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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/28/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“A plant system, comprising: a plant including one or more final control elements and one or more sensors; and a control system configured to control the plant by operating the one or more final control elements based on control signals generated so that an operation index calculated from a process value detected by the one or more sensors meets an operation criterion; the control system comprising: an operating condition determination device configured to determine an operating condition of the plant; and an operating control device configured to control the plant based on the operating condition determined by the operating condition determination device; wherein the operating condition determination device includes :a scheduled change value generation unit configured to generate a scheduled change value of one or more manipulation parameters of a plant based on a current operating point identified from the process value detected by the one or more sensors included in the plant, the scheduled change value being generated by adding a predetermined variable to a current value of the one or more manipulation parameters based the current operation operating point; a first judgement unit configured to calculate a first predicted value by inputting the scheduled change value to a prediction model showing a correlation between the operation index of the plant and an explanatory variable including a plurality of manipulation parameters of the plant and judge that the first predicted value meets the operation criterion of the plant when the first predicted value is smaller than the operation criterion; a virtual change value generation unit configured to generate a virtual change value of the one or more manipulation parameters based on the current operating point, wherein a change amount of the virtual change value is to the current value of the one or more manipulation parameters and is greater than that of the scheduled change value; a second judgement unit configured to calculate a second predicted value by inputting the virtual change value to the prediction model and judge that the second predicted value meets the operation criterion when the second predicted value is smaller than the operation criterion; and a manipulated variable change unit configured to output the scheduled change value as a command value of the one or more manipulation parameters if the first judgement unit and the second judgement unit judge that the first predicted value and the second predicted value respectively meet the operation criterion; and wherein the operating control device includes an operation control unit configured to control the one or more final control elements included in the plant based on the command value output by the manipulated variable change unit in order to control overall operations of the plant in accordance with the operation criterion”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional element”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (machine).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes — concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, the steps of “so that an operation index calculated from a process value detected by the one or more sensors meets an operation criterion, generate a scheduled change value of one or more manipulation parameters of a plant based on a current operating point identified from a process value, the scheduled change value being generated by adding a predetermined variable to a current value of the one or more manipulation parameters based the current operation operating point,… calculate a first predicted value by inputting the scheduled change value to a prediction model showing a correlation between an operation index of the plant and an explanatory variable including a plurality of manipulation parameters of the plant and generate a virtual change value of the one or more manipulation parameters based on the current operating point, wherein a change amount of the virtual change value is to the current value of the one or more manipulation parameters and is greater than that of the scheduled change value, …calculate a second predicted value by inputting the virtual change value to the prediction model” are treated as belonging to the mathematical concept grouping.
For example, steps of “judge that the first predicted value meets an operation criterion of the plant when the first predicted value is smaller than the operation criterion, judge that the second predicted value meets the operation criterion when the second predicted value is smaller than the operation criterion, and judge that the first predicted value and the second predicted value respectively meet the operation criterion, based on the command value output by the manipulated variable change unit” are treated as belonging to the mental process grouping.
For example, with regards to the step “judge that the first predicted value meets an operation criterion of the plant when the first predicted value is smaller than the operation criterion”, this mental step represents a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. In the context of this claim, it encompasses the user making mental decisions (evaluation/judgement) with regards to judging operation criterion based on predicted values.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that
integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
Claim 1: A plant system, comprising: a plant including one or more final control elements and one or more sensors; a control system configured to control the plant by operating the one or more final control elements based on control signals generated and a control system configured to control the plant by operating the one or more final control elements based on control signals generated from detected values of the one or more sensors; the control system comprising: an operating condition determination device configured to determine an operating condition of the plant; and an operating control device configured to control the plant based on the operating condition determined by the operating condition determination device; wherein the operating condition determination device includes: a scheduled change value generation unit, …one or more sensors included in from the plant, a first judgement unit, a virtual change value generation unit, a second judgement unit, a manipulated variable change unit configured to output the scheduled change value as a command value of the one or more manipulation parameters if the first judgement unit, the second judgement unit, an operation control unit configured to control specific control, … and one or more final control elements included elements in the plant in order to control overall operations of the plant in accordance with the operation criterion
Claim 15: A non-transitory storage medium storing a program for controlling a plant system operating condition, the plant system comprising: the plant including one or more final control elements and one or more sensors; and a control system configured to control the plant by operating the one or more final control elements based on control signals generated from detected values of the one or more sensors; the program configured to cause a computer to execute: a step of determining an operating condition of the plant; and a step of controlling the plant based on the operating condition; wherein the step of determining the operating condition includes: determining a plant operating condition, configured to cause a computer to execute a step of generating, inputting the scheduled change value of one or more manipulation parameters to a prediction model, a virtual change value of the one or more manipulation parameters… a step of outputting the scheduled change value as a command value of the one or more manipulation parameters if the first predicted value and the second predicted value respectively meet the operation criterion; and a step of controlling specific… in the plant in order to control overall operations of the plant in accordance with the operation criterion
Claim 16: A method for controlling a plant system, the plant system comprising: the plant including one or more final control elements and one or more sensors; and a control system configured to control the plant by operating the one or more final control elements based on control signals generated from detected values of the one or more sensors; the method comprising: a step of determining an operating condition of the plant; and a step of controlling the plant based on the operating condition; wherein the step of determining the operating condition includes, inputting the scheduled change value of one or more manipulation parameters to a prediction model, a step of outputting the scheduled change value as a command value of the one or more manipulation parameters if the first predicted value and the second predicted value respectively meet the operation criterion; and a step of controlling one or more final control elements in the plant… in order to control overall operations of the plant in accordance with the operation criterion
The above additional elements in Claim 1 such as a plant system, comprising: a plant including one or more final control elements and one or more sensors; and a control system configured to control the plant by operating the one or more final control elements based on control signals generated from detected values of the one or more sensors; the control system comprising: an operating condition determination device configured to determine an operating condition of the plant; and an operating control device configured to control the plant based on the operating condition determined by the operating condition determination device; wherein the operating condition determination device includes are generically recited and are not meaningful and are merely field of use limitations. They do not represent a particular machine and/or eligible transformation, they do not indicate a practical application. The additional elements in Claim 15 such as a non-transitory storage medium storing a program is an example of generic computer equipment (components) that is generally recited and, therefore, is not qualified as a particular machine. In addition, with regards to a steps of “a first and second judgement unit”, “virtual.. schedule change”…, the step of “inputting the scheduled change value to a prediction model” corresponds to mere data gathering that is recited in generality and is not meaningful- represents insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, with regards to a step of controlling one or more final control elements included in the plant… in order to control overall operations of the plant in accordance with the operation criterion is recited in generality and is not meaningful- represents insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record including references in the submitted IDS (9/24/2021) by the Applicant (Yoshida and Toshimitsu).
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-13 provide additional features/steps which are either part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising mathematical/mental (Claims 2-13) or adding additional elements/steps that are not meaningful as they are recited in generality and/or not qualified as particular machine/ and/or eligible transformation and, therefore, do not reflect a practical application as well as not qualified for “significantly more” based on prior art of record.
Examiner Notes with Regards to Prior Art of Record
In regards to Claim 1, the claims are allowed because the closest prior art Yoshida, Shapiro, and Roverso either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious, judge that the first predicted value meets the operation criterion of the plant when the first predicted value is smaller than the operation criterion; a virtual change value generation unit configured to generate a virtual change value of the one or more manipulation parameters based on the current operating point, wherein a change amount of the virtual change value is to the current value of the one or more manipulation parameters and is greater than that of the scheduled change value, and judge that the second predicted value meets the operation criterion when the second predicted value is smaller than the operation criterion, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
In regards to Claims 15 and 16, the claims are allowed because the closest prior art Yoshida, Shapiro, and Roverso either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious judging that the first predicted value meets the operation criterion of the plant when the first predicted value is smaller than the operation criterion; a step of generating a virtual change value of the one or more manipulation parameters based on the current operating point, wherein a change amount of the virtual change value is to the current value of the one or more manipulation parameters and is greater than that of the scheduled change value, and judging that the second predicted value meets the operation criterion when the second predicted value is smaller than the operation criterion in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Response to Arguments
USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 08/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (pg. 12): “Applicant respectfully submits that those having ordinary skill in the subject art, upon reviewing the claims and disclosure of the present application, would understand generally what type of plants and final control elements are being referred to from the discussion of the various technological improvements and advantages described in the specification of the present application. For example, Applicant quoted to portions of paragraphs [0007] - [0010] of the specification of the present application at pages 11-12 of the response filed on February 6, 2025 which describe such technological improvements and advantages in detail.”
The Examiner disagrees. The Applicant did not present specific features in the specification that “notes that various technological improvements and advantages”.
As discussed above, improvements in the abstract idea are outlined by the Applicant, however these are not considered because no meaningful additional elements are presented to show improvements in technology.
The Applicant argues on pg. (14), “Applicant respectfully submits that the disclosure of the present application includes technical features brought about when controlling the plant by the control system that perform the machine learning methods/models which are now more precisely recited in the claims of the present application.”
The Examiner disagrees. The Applicant did not present specific features in the limitations that demonstrated “technical features brought about when controlling the plant by the control system that perform the machine learning methods/models”.
As discussed above, technological improvements and advantages in the abstract idea are outlined by the Applicant, however these are not considered because no meaningful additional elements are presented to show improvements in technology.
The Applicant argues on pgs. (14-15) “The USPTO's "October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility" reiterated, in the paragraph spanning pages 11-12, the directives that "... if the additional limitations reflect ... an improvement to another technology or technical field, the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application and thus imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. No further analysis is required (emphasis added)." At page 12 of this update, the USPTO went on to direct that "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." In the paragraph spanning pages 12-13 of this update the USPTO went on to note that "the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology (emphasis added)...". At page14 of the update, the USPTO noted that "examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgment on the merits of the asserted improvement."”
The Examiner disagrees. The Applicant did not present specific features in the limitations that “any alleged recited judicial exception in claim 1 is integrated into a practical application and, under the USPTO's 2019 101 Guidelines, the claim should be deemed to be eligible because it is not directed to any recited judicial exception”.
Additionally, the plant with control elements and sensors are broadly and generically recited and the control unit is merely field of use limitations. The generically recited limitations of claim 1 do not integrate into a practical application.
The Applicant argues on pg. (15), “The claimed methodology does not merely collect information, analyze it, and display certain results of the collection and analysis. Rather, the claimed method improves upon how such a method for controlling a plant system is performed. It is respectfully submitted that the claims of the present application are not directed to an abstract idea, but instead are clearly integrated into a practical application for the foregoing reasons.”
The Examiner disagrees and submits that improvements in the abstract idea are not qualified improvements to demonstrate a practical application.
The Applicant argues on pg. (15), “Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 does not generally recite applying the claimed invention to well-known and routine computer components, but instead claim 1 requires a specific technique and directed to a particular, limited application of a plant system and performing a method for controlling a plant system that results in the above- discussed technological improvements and advantages.”
The Examiner disagrees and submits that improvements in the abstract idea are not qualified improvements to demonstrate a practical application.
The Applicant argues on pg. (17), “Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that any alleged recited judicial exception in claim 1 is integrated into a practical application and, under the USPTO's 2019 101 Guidelines, the claim should be deemed to be eligible because it is not directed to any recited judicial exception. Based on the foregoing discussion, the proposed amended claim 1 is clearly patent eligible at least at Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 101 Guidelines. Even further, Applicant provided a detailed traversal at pages 17-20 of the response filed on June 27, 2025, as to why claim 1, especially as amended in that response, is eligible because it does not recite a judicial exception under Prong One of the revised Step 2A of the 2019 101 Guidelines. More particularly, Applicant provided a detailed discussion as to why the features indicated by the Examiner in the last full paragraph of page 5 of the Office Action dated March 27, 2025 could not be performed in the human mind.”
The Examiner disagrees and submits that the limitations for “collect information, analyze it, and display certain results of the collection and analysis” are not providing additional elements to integrate into a practical application.
The Applicant argues on pg. (19), “In light of this, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner fully respond to each of the foregoing points regarding Step 2A, Prong One and Step 2B of the USPTO's 2019 101 Guidelines from the previously-submitted remarks in the event that the rejections are maintained. This will help to ensure that the record is complete in accordance with the directives of MPEP § 707.07(f) which states that "[w]here the applicant traverses any rejection, the examiner should, if he or she repeats the rejection, take note of the applicant's argument and answer the substance of it." Similarly, MPEP § 706.07 directs that "...the final rejection ... should include a rebuttal of any arguments raised in the applicant's reply."”
Examiner disagrees and submits that with regards to, “Example 38, the claim does recite mathematical relationship such as operating index calculated as a (function) of process value (argument)…, scheduled change (function)… calculated based on current… operating points (argument)” and with regards to the mental processes there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more and are not qualified improvements to demonstrate a practical application.
With regards to, “These technological improvements and advantages directly result from the specifically claimed features, especially as now amended in this paper. Accordingly, similar to the PTAB's conclusion in the above-discussed Ex Parte Smith, and also consistent with the directives of MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).II., the use of the claimed features provide specific technological improvements over conventional plant systems and methods for controlling plant systems”.
At page 8 of the decision, the PTAB indicates that claim 1 of the patent at issue in that case “recites additional limitations which focus on addressing problems arising in the context of a hybrid derivatives trading system in which are made both electronically and on a trading floor…”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Masumi Nomura (US8510014) discloses operational conditions for a plant and the use of multiple databases.
Lisa Wichmann (US20150185716) discloses a control method for optimizing an operation of a power plant and simulation procedures.
Mohammed Mohideen (US20150293506) discloses a model predictive control for a processing plant and determining the updated flow setpoint and noise level setpoints.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARAH ZAAB whose telephone number is (571)272-4973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4:30 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, Lisa Caputo can be reached on 571-272-2388. 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.
/SHARAH ZAAB/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/LISA M CAPUTO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2863