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 the first Office action responsive to application 18875366 filed 12/6/2024. Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 & 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1:
The recitation “constant to continuous” (last two lines) is believed to be in error for - - constant to a continuous - -.
Regarding Claims 2-10:
The recitation “device for the gas turbine according” (l. 1) is believed to be in error for - - device according - -.
Regarding Claim 7:
The recitation “by a time a rotation speed of the rotor increases by 300 rpm from a time point of the switch timing” is believed to be in error for - - once a rotation speed of the rotor increases by 300 rpm after the switch timing - -.
Regarding Claim 11:
The recitation “constant to continuous” (2nd to last line) is believed to be in error for - - constant to a continuous - -.
Regarding Claim 12:
The recitation “gas turbine facility” (l. 1) is believed to be in error for - - gas turbine system - -.
Regarding Claim 14:
The recitation “to continuous increase” (last two lines) is believed to be in error for - - to a continuous increase - -.
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: “a fuel command value calculation unit…” (claim 1), “an acceleration rate setting unit…” (claim 1), “a motor output setting unit…” (claim 3), “a fuel command value calculation unit…” (claim 11), “a motor output setting unit…” (claim 11).
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 § 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.
Regarding Independent Claim 14, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 14 is directed to software per se without any structural limitations. See MPEP 2106.03 I.
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 2, 4-5, & 8-10 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.
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, the recitation “the acceleration rate setting unit is configured to set a first acceleration rate as the acceleration rate set value at a time point prior to the switching timing and is configured to increase the acceleration rate set value to a second acceleration rate greater than the first acceleration rate after the switching time” is vague and indefinite because it is unclear what is required in claim 2 that is not already required in claim 1. Claim 1 requires increasing the acceleration rate set value after the switching timing, which would require two set values: a first value and a higher second value.
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, the recitation “the motor output setting unit is configured to set a first output as the output set value at a time point prior to the switching timing and is configured to increase the output set value to a second output greater than the first output after the switching timing” is vague and indefinite because it is unclear what is required in claim 4 that is not already required in claim 3. Claim 3 requires increasing the output set value after the switching timing which would require two set values: a first value and a second greater value.
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, the recitation “the acceleration rate setting unit is configured to set a first acceleration rate as the acceleration rate set value at a time point prior to the switching timing and is configured to increase the acceleration rate set value to a second acceleration rate greater than the first acceleration rate after the switching time” is vague and indefinite because it is unclear what is required in claim 5 that is not already required in claim 1. Claim 1 requires increasing the acceleration rate set value after the switching timing, which would require two set values: a first value and a higher second value.
Further regarding Dependent Claim 5, the recitation “the motor output setting unit is configured to set a first output as the output set value at a time point prior to the switching timing and is configured to increase the output set value to a second output greater than the first output after the switching timing” is vague and indefinite because it is unclear what is required in claim 5 that is not already required in claim 3. Claim 3 requires increasing the output set value after the switching timing which would require two set values: a first value and a second greater value.
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, the recitation “the fuel command value calculation unit is configured to calculate, as the fuel command value, a larger one of a first command value which is a constant value and a second command value which is calculated on the basis of a deviation between an actual rotation speed and a target rotation speed of the rotor, during startup of the gas turbine, and wherein the switching timing is a timing at which the fuel command value calculated by the fuel command value calculation unit switches from the first command value to the second command value” is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether (a) both the first command value and the second command value must be calculated or only the larger of the two is calculated (or whether both are calculated and the unit is configured to determine which is the larger of the two), (b) the second command value must also be constant (since claim 1 requires switching from constant to a continuous increase and claim 8 recites the possibility of the second command value being the “fuel command value” recited in claim 1 which is required by claim 1 to be constant), and (c) how the switch in claim 1 can be required to go from the constant value to a continuous increase while claim 8 requires the switch to go from the first command value to the second command value even though the first command value, as claimed in claim 8, could potentially be higher than the second command value (i.e. if the first command value is higher than the second command value, then how can the calculation unit switch from constant, at the higher first value, to a continuous increase if the switch to the second command value requires a decrease in fuel since the second command value can be lower than the first command value?).
Dependent Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for their dependence from claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurschat 20130174570.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Kurschat teaches a control device (Fig. 1, controller 150) for controlling operation of a gas turbine (110), comprising:
a fuel command value calculation unit for calculating a fuel command value to be provided to the gas turbine (Fig. 4, controller 150 implements fuel schedule 404); and
an acceleration rate setting unit for setting an acceleration rate set value of a rotor of the gas turbine (Fig. 3, controller 150 implements acceleration rate command 304), wherein
the acceleration rate setting unit is configured to increase the acceleration rate set value (Fig. 3, 304 increases), during startup of the gas turbine (para. [0036]) and after a switching timing at which the fuel command value calculated by the fuel command value calculation unit switches from constant to continuous increase (304 increases after fuel command 404 in Fig. 4 switches from substantially constant to continuous increase).
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Kurschat further teaches the acceleration rate setting unit is configured to set a first acceleration rate as the acceleration rate set value at a time point prior to the switching timing (first acceleration rate prior to switching timing discussed for claim 1 above) and is configured to increase the acceleration rate set value to a second acceleration rate greater than the first acceleration rate after the switching timing (second acceleration rate after the switching timing discussed for claim 1 above is greater than the first acceleration rate).
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Kurschat further teaches a motor output setting unit for setting an output set value of a start-up motor of the gas turbine (150 controls starter 140; para. [0015]), wherein the motor output setting unit is configured to increase the output set value, after the switching timing (after the switching timing discussed for claim 1 above, the acceleration command value 304, which controls the starter 140, increases which thereby increases the motor output set value; para. [0036]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Kurschat further teaches the motor output setting unit is configured to set a first output as the output set value at a time point prior to the switching timing and is configured to increase the output set value to a second output greater than the first output after the switching timing (as acceleration command value 304 controls output of starter 140, prior to switching timing discussed for claim 1 above, the acceleration command value 304 is a first, lower value and then switches, after the switching timing, to a second higher value which will result in the motor output set value increasing from a first lower value to a second higher value).
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Kurschat further teaches the acceleration rate setting unit and the motor output setting unit are configured to simultaneously increase the acceleration rate set value and the output set value, after the switching timing (the acceleration rate setting unit determines the acceleration and the controller signals to the motor to act accordingly, thus the acceleration rate set value and the output set value will simultaneously increase).
Regarding Independent Claim 11, Kurschat teaches a control device (Fig. 1, controller 150) for controlling operation of a gas turbine (110), comprising:
a fuel command value calculation unit for calculating a fuel command value to be provided to the gas turbine (Fig. 4, controller 150 implements fuel schedule 404); and
a motor output setting unit for setting an output set value of a start-up motor of the gas turbine (Fig. 3, controller 150 implements acceleration rate command 304, which will provide a motor output set value based thereon to control starter 140; paras. [0015], [0036]), wherein
the motor output setting unit is configured to increase the output set value (Fig. 3, 304 increases and thus the motor output set value also will increase), during startup of the gas turbine (para. [0036]) and after a switching timing at which the fuel command value calculated by the fuel command value calculation unit switches from constant to continuous increase (304 increases after fuel command 404 in Fig. 4 switches from substantially constant to continuous increase, and thus the motor output set value will do the same).
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, Kurschat further teaches a gas turbine facility (Fig. 1), comprising:
a gas turbine (110) including a compressor (112) for compressing air, a combustor (114) for generating a combustion gas by a combustion reaction between fuel and the compressed air from the compressor, and a turbine (116) configured to be driven by the combustion gas from the combustor; and
the control device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), configured to control the operation of the gas turbine (Fig. 1, controller 150 controls operation of 110).
Regarding Independent Claim 13, Kurschat teaches a control method (para. [0001]) for controlling operation of a gas turbine (Fig. 1, gas turbine 110), comprising:
a fuel command value calculation step of calculating a fuel command value to be provided to the gas turbine (Fig. 4, fuel command value 404); and
an acceleration rate setting step of setting an acceleration rate set value of a rotor of the gas turbine (Fig. 3, acceleration schedule with acceleration rate set value 304), wherein
the acceleration rate setting step includes increasing the acceleration rate set value, during startup of the gas turbine and after a switching timing at which the fuel command value calculated in the fuel command value calculation step switches from constant to continuous increase (the italicized limitation is directed to a contingent limitation, and given that the “increasing the acceleration rate set value…” depends on startup of the gas turbine, which is not positively recited, the “increasing the acceleration rate set value…” limitation is not required in the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation – nonetheless, Fig. 3, shows that 304 increases after fuel command 404 in Fig. 4 switches from substantially constant to continuous increase; para. [0036]).
Regarding Independent Claim 14, Kurschat teaches a control program (stored in memory; para. [0022]) for controlling operation of a gas turbine (Fig. 1, gas turbine 110), the control program being configured to cause a computer to execute:
a fuel command value calculation process of calculating a fuel command value to be provided to the gas turbine (Fig. 4, fuel command value 404); and
an acceleration rate setting process of setting an acceleration rate set value of a rotor of the gas turbine (Fig. 3, acceleration schedule with acceleration rate set value 304), wherein
the acceleration rate setting process includes increasing the acceleration rate set value, during startup of the gas turbine and after a switching timing at which the fuel command value calculated in the fuel command value calculation process switches from constant to continuous increase (Fig. 3, shows that 304 increases after fuel command 404 in Fig. 4 switches from substantially constant to continuous increase; para. [0036]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7 & 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, the prior art fails to teach, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim, a ratio rA/rB of a ratio rA of the second acceleration rate to the first acceleration rate to a ratio rB of the second output to the first output is at least 0.8 and at most 1.2.
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, the prior art fails to teach, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim, the acceleration rate setting unit is configured to start increasing the acceleration rate set value by a time a rotation speed of the rotor increases by 300 rpm from a time point of the switch timing.
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, the prior art fails to teach, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim, the fuel command value calculation unit is configured to calculate, as the fuel command value, a larger one of a first command value which is a constant value and a second command value which is calculated on the basis of a deviation between an actual rotation speed and a target rotation speed of the rotor, during startup of the gas turbine. The closest prior art, Kurschat, teaches the calculation of multiple fuel command values (404) one of which is substantially constant (see Fig. 4 at left side of 404) and one of which deviates (right hand side of 404). Kurschat, however, fails to teach the second command value is calculated on the basis of a deviation between an actual rotation speed and a target rotation speed of the rotor during startup of the gas turbine. Kurschat’s fuel command values are based on engine speed in percent rather than a comparison between actual and target engine speeds. Even if Kurschat were modified to provide feedback control over the speed in the continuously increasing portion of the fuel schedule 404, it is unclear that the timing of the acceleration rate setting unit increasing the acceleration rate set value (after the switching timing) would remain the same as is shown in Figs. 3 & 4 (e.g. it is not clear whether, based on such a feedback control of the speed, a continuously increasing fuel command would be calculated by the fuel command value calculation unit after the switching point, since feedback control necessarily involves increasing, decreasing, and maintaining setpoint values based on measured outputs of the system).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J WALTHOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4999. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m. Eastern.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/SCOTT J WALTHOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights