on the basis of the result of the analysis of the combustion oscillation and process value of the gas turbine, and corrects the checked operating state on the basis of a fuel composition or a heat capacity of fuel gas measured by a fuel characteristic measuring unit 200”, Abstract), wherein the correction amount calculation unit is configured to stop calculating the correction amount, when the state ascertained by the state ascertaining unit deviates from the management range (“A countermeasure determining unit 23 conducts a countermeasure for controlling an operating action of the gas turbine on the basis of the operating state thus checked”, abstract; “; a countermeasure determining unit for determining an increase or decrease in a flow rate of at least one of a fuel flow rate and an air flow rate to the combustor on the basis of the current state of operation of the gas turbine confirmed by the state grasping unit” [0008], “the amounts of correction to be set up in STEP 117 may be set equal to 1 in the ranges where it is not necessary to correct the state change amounts of the respective units of the gas turbine 2 while changing the amounts of correction in response to the fuel composition information in other ranges” [0137]).
Regarding claim 18, see rejection under 112(b) above. Nomura teaches:
A gas turbine (100, Fig. 2) control method comprising:
outputting a frequency analysis result by performing a frequency analysis on vibration due to a pressure or an acceleration inside a combustor of a gas turbine (“a frequency analyzing unit 25 performs a frequency analysis of combustion oscillation of a combustor”, abstract) at operating points within a management range (Fig. 8, “a pilot ratio of the fuel to be supplied to all the combustors 111-1 to 111-m” [0102], where the ratio of fuel is managed within a range, and Nomura’s management range can be understood as the range of different values found during operation of operation of the gas turbine engine), the operating points corresponding to process amount amounts of the gas turbine (the analysis of the combustion oscillation and process value of the gas turbine, abstract), the management range including at least one of (i) a range of vibration frequencies inside the combustor, (ii) a range of fuel flow rates to the combustor(“a pilot ratio of the fuel to be supplied to all the combustors 111-1 to 111-m” [0102]), and (iii) a range of power levels generated by the gas turbine (power level is related to, inter alia, fuel flow rate, which is discussed above; vibration, fuel flow and power are known to be managed during operation of a gas turbine engine); a process amount of the gas turbine (the analysis of the combustion oscillation and process value of the gas turbine, abstract);
storing the frequency analysis result and the process amount as analysis data for each of the operating points (the database for the data concerning combustion stability are switched along with the change in the fuel characteristic, [0261]);
predicting a combustion state of the gas turbine by using a prediction model constructed by using the analysis data (estimating unit 400 determines the category based on the ratio between the power generator output (the gas turbine output) and the fuel flow rate, while the state grasping unit 22 accumulates the category determined by the fuel characteristic estimating unit 400 as well as the various process amounts and the maximum values of the oscillation intensity in the data table for state check, and so forth, [0260] “the data table for state check used for modeling the combustion characteristic are switched in response to the category of the fuel characteristic” [0261]);
and calculating a correction amount (by using “(countermeasure determining unit 23” [0206]) to be added to a control signal of the gas turbine to operate the gas turbine (the amounts of correction applicable to the state change amounts obtained by the countermeasure determining unit 23 [0206]; also see rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b) above) at a second operating point (“the pilot ratio set up as the state change amounts so as to increase the thermal efficiency of the gas turbine system 1 confirmed by the performance characteristic grasping unit 29” [0206] and also as discussed in [0207]) corresponding to a search candidate operating point searched for starting from a first operating point (“A countermeasure determining unit 23 conducts a countermeasure for controlling an operating action of the gas turbine on the basis of the operating state thus checked” Abstract) and having the combustion state predicted by the state prediction unit which does not deviate from the management range (“a state grasping unit 22 checks an operating state of the gas turbine on the basis of the result of the analysis of the combustion oscillation and process value of the gas turbine, and corrects the checked operating state on the basis of a fuel composition or a heat capacity of fuel gas measured by a fuel characteristic measuring unit 200” Abstract), when a set waiting time based on a past search result in an operating point range including the first operating point has elapsed (“capable of changing an amount of correction in response to variation with time of the gas turbine” Abstract; “the oscillation intensity and the various process amounts Xi1, Xi2, Xx1, Xx2, Xy1, and Xy2, which are stored for the respective time t1, t2, and so on in the data table for state check as shown in FIG. 8” [0160]).
Regarding claim 19, see rejections under 112(b) above. Nomura teaches the invention as discussed for claim 11. Nomura further teaches:
The gas turbine control device according to Claim 11, wherein the operating point range (inter alia, alpha.1) is defined as a range to which the operating point (Coordinate positions Q1-Q4) belongs within a plurality of areas of a divided first virtual space defined by the process amount (space in Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 20, see rejections under 112(b) above. Nomura teaches the invention as discussed for claim 11. Nomura further teaches:
The gas turbine control device according to Claim 11
wherein the waiting time is set to become shorter as an amount of data included in the operating point range in the analysis data stored in the database decreases (inter alia, “According to the eighth embodiment, the sampling cycle (the measurement cycle) of the fuel gas can be shortened” [0232], the system is capable of being set as necessary).
Regarding claim 22, see rejections under 112(b) above. Nomura teaches the invention as discussed for claim 11. Nomura further teaches:
The gas turbine control device according to Claim 11
wherein the correction amount calculation unit is configured to calculate the correction amount so that a change speed of the control signal becomes variable by adding the correction amount, based on at least one of the amount of data included in the past search result or stability of the combustion state predicted by the combustion state prediction unit at the search candidate operating point (as already discussed, and “to provide a gas turbine control device which is capable of performing correction on the basis of a fuel composition of fuel gas to be supplied to a gas turbine, and is capable of changing an amount of correction in response to variation with time of the gas turbine. To attain this, a frequency analyzing unit 25 performs a frequency analysis of combustion oscillation of a combustor and splits a result of the analysis into respective frequency bands. Then, a state grasping unit 22 checks an operating state of the gas turbine on the basis of the result of the analysis of the combustion oscillation and process value of the gas turbine, and corrects the checked operating state on the basis of a fuel composition or a heat capacity of fuel gas measured by a fuel characteristic measuring unit 200. A countermeasure determining unit 23 conducts a countermeasure for controlling an operating action of the gas turbine on the basis of the operating state thus checked.” Abstract)
Regarding claim 23, see rejections under 112(b) above. Nomura teaches the invention as discussed for claim 11. Nomura further teaches:
The gas turbine control device according to Claim 11, further comprising: a state ascertaining unit for ascertaining a state of the gas turbine at the operating point (“a state grasping unit 22 checks an operating state of the gas turbine”, Abstract), based on the process amount (“a state grasping unit 22 checks an operating state of the gas turbine on the basis of the result of the analysis of the combustion oscillation and process value of the gas turbine, and corrects the checked operating state on the basis of a fuel composition or a heat capacity of fuel gas measured by a fuel characteristic measuring unit 200”, Abstract), wherein the correction amount calculation unit is configured to stop calculating the correction amount, when the state ascertained by the state ascertaining unit deviates from the management range (“A countermeasure determining unit 23 conducts a countermeasure for controlling an operating action of the gas turbine on the basis of the operating state thus checked”, abstract; “; a countermeasure determining unit for determining an increase or decrease in a flow rate of at least one of a fuel flow rate and an air flow rate to the combustor on the basis of the current state of operation of the gas turbine confirmed by the state grasping unit” [0008], “the amounts of correction to be set up in STEP 117 may be set equal to 1 in the ranges where it is not necessary to correct the state change amounts of the respective units of the gas turbine 2 while changing the amounts of correction in response to the fuel composition information in other ranges” [0137]).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claim(s) 14-15, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura 20090125207 (from now referred to as Nomura‘207) in view of Nomura 7188019 (from now referred to as Nomura‘019).
The rejection below is based on the best attempt to understand the limitation, see 112(b) rejections above.
Regarding claim 14, see rejections under 112(b) above. Nomura’207 teaches the invention as discussed for claim 10. Nomura’207 is silent about:
wherein the correction amount calculation unit is configured to respectively evaluate uncertainty of the prediction model for each of a plurality of search routes settable in a second virtual space having dimensions corresponding to by the process amount, and to select the search candidate operating point from one of the search routes having a highest uncertainty among the plurality of search routes.
However, Nomura’019 teaches a gas turbine control apparatus, and:
wherein the correction amount calculation unit is configured to respectively evaluate uncertainty of the prediction model for each of a plurality of search routes settable in a second virtual space having dimensions corresponding to by the process amount, and to select the search candidate operating point from one of the search routes having a highest uncertainty among the plurality of search routes (“if the data of the restrictive information or the data of the experiential information based on the skilled adjusting operators, contained in the basic data base 31 or the knowledge data base 32, is renewed based on the contents of the adjustment and the change in the state of the gas turbine 2 as the result of the adjustment, an uncertain restrictive information or experiential information not based on sufficient past actual examples can be corrected and a further appropriate control can be carried out.” Col 21 ll. 26-37).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Nomura’207 with Nomura’019's structure discussed above so that “information not based on sufficient past actual examples can be corrected and a further appropriate control can be carried out” Col 21 ll. 26-37
Regarding claim 15, see rejections under 112(b) above. Nomura’207 in view of Nomura’019 teaches the invention as discussed for claim 14.
Nomura’207 further teaches:
each of the plurality of search outes is defined as a route (inter alia, Fig. 11, Fig. 17) including operating points (points along the line in Fig. 11, path from Q1 to QP in Fig. 17) where process amounts (methane concentration in the X axis of Fig. 11, bypass valve opening Fig. 17) are different at a predetermined interval in the second virtual space (intervals can be defined along the route).
Regarding claim 21, see rejections under 112(b) above. Nomura’207 teaches the invention as discussed for claim 11. Nomura’207 is silent about:
wherein the correction amount calculation unit is configured to respectively evaluate uncertainty of the prediction model for each of a plurality of search routes settable in a second virtual space having dimensions corresponding to the process amount, and to select the search candidate operating point from one of the search routes having a highest uncertainty among the plurality of search routes.
However, Nomura’019 teaches a gas turbine control apparatus, and:
wherein the correction amount calculation unit is configured to respectively evaluate uncertainty of the prediction model for each of a plurality of search routes settable in a second virtual space having dimensions corresponding to the process amount, and to select the search candidate operating point from one of the search routes having a highest uncertainty among the plurality of search routes (“if the data of the restrictive information or the data of the experiential information based on the skilled adjusting operators, contained in the basic data base 31 or the knowledge data base 32, is renewed based on the contents of the adjustment and the change in the state of the gas turbine 2 as the result of the adjustment, an uncertain restrictive information or experiential information not based on sufficient past actual examples can be corrected and a further appropriate control can be carried out.” Col 21 ll. 26-37).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Nomura’207 with Nomura’019's structure discussed above so that “information not based on sufficient past actual examples can be corrected and a further appropriate control can be carried out” Col 21 ll. 26-37.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. However, to the extent possible, applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejections above, at the appropriate location.
Applicant’s remarks on page 12 of the Remarks dated 4/30/2026:
PNG
media_image1.png
324
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: Examiner notes that paragraph [0063] of the Specification does not appear to present the same information, and not the same level or clarity, as presented by Applicant’s remarks above.
Applicant argues on pages 13 and 14:
PNG
media_image2.png
155
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Nomura’207 does teach a correction amount calculation unit (countermeasure determining unit 23 [0206]) as discussed in the rejection.
Applicant remarks page 14:
PNG
media_image3.png
649
922
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s remarks: the amended claims appear to describe what is monitored (vibration, fuel flow, power level) but do not appear to provide additional information about the management range (i.e., what the upper and lower limits of the management range would be).
Applicant argues on page 14:
PNG
media_image4.png
281
942
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed above in the rejection, the prior art teaches the limitations as presented in the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roberto T. Igue whose telephone number is (303)297-4389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at (571) 270-5426. 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.
/ROBERTO TOSHIHARU IGUE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights