DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The amendment filed 10/30/2025 has been received and considered. Claims 13-24 and 26-33 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 includes the typo “the a plurality of equations” 3 lines from the bottom. Examiner interprets as “the plurality of equations" for examination purposes.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure is inadequate to support the following limitations: "wherein any of the plurality of equations that are not solvable identifies the inefficiency within the portion of the industrial process" in claims 13 and 21.
Claims 26-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure is inadequate to support the following limitations: "the plurality of equations that are being solved identifies the inefficiency within the portion of the industrial process and solving the plurality of equations eliminates the identified inefficiency" in claim 26.
The specification includes no description of any "equations that are not solvable identifies the inefficiency within the portion of the industrial process" or "the plurality of equations that are being solved identifies the inefficiency within the portion of the industrial process and solving the plurality of equations eliminates the identified inefficiency" associated with these limitations. About "identifies the inefficiency", the specification describes that sensor data allow an operator to detect an inefficient operating condition. The description reads (underline emphasis added):
“BACKGROUND…
[0003]… data produced by the sensors also allow an operator to perform a number of supervisory tasks including: tailor the process (e.g., specify new set points) in response to varying external conditions (including costs of raw materials), detect an inefficient/non-optimal operating condition and/or impending equipment failure, and take remedial actions such as move equipment into and out of service as required…”.
About "within the portion of the industrial process", the specification describes that "[t]he simulation can be used to locate any inefficiency in the current process", but "the current process" refers to "the process of a simulation equation solving technique" and not "the industrial process", as claimed – "equations that are not solvable identifies the inefficiency within the portion of the industrial process" or "the plurality of equations that are being solved identifies the inefficiency within the portion of the industrial process and solving the plurality of equations eliminates the identified inefficiency". The description reads (underline emphasis added):
'SUMMARY
[0006]… a system that models the process for the purpose of simulating it accurately. The simulation can be used to locate any inefficiency in the current process and determine alterations that can improve or eliminate inefficiencies…
[0007] In one aspect, a system simulates a process entity. Software instructions stored on a memory device and executable by a processor generate a plurality of models. The plurality of models including equations that mathematically represent the functionality of the process. Instructions configure the plurality of models to accurately represent the functionality of the process…
DETAILED DESCRIPTION…
[0128] Aspects of the invention related to a solving simulations feature. FIG. 25 is a flow chart describing the process of a simulation equation solving technique 2500 known as Solve on Sufficiency. Solve on Sufficiency is intended to solve the process-mode problem (the set of equations that make up the behavior of the models in the current simulation) constantly, as soon as a solvable set of equations and variables is available. After an initial solution is obtained, Solve on Sufficiency is intended to run immediately in response to any changes in the problem specification…
[0129] When a modification is made to a flowsheet (step 2502), the system immediately analyzes the flowsheet with respect to the modification to determine if the new flowsheet settings render the flowsheet equations solvable (step 2504)…
[0130]… In step 2512, the system would determine that not all of the equations have been solved yet and the system would move on to step 2508, suggesting the user fix or free one or more variables. Once again, the system would then analyze the equations for solvability after the one or more variables have been fixed or freed by the user. This loop will continue until the system can satisfactorily solve all of the equations and does so, returning to the beginning of the flowchart. This process occurs on every modification of a flowsheet in order to ensure that the flowsheet being built is a useful representation of a solvable simulation.
[0131] The variables in the problem will have a "fixed/specified" or "free/calculated" attribute attached to them. If they are "fixed", they will have a numerical value in the corresponding UOM. Some variables may have upper and/or lower bounds defined on them. In process engineering problems, the variables are normally all continuous, but discontinuities should be expected. The equations can be linear or nonlinear. Process engineering model equations are normally sparsely populated…'.
That is, the specification describes that the simulation can be used to locate any inefficiency in "the process of a simulation equation solving technique" but not "the industrial process", as claimed.
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 13-24 and 26-33 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 applicant regards as the invention.
As to claims 13 and 21, the limitation “wherein any of the plurality of equations that are not solvable identifies the inefficiency within the portion of the industrial process” renders the claims indefinite, because the limitation contradicts the specification paragraphs [0003], [0006], [0007], and [0128]-[0131]. The specification describes that the simulation can be used to locate any inefficiency in "the process of a simulation equation solving technique" but not "the industrial process", as claimed (see 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections above). Unsolvable equations do not identify industrial process' inefficiencies. About (un)solvability, the Specification reads (underline emphasis added):
"[0007]… generate… models including equations that mathematically represent the functionality of the process. Instructions configure the plurality of models to accurately represent the functionality of the process. Instructions determine whether the equations of the plurality of models are solvable after each change made to the plurality of models and indicate the result of the determination of solvability of the equations. Instructions suggest changes to the plurality of models that may render the equations solvable if the equations are determined to be unsolvable".
About identifying industrial process' inefficiencies, the Specification reads (underline emphasis added):
"[0006]… a system that models the process for the purpose of simulating it accurately. The simulation can be used to locate any inefficiency in the current process and determine alterations that can improve or eliminate inefficiencies".
As to claim 26, the limitation “the plurality of equations that are being solved identifies the inefficiency within the portion of the industrial process and solving the plurality of equations eliminates the identified inefficiency” in lines 17-19 of the claim renders the claim indefinite (see claims 13 and 21 rejections above). Furthermore, equation solutions or lack thereof do not identify industrial process' inefficiencies.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the changed setting" 3 lines from the bottom. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no "changed setting" anteceding this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the one or more equations" in lines 3 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are no "one or more equations" anteceding this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 32, it is objected for the same deficiency.
Dependent claims inherit the defect of the claim from which they depend.
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 13-24 and 26-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims, Step 1: Claims 13, 21, and 26 recite a system (system = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes).
Independent claim 13 Step 2A, Prong One: Independent claim 13 recites:
determine, by the one or more processors, in response to the flowsheet setting change, if a plurality of equations defining mathematical relationships of a plurality of variables within any of the plurality models are solvable, wherein any of the plurality of equations that are not solvable identifies the inefficiency within the portion of the industrial process;
identify, by the one or more processors, a variable of at least one equation within the plurality of models to modify in response to a determination that the at least one equation is not solvable;
modify, by the one or more processors, the identified variable to be a free variable if the identified variable was a fixed variable within the at least one equation, and modify the identified variable to be the fixed variable if the identified variable was a free variable within the at least one equation (mental concepts)
solve, simultaneously, by the one or more processors, the plurality of equations associated with the plurality of models including the at least one equation with the modified identified variable, in response to the modification to the identified variable, wherein the solved plurality of equations eliminate the identified inefficiency (mathematical concepts)
Claim 13 is substantially drawn to abstract ideas but for the recitation of generic computer components. Information and/or data also fall within the realm of abstract ideas because information and data are intangible. See Electric Power Group1 (Electric Power hereinafter): “Information… is an intangible”.
As to the limitations "determine, by the one or more processors, in response to the flowsheet setting change, if a plurality of equations defining mathematical relationships of a plurality of variables within any of the plurality models are solvable, wherein any of the plurality of equations that are not solvable identifies the inefficiency within the portion of the industrial process; identify, by the one or more processors, a variable of at least one equation within the plurality of models to modify in response to a determination that the at least one equation is not solvable; modify, by the one or more processors, the identified variable to be a free variable if the identified variable was a fixed variable within the at least one equation, and modify the identified variable to be the fixed variable if the identified variable was a free variable within the at least one equation”; they cover mental concepts: observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. The limitations, as drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by the one or more processors” nothing precludes the claimed limitations from practically being performed in the mind. As to these limitations, solving mathematical equations, identifying variables, determining if equations are solvable, and modifying variables are activities that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
As to the limitations "solve, simultaneously, by the one or more processors, the plurality of equations associated with the plurality of models including the at least one equation with the modified identified variable, in response to the modification to the identified variable, wherein the solved plurality of equations eliminate the identified inefficiency”; they cover mathematical concepts: relationships, formulas or equations, calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical or mental concepts, then it falls within groupings of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes).
Independent Claim 13 Step 2A Prong two: As to the additional elements, one or more processors and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a plurality of instructions, they are interpreted as drawn to a generic computer.
As to the limitations “for determining inefficiencies in an industrial process“ and “for simulating at least a portion of the industrial process”, they amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception.
As to the limitations "generate, by the one or more processors, a plurality of models", the limitations appear to be just “apply it” limitations, because the limitations invoke computers merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
As to the limitations “import, by the one or more processors, one or more models of the plurality of models to a flowsheet" and "receive, by the one or more processors, a change to a setting of the flowsheet”, these limitations describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. Data gathering, including when limited to particular content does not change its character as information, is also within the realm of abstract ideas. Data gathering has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. See Electric Power.
As to the limitations "the plurality of models being analyzed to optimize the industrial process by adjusting the industrial process based on an inefficiency" and "cause, by the one or more processors, an operation of at least a portion of the industrial process to be adjusted to operate in accordance with the plurality of models on the flowsheet with the changed setting to eliminate the identified inefficiency in the industrial process, in response to solving the a plurality of equations, including the at least one equation with the modified identified variable", the limitations appear to be just “apply it” limitations, because the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent Claim 13 Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A; the additional elements one or more processors and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a plurality of instructions are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of a computer to implement the abstract idea of a mathematical or mental algorithm has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, which is described in the specification (underline emphasis added):
"[0187]… aspects of the invention are operational with numerous other general purpose… computing system environments or configurations… Examples of well-known computing systems, environments, and/or configurations that may be suitable for use with aspects of the invention include, but are not limited to, personal computers, server computers, hand-held or laptop devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based systems, set top boxes, programmable consumer electronics, mobile telephones, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, distributed computing environments that include any of the above systems or devices, and the like".
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the limitations “for determining inefficiencies in an industrial process“ and “for simulating at least a portion of the industrial process” amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception even upon reconsideration. As to the limitations “for determining inefficiencies in an industrial process“, see 112 Rejections above. As to the limitations “for simulating at least a portion of the industrial process”, Examiner notes that no actual modeling or simulation is ever performed in the body of the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). These limitations amount to computer implementation of mathematical concepts. The specification reads (underline emphasis added):
"[0007]… Software instructions… generate… models including equations that mathematically represent the functionality of the process… Instructions determine whether the equations of the… models are solvable after each change made to the… models and indicate the result of the determination of solvability of the equations".
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, claim 13 recites data gathering, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome are just “apply it” limitations, because they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) and 112 Rejections above. The limitations are so broad that nothing is known about how the claimed limitations are performed. There is no elaboration of any special meanings for these amended limitations in the claims and specification. The specification reads (underline emphasis added):
"BACKGROUND…
[0002]… using tools employing calculations that are designed model and simulate the process in order to optimize the process…
[0003]… Often sophisticated process management and control software examines the incoming data, produces status reports, and, in many cases, responds by sending commands to actuators/controllers that adjust the operation of at least a portion of the industrial process. The data produced by the sensors also allow an operator to perform a number of supervisory tasks including: tailor the process (e.g., specify new set points) in response to varying external conditions (including costs of raw materials), detect an inefficient/non-optimal operating condition and/or impending equipment failure…
SUMMARY
[0006]… a system that models the process for the purpose of simulating it accurately. The simulation can be used to locate any inefficiency in the current process and determine alterations that can improve or eliminate inefficiencies".
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Independent claim 21 Step 2A, Prong One: Independent claim 21 recites:
determine, by the one or more processors, in response to a change in the one or more variables within each of the plurality of models, if the plurality of equations defining the mathematical relationships of the one or more variables within any of the plurality of models imported to the flowsheet are solvable… wherein any of the plurality of equations that are not solvable identifies the inefficiency within the portion of the industrial process;
modify, by the one or more processors, a variable of at least one equation within the plurality of models to be a free variable when the variable within the equation is a fixed variable, or modify the variable to be a fixed variable when the variable is a free variable in the equation in response to the determination that the plurality of equations within the plurality of models are not solvable (mental concepts)
and solve, simultaneously, by the one or more processors, the plurality of equations associated with the plurality of models, including the at least one equation with the modified identified variable, in response to the modification to the variable, wherein the solved plurality of equations eliminate the identified inefficiency (mathematical concepts)
Claim 21 is substantially drawn to abstract ideas but for the recitation of generic computer components. (See Independent claim 13, Step 2A, Prong One above). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical or mental concepts, then it falls within groupings of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes).
Independent claim 21 Step 2A Prong two: As to the additional elements, one or more processors and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a plurality of instructions, they are interpreted as drawn to a generic computer.
As to the limitations “for determining inefficiencies in an industrial process“, they amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception.
As to the limitations "generate, by the one or more processors, a plurality of models, wherein a user inputs one or more equations to define mathematical relationships of one or more variables within each of the plurality of models", the limitations appear to be just “apply it” limitations, because the limitations invoke computers merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
As to the limitations "enable, by the one or more processors, the user to build a visual representation of a simulation of at least a portion of the industrial process in a simulated canvas" and “the user being prevented from making more than one change at a time to the flowsheet”, a GUI is a well-known graphical modeling means, and it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
As to the limitations “importing of the plurality of models to a flowsheet”, these limitations describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. (See Independent claim 13, Step 2A, Prong Two above).
As to the limitations "the plurality of models being analyzed to optimize the industrial process by adjusting the industrial process based on an inefficiency" and "cause, by the one or more processors, an operation of at least a portion of the industrial process to be adjusted to operate in accordance with the plurality of models on the flowsheet with the changed setting to eliminate the identified inefficiency in the industrial process, in response to solving the plurality of equations, including the at least one equation with the modified identified variable", the limitations appear to be just “apply it” limitations, because the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 21 Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A; the additional elements one or more processors and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a plurality of instructions are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. (See Independent claim 13, Step 2B above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the limitations “for determining inefficiencies in an industrial process“ amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception even upon reconsideration. (See Independent claim 13, Step 2B above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). (See Independent claim 13, Step 2B above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the GUI limitations have been found by the courts as not adding an inventive component/concept to claims to render them patentable. A GUI is a well-known graphical modeling means, and it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. A GUI is a well-known graphical modeling means, and it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), 2106.05(a), 2106.05(f).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, claim 21 recites data gathering, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome are just “apply it” limitations, because they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), 112 Rejections above, and Independent claim 13, Step 2B above.
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Independent claim 26 Step 2A, Prong One: Independent claim 26 recites:
solve, simultaneously, by the one or more processors, a plurality of equations associated with the plurality of models in response to a modification to variables within the plurality of equations that makes the plurality of equations solvable, the modification changing fixed variables to free variables or changing the free variables to the fixed variables one of the variables at a time,
the plurality of equations that are being solved identifies the inefficiency within the portion of the industrial process and solving the plurality of equations eliminates the identified inefficiency
Claim 26 is substantially drawn to mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. (See Independent claim 13, Step 2A, Prong One above). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "(a) Mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (a) Mathematical concepts).
Independent claim 26 Step 2A Prong two: As to the additional elements, one or more processors, a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a plurality of instructions, and store, by the one or more processors, a plurality of model libraries, simulations, and units of measure slates in a repository, they are interpreted as drawn to a generic computer.
As to the limitations “for determining inefficiencies in an industrial process“ and “for simulating at least a portion of the industrial process”, they amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception.
As to the limitations "generate, by the one or more processors, a plurality of models", the limitations appear to be just “apply it” limitations, because the limitations invoke computers merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
As to the limitations "enable, by the one or more processors, a user to build a visual representation of a simulation of at least a portion of the industrial process in a simulation canvas", a GUI is a well-known graphical modeling means, and it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
As to the limitations “importing of the plurality of models to a flowsheet”, these limitations describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. (See Independent claim 13, Step 2A, Prong Two above).
As to the limitations "the models being analyzed to optimize the industrial process by adjusting the industrial process based on an inefficiency" and "cause, by the one or more processors, an operation of at least a portion of the industrial process to be adjusted to operate in accordance with the plurality of models on the flowsheet with the modified variables within the plurality of equations to eliminate the identified inefficiency in the industrial process, in response to solving the plurality of equations, including the plurality of equations with the modified variables", the limitations appear to be just “apply it” limitations, because the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 26 Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A; the additional elements one or more processors, a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a plurality of instructions, and store, by the one or more processors, a plurality of model libraries, simulations, and units of measure slates in a repository are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. (See Independent claim 13, Step 2B above). As to the repository, the specification reads (underline emphasis added):
"[0038]… Repository 102 is where Simulations 104, Model Libraries 108, and UOM slates 106 are stored. The Repository 102 can be stored on a local machine, or on a shared server".
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the limitations “for determining inefficiencies in an industrial process“ and “for simulating at least a portion of the industrial process” amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception even upon reconsideration. (See Independent claim 13, Step 2B above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). (See Independent claim 13, Step 2B above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the GUI limitations have been found by the courts as not adding an inventive component/concept to claims to render them patentable. (See Independent claim 13, Step 2B above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome are just “apply it” limitations, because they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), 112 Rejections above, and Independent claim 13, Step 2B above.
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims Step 2A, Prong One: dependent claims further the abstract ideas of their independent claims.
As to the limitations “14/22/29… analyze, by the one or more processors, a modification to the flowsheet to determine if the modification to the flowsheet renders the plurality of equations solvable simultaneously", these limitations, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be characterized as entailing a user analyzing (observations, evaluations) and deciding/determining (judgments), i.e., processing information and/or data, that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical or mental concepts, then it falls within groupings of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes).
Dependent claims Step 2A Prong two:
As to the limitations “14/22/29… in response to receiving the modification to the flowsheet”, these limitations describe the concept of “mere data gathering”. (See Independent claim 13, Step 2A, Prong Two above). As to the limitations "17/31… recommend a variable in the plurality of equations that a user should change to a fixed variable", "18/32… recommend a variable in the plurality of equations that a user should change to a free variable", "23… recommend a variable in the one or more equations that the user should fix“, "24… recommend a variable in the one or more equations that the user should free if the one or more equations are not solvable simultaneously", they are considered generic displaying. Data gathering and displaying have not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”.
As to the limitations "19/33… analyzing the modification to the flowsheet prevents a/the user from making more than one change at a time to the flowsheet", "20… analyzing the modification to the flowsheet guides a user to free or fix one variable at a time until all of the plurality of equations are solvable simultaneously", "27… generate, by the one or more processors, a port editor that creates and edits one or more port types which define how each of the plurality of models can be connected to each other on the simulation canvas, wherein defining variables in the one or more port types defines information to be transferred between the models connected on the simulation canvas", and "28… only connections between models with a same port type are allowed", a GUI is a well-known graphical modeling means, and it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Dependent claims Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claims recite data gathering and displaying, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the GUI limitations have been found by the courts as not adding an inventive component/concept to claims to render them patentable. (See Independent claim 21, Step 2B above).
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Accordingly, claims 13-24 and 26-33 recite an abstract idea. For at least these reasons the claims are not patent eligible.
While the claimed subject matter is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as noted above, Examiner cannot apply prior art even based on a good faith interpretation of the claimed language and delimited information provided in the specification.
MPEP 2173.06 Practice Compact Prosecution [R-07.2022], II. PRIOR ART REJECTION OF CLAIM REJECTED AS INDEFINITE, reads:
“where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.”
Independent claims 13, 21, and 26 are replete with 35 U.S.C. 112 errors (see 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections above). As such, it is impossible for the Examiner to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention without unreasonable speculation about the meaning of what is being claimed.
Response to Arguments
The MPEP reads (underline emphasis added):
‘2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field [R-07.2022]…. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea… the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible… the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements… analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement" and "2106.04(d)(1) Evaluating Improvements in the Functioning of a Computer, or an Improvement to Any Other Technology or Technical Field in Step 2A Prong Two [R-10.2019]… first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement… Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification".
Examiner invites Applicant to use the Specification of record in the present Application and not any other publication. The MPEP reads "evaluating the specification… if the specification sets forth… described in the specification", see supra, and not the U.S. Pre–Grant publication or any other publication.
Regarding the 112(a) rejections, Applicant's arguments have been considered, but they are not convincing. Applicant argues, (see page 9, next to last paragraph to page 12, 1st paragraph):
‘… Starting with the "Summary" section of the Specification…
(Specification, ¶¶ [0006]-[0007].) (Emphasis added.)
This is further described in paragraphs [0133]-[0134] and [0169]…’
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because the specification describes that the simulation can be used to locate any inefficiency in "the process of a simulation equation solving technique" but not "the industrial process", as claimed (see 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections above).
Regarding the 112(b) rejections, the amendment corrected some deficiencies pointed out, and those objections are withdrawn. The amendment also created new deficiencies. Applicant's arguments have been considered, but they are not convincing. Applicant argues, (see page 12, 2nd to last paragraphs):
‘… The Specification makes clear in paragraphs [0133]-[0134] and [0169] cited above and elsewhere that modification of variables in the equations to make them solvable identifies the inefficiency since the variable in the equation for the model that was modified represents an aspect of the simulated industrial process. This is consistent paragraphs [0002], [0003], [0006], and [0007] of the Specification…’
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive. As to claims 13 and 21, the limitation “wherein any of the plurality of equations that are not solvable identifies the inefficiency within the portion of the industrial process” and as to claim 26, the limitation “the plurality of equations that are being solved identifies the inefficiency within the portion of the industrial process and solving the plurality of equations eliminates the identified inefficiency”, these limitations render the claims indefinite, because they contradict the specification paragraphs [0003], [0006], [0007], and [0128]-[0131]. The specification describes that the simulation can be used to locate any inefficiency in "the process of a simulation equation solving technique" but not "the industrial process", as claimed (see 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections above). Equation solutions or lack thereof do not identify industrial process' inefficiencies (see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101, Applicant's arguments have been considered, but they are not convincing. Applicant argues, (see page 13, 3rd paragraph to page 15, 2nd paragraph):
‘… While "solving" the equations may use mathematics, there is no mathematical concept recited in the claim. Thus, this feature of claim is not directed to a "mathematical concept."
Regarding "mental concepts,"…
Amended claim 1 requires, in pertinent part, "solve, simultaneously, by the one or more processors, the plurality of equations associated with the plurality of models including the at least one equation with the modified identified variable, in response to the modification to the identified variable, wherein the solved plurality of equations eliminate the identified inefficiency." A human mind is not capable of solving, simultaneously, a plurality of questions associated with a plurality of models. This is true with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper…’
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-07.2022] reads (underline emphasis added):
'C. Mathematical calculations A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because solving equations simultaneously cover mathematical concepts and it is well known to persons of ordinary skill in related areas that since at least the 19th century, the human mind has been capable of solving equations simultaneously. For example (underline emphasis added):
Joseph F. Grcar, Mathematicians of Gaussian Elimination, discloses 'Gaussian elimination is universally known as “the” method for solving simultaneous linear equations. As Leonhard Euler remarked, it is the most natural way of proceeding (“der natürlichste Weg” [Euler, 1771, part 2, sec. 1, chap. 4, art. 45]). Because Gaussian elimination solves linear problems directly, it is an important technique in computational science and engineering…' (see page 782, 1st paragraph) and "Gaussian elimination for the purpose of schoolbooks was thus complete by the turn of the nineteenth century" (see page 784, last paragraph).
Jeff Christensen, A Brief History of Linear Algebra, discloses "With the turn into the 19th century Gauss introduced a procedure to be used for solving a system of linear equations. His work dealt mainly with the linear equations… His efforts dealt with equations of differing numbers and variables as well as the traditional pre-19th century works of Euler, Leibnitz, and Cramer. Gauss’ work is now summed up in the term Gaussian elimination. This method uses the concepts of combining, swapping, or multiplying rows with each other in order to eliminate variables from certain equations. After variables are determined, the student is then to use back substitution to help find the remaining unknown variables" (see 3rd page, next to last paragraph).
Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
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.
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.
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN CARLOS OCHOA whose telephone number is (571)272-2625. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays 9:30AM - 7:00 PM.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached on 571-270-1104. 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.
/JUAN C OCHOA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
1 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 Fed. Cir. 2016