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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a non-final action in response to application filed on 11/06/2024. Claims 1-8 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 11/06/2024 has been considered.
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: various “units” in claims 1-6
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.
Examiner recommends incorporating structures that are capable of completely performing the entire function (e.g., a computer including CPU and memory) that encompasses each and every one of these units if such invocation is NOT the intended scope. The above recommendation is purely a suggestion and NOT a requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A prong 1
As per claim 1, the following steps recites an abstract idea.
… stores correlation data indicating a correlation of a reference control parameter … serving as a reference and a reference response … output by using the reference control parameter
… acquires a target response … output by using a target control parameter …;
… acquires the correlation data and the target response signal and calculates a correlation control parameter corresponding to the target response signal in the reference device by using the correlation data
… calculates an adjustment amount of the target control parameter based on the correlation control parameter and the reference control parameter
The above limitations falls into mental processes for at least the reason of being synonymous to Electric Power Groups’ collecting information and analyzing information, which falls into mental processes. Further, the step can be performed using pen and paper by graphing relationship among data collected and determine an optimal value (e.g., see Fig. 3A and 3B, noting the graph can be different shape such as linear). Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2
In this case, the additional element is various units that are generic computer components that are used to perform the abstract idea and that these units performs the abstract idea using signals (e.g., electronic signals) where the intended operating environment being fluid control devices. All of these are merely describing the intended field of use in high level. Further, examiner particularly notes that any adjustment to the controller or the operation of such adjusted controller to control fluid is outside the scope of claim 1. Claim 1’s scope ends at adjustment amount being calculated. Therefore, any potential improvement resulted from applying adjustment calculation is not part of analysis. Therefore, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, the additional element are merely generally linking the abstract idea to particular field of use, which would not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Step 2B
As noted above in step 2A prong 2, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements are nothing more than generally linking the abstract idea into particular field of use. The same analysis would apply in step 2B and therefore claim 1 is not eligible.
Claims 2-6 can bs similarly analyzed as further additional elements are also discussed in high level as generally linking the abstract idea into particular field of use while these claims also merely further limit the abstract idea using these further additional elements. Claims 7-8 can be similarly analyzed as claim 1.
Examiner suggest positively requiring the adjusted controller to control fluid into independent claims. Such amendment would likely integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lull (US 20200073415) in view of Jablokov (US 20170031337)
As per claim 1, Lull discloses a control parameter calculation apparatus that calculates a control parameter of a fluid control apparatus that controls a fluid, the control parameter calculation apparatus comprising:
a correlation data storage unit that stores correlation data indicating a correlation of a reference control parameter of
a target response signal acquisition unit that acquires a target response signal output by using a target control parameter of a target device
a correlation control parameter calculation unit that acquires the correlation data and the target response signal and calculates a correlation control parameter corresponding to the target response signal
a target control parameter adjustment amount calculation unit that calculates an adjustment amount of the target control parameter based on the correlation control parameter and the reference control parameter (0026, model adjusted periodically based on use case).
Lull discloses a model for fluid control apparatus that controls a fluid where the model is adjusted periodically. It doesn’t explicitly states that the initial model is from a reference fluid control device different from the device being controlled.
Jabloku teaches building model to monitor control algorithm for devices based on data collected on multiple devices (0367, model created from collected data. See 0468 that collected data is based on multiple users on multiple devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Jabloku’s modeling method of using data from other devices with Lull’s control model for the purpose of generating a more accurate initial model based on larger number of feedbacks from multiple machines.
As per claim 2, Lull further discloses the control parameter calculation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the target response signal acquisition unit acquires a plurality of the target response signals, and the correlation control parameter calculation unit calculates one or one set of the correlation control parameters from the plurality of target response signals (0026-0030 and see Fig. 3B multiple values are collected and correlated for modeling).
As per claim 3, Lull further discloses the control parameter calculation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the target control parameter adjustment amount calculation unit obtains a difference between the correlation control parameter and the reference control parameter and sets the difference as the adjustment amount of the target control parameter (0026, 0029, GLL gain being determined).
As per claim 4, Lull discloses the control parameter calculation apparatus according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the correlation control parameter calculation unit calculates the correlation control parameter from the target response signal using a Gaussian mixture regression model.
Jabloku teaches using Gaussian mixture regression model for modeling a control system (0367).
The rationale to combine would persist from claim 1.
As per claim 6, Lull does not but Jabloku teaches the control parameter calculation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the correlation data storage unit stores the correlation data created by using machine learning (0370).
The rationale to combine would persist from claim 1.
Claims 7-8 contain limitations substantially similar to claim 1 and would be rejected under similar rationale set forth above.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lull (US 20200073415) in view of Jablokov (US 20170031337), further in view of Mehta (US 20090112335)
As per claim 5, Lull discloses the control parameter calculation apparatus according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the target response signal acquisition unit acquires the target response signal output by using the target control parameter of the target device at a time of initial setting when the target control parameter is set for a first time, and the correlation control parameter calculation unit calculates the correlation control parameter from the target response signal of the target device at the time of initial setting.
Lull however, discloses performing the above steps on periodic basis without specifying a restriction on time period where such steps can not be performed. Therefore the only difference is explicitly stating performing the above step at the very first time of initialization of the system.
Mehta teaches performing calibration of system at the initialization for the first time (0083).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to perform calibration at the first time as taught by Mehta to Lull’s model algorithm for the purpose of ensuring system is performing accurately at the first time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM -5:00 PM 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
GEORGE CHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights