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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pp. 11-14 that the claimed invention represents an improvement to another technology or technical field, the technology or technical field being a sequential production and logistic process. This argument is not persuasive. The alleged improvements to a technology or technical field cannot be provided solely by the abstract ideas, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(a). However, the only alleged improvements asserted by Applicant are the abstract ideas themselves. The sequential process and logistic process are not positively recited as elements of the claimed invention, except for claim 28. In claim 28, there is no feedback between the abstract ideas that improves the sequential processes. The only possibly relevant additional element that could represent an improvement is a mere instruction to stop the process or set an error condition of an non-defined structure that presumably has some sort of relationship to the process, neither of which actions actually improve the sequential process.
Applicant argues on p. 13 that “wherein the sequential process comprises a repeating task carried out by a robot” is a specific technical use of the claimed invention. This argument is not persuasive. Aside from claim 28, none of the claims positively recite the sequential process as part of the invention. Instead, that the processes is carried out by a robot merely informs one that the abstract data of the sequential process may represent the operations of a “robot.” Second, “carried out by a robot” is too broad and generic to be considered a specific technical use, as there are no specific technical limits placed on the structure of the robot, or the process performed by the robot.
Applicant argues that “accessing and analyzing process data of a sequential process without having access to a control unit that controls the sequential process” is an improvement. This argument is not persuasive. Not only is the control unit that controls the sequential process not a part of the invention, this limitation fails to provide any meaningful limits to the claim, as no access to the control unit is necessary to implement the abstract ideas.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the processor” in line 4 of claim 17 lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction 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 1-19, 21-25, 27, and 28 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.
Regarding claims 1, 17, 19, and 28, the specification fails to provide sufficient written description of the steps or structure required to stop the sequential process, including any details about the sequential process being performed, or the structure performing the sequential process. The lack of written description leads one to conclude that Applicant was not in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Further regarding claims 1, 17, 19, and 28, the specification fails to provide sufficient written description of the steps or structure required to switch to an error mode when deviations from the normal operation are established. The lack of written description leads one to conclude that Applicant was not in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, the specification fails to provide sufficient written description of the steps or structure required for a robot, facility, a machine, or a room of a building to perform the recited steps of a grasp component, a change position and a release component, or an injection molding process and closing a mold, injection, holding pressure, plasticizing and opening the mold.
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 1-19, 21-25, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims, 1, 17, 19, and 28, the scope of the claims is indefinite, because the specification does not provide disclosure of the steps or structure required to perform stopping the sequential process or switching to an error mode. Additionally, it is not clear what is being switched to an error mode.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, the scope of the claims is indefinite, because the lack of written disclosure leaves doubt as to how the recited steps are performed by a robot, a facility, a machine or a room of a building.
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 1-19, 21-25, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more, as set forth below.
The following analysis is performed in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter 2019 PEG), as set forth in MPEP § 2106.
Step 1
Step 1 of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-16, 21-25, and 27 are directed to a method.
Claims 17-19 and 28 are directed to an apparatus.
Step 2A Prong One
Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
The examiner has identified the following judicial exceptions in the claims:
Claim 1 recites:
accessing and analyzing process data of a sequential process without having access to a control unit that controls the sequential process, the sequential process comprising at least one repeating subprocess,
recording process data of the sequential process over a reference time period;
dividing the sequential process into a plurality of subprocesses;
determination of phase limits based on the recorded process data;
identification of repeating subprocesses of the plurality of subprocesses, a duration of which is limited in time by two adjacent phase limits;
determining at least one reference variable for each identified repeating subprocess from the process data recording in the time period;
recording process data of the sequential process over a time period following the reference time period;
repeating said determination and said identification to detect the recurrence of an identified subprocess; and
comparing the recorded process data of the detected subprocess with the at least one reference variable of the corresponding identified subprocess to establish deviations from a normal operation;
forward the results of said comparing to a controller of the sequential process;
switching to an error mode when deviations from the normal operation are established;
wherein the sequential process comprises a repeating task carried out by a robot, a facility, a machine or a room of a building.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 1 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 24 recites all of the limitations of claim 1, and therefore also recites abstract ideas.
Claim 2 recites:
wherein the sequential process is a cyclical sequential process, and the reference time period comprises at least one, preferably at least two, periodic times of the cyclical sequential process, and wherein the method further comprises automatically determining the periodic time.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 2 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 3 recites:
wherein the method further comprises automatically determining the number of repeating subprocesses during a periodic time or an execution time of the sequential process.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 3 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 4 recites:
wherein the automated determination of the number of repeating subprocesses comprises at least the calculation of a difference between a reference distribution and a normalized gain value and/or the evaluation of at least one cost function.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 4 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 5 recites:
wherein a control program of the sequential process and/or exact process phases of the sequential process are unknown at the start of the analysis of the sequential process for a device, which is configured to analyze the sequential process.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 5 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites:
wherein the process data are sensor data or aggregate signals of sensor signals or exclusively total power consumption data of the sequential process and/or vibration data of an industrial plant.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 6 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 7 recites:
wherein different search methods and cost functions are used to automatically determine phase limits of a sequential process and to identify at least one repeating subprocess of the sequential process.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 7 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 8 recites:
wherein said determination of phase limits is carried out with the aid of change point detection methods.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 8 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 9 recites:
wherein the at least one reference variable of a subprocess includes: mean value, standard deviation, and/or variance.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 9 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 10 recites:
wherein the identification of at least one repeating subprocess comprises the identification of similar curve profiles of the process data, similar curve profiles preferably having a certain sequence of positive and/or negative increases within predetermined tolerance ranges.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 10 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites:
wherein the method further comprises determining at least one comparison variable for the detected subprocess, and the comparison comprising a comparison of the at least one comparison variable of the detected subprocess with the at least one reference variable of a corresponding subprocess, and the comparison variable of a subprocess being able to include at least: mean value, standard deviation, and/or variance.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 11 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 12 recites:
wherein the comparison involves a comparison of the value of the at least one comparison variable at the present point in time with a value of the corresponding reference variable at an earlier point in time, and/or a comparison of the value of the at least one comparison variable of the detected subprocess with the value of this comparison variable of a further corresponding subprocess during the same period of the sequential process.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 12 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 13 recites:
wherein the normal operation is determined by the reference variable and a predetermined tolerance range of the reference variable for each identified subprocess.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 13 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 14 recites:
rating the process stability of the sequential process and/or at least one subprocess, based on an ascertainment of a deviation from normal operation.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 14 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 15 recites:
displaying the results of the comparison on a user interface and/or forwarding these results to a further controller.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 15 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 16 recites:
identifying the type of deviation from normal operation.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 16 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 21 recites:
wherein the at least one repeating subprocess comprises three subprocesses including a grasp component, a change position and a release component.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 21 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 22 recites:
wherein the sequential process is an injection molding process and the at least one repeating subprocess comprises subprocesses including closing a mold, injection, holding pressure, plasticizing and opening the mold.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 22 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 23 recites:
determining a measure of stability and/or quality of a subprocess based on said comparing the recorded process data of the detected subprocess with the at least one reference variable of the corresponding identified subprocess.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 23 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 25 recites:
wherein the process data describes an energy balance of a machine, whose sequential process is being analyzed.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 25 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 27 recites:
wherein the sequential process comprising a production process or a logistics process.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 27 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites:
the method of claim 1.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 17 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 18 recites all of the limitations of claim 17, and therefore also recites abstract ideas.
Claim 19 recites:
the method of claim 1.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 19 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 28 recites:
access and analyze process data of the sequential process without access to a control unit configured to control the sequential process;
recording process data of the sequential process over a reference time period,
dividing the sequential process into a plurality of subprocesses
determination of phase limits based on the recorded process data;
identification of repeating subprocesses of the plurality of subprocess, a duration of which is limited in time by two adjacent phase limits;
determining at least one reference variable for each identified repeating subprocess from the process data recording in the time period;
recording process data of the sequential process over a time period following the reference time period;
repeating the steps of automatically determining and identifying to detect the recurrence of an identified subprocess; and
comparing the recorded process data of the detected subprocess with the at least one reference variable of the corresponding identified subprocess to establish deviations from a normal operation;
forwarding the results of said comparing to a controller of the sequential process; and
switching to an error mode when deviations from the normal operation are established
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the implication of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than implying a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal implication of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 28 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two
Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG asks whether a claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 1-16, 21-23, 25, and 27 recite the additional elements of:
a processor performing processor functions;
stopping the sequential process when deviations from the normal operation are established.
The processor is apparently nothing more than a generic computer performing generic computer functions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Accordingly, the additional element of a processor does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional element of stopping the sequential process merely generically recites an effect of the judicial exception which has broad applicability across many fields of endeavor, may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, and is nothing more than a mere instruction to apply the exception, as set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Additional this additional element is merely an insignificant extra-solution activity that fails to pose a meaningful limit on the claim, and is only tangentially related to establishing deviations from normal operation, as set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Whether considered individually, or as an ordered combination with other claim elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under any of the indicia set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d), or improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field as set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Therefore, claims 1-16, 23, and 25 are directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Claim 24 recites the additional elements of:
displaying subprocesses currently being executed and highlighting subprocesses that deviate from normal operation.
The step of outputting merely represents the extra-solution activity of outputting that fails to provide meaningful limits on the claim. Therefore, these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(g). Whether considered individually or in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under any of the indicia set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Whether considered individually, or as an ordered combination with other claim elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under any of the indicia set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d), or improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field as set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Therefore, claim 24 is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Claims 17 and 18 recite the additional elements of:
at least one sensor arrangement, wherein the sensor arrangement comprises a current sensor, a power consumption sensor and/or a vibration sensor;
a processor.
The processor is apparently nothing more than a generic computer performing generic computer functions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Accordingly, the additional element of a computer does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The sensor arrangement merely represents the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exceptions. Therefore, this additional element represents insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(g). Additionally, the sensor arrangement is merely an attempt to generally link the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(h). Finally, whether considered individually or in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under any of the indicia set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Whether considered individually, or as an ordered combination with other claim elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under any of the indicia set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d), or improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field as set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Therefore, claims 17 and 18 are directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Claim 19 recites the additional elements of:
a processor with programming performing processor functions, and
stopping the sequential process when deviations from the normal operation are established.
The processor is nothing more than a generic computer performing generic computer functions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Accordingly, the additional element of a computer does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Whether considered individually, or as an ordered combination with other claim elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under any of the indicia set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d), or improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field as set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Therefore, claim 19 is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Claim 28 recites the additional elements of:
a sequential process, the sequential process being a mechanical process comprising a repeating task carried out by a robot, a facility, a machine or a room of a building, the sequential process comprising at least one repeating subprocess; and
a device, comprising:
a sensor arrangement for recording process data of the sequential process;
a user interface; and
a processor configured to carry out a method to analyze the sequential process, the method comprising.
The device including the processor and user interface are nothing more than a generic computer performing generic computer functions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Accordingly, the additional element of a device does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The sensor arrangement and sequential process merely represent the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exceptions. Therefore, this additional element represents insignificant extra-solution activity, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(g). Additionally, the sensor arrangement and sequential process are merely an attempt to generally link the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(h). Finally, whether considered individually or in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under any of the indicia set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The additional element of stopping the sequential process merely generically recites an effect of the judicial exception which has broad applicability across many fields of endeavor, may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, and is nothing more than a mere instruction to apply the exception, as set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Additional this additional element is merely an insignificant extra-solution activity that fails to pose a meaningful limit on the claim, and is only tangentially related to establishing deviations from normal operation, as set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Whether considered individually, or as an ordered combination with other claim elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under any of the indicia set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d), or improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field as set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Therefore, claim 28 is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Step 2B of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., whether the claim recites additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim.
Regarding claims 1-16, 21-25, and 27 as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of the processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A, or provide an inventive concept to make the claim amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions in Step 2B.
The outputting, sensor arrangements, and stopping the process represent the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering necessary to perform the abstract ideas and are recited at a high level of generality, and therefore fail to provide an inventive concept, as set forth in MPEP §§ 2106.05(g). Additionally, the sequential process, outputting, and sensor arrangements are merely an attempt to generally link the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(h).
The additional element of stopping the sequential process merely generically recites an effect of the judicial exception which has broad applicability across many fields of endeavor, may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, and is nothing more than a mere instruction to apply the exception, as set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Additional this additional element is merely an insignificant extra-solution activity that fails to pose a meaningful limit on the claim, and is only tangentially related to establishing deviations from normal operation, as set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Whether considered individually, or as an ordered combination with other claim elements, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept that makes the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
For these reasons, there are no inventive concepts in claims 1-16, 21-25, and 27 and claims 1-16, 21-25, and 27 are therefore ineligible as being directed to judicial exceptions of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of the device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A, or provide an inventive concept to make the claim amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions in Step 2B.
The sensor arrangement represents the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering necessary to perform the abstract ideas and are recited at a high level of generality, and therefore fail to provide an inventive concept, as set forth in MPEP §§ 2106.05(g). Additionally, the sensor arrangement is merely an attempt to generally link the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(h).
Whether considered individually, or as an ordered combination with other claim elements, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept that makes the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
For these reasons, there are no inventive concepts in claims 17 and 18, and claims 17 and 18 are therefore ineligible as being directed to judicial exceptions of abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 19, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of the processor with programming amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A, or provide an inventive concept to make the claim amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions in Step 2B.
Whether considered individually, or as an ordered combination with other claim elements, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept that makes the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
For these reasons, there are no inventive concepts in claim 19, and claim 19 is therefore ineligible as being directed to judicial exceptions of abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 28, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of the processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A, or provide an inventive concept to make the claim amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions in Step 2B.
The sequential process, outputting, and sensor arrangements represent the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering necessary to perform the abstract ideas and are recited at a high level of generality, and therefore fail to provide an inventive concept, as set forth in MPEP §§ 2106.05(g). Additionally, the sequential process, outputting, and sensor arrangements are merely an attempt to generally link the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(h).
The additional element of stopping the sequential process merely generically recites an effect of the judicial exception which has broad applicability across many fields of endeavor, may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, and is nothing more than a mere instruction to apply the exception, as set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Additional this additional element is merely an insignificant extra-solution activity that fails to pose a meaningful limit on the claim, and is only tangentially related to establishing deviations from normal operation, as set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Whether considered individually, or as an ordered combination with other claim elements, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept that makes the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
For these reasons, there are no inventive concepts in claim 28, and claim 28 is therefore ineligible as being directed to judicial exceptions of abstract ideas.
Conclusion
Applicant should note that while claims 1-19, 21-25, 27, and 28 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103, claims 1-19, 21-25, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and are not otherwise patentable.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEO T HINZE whose telephone number is (571)272-2864. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-2.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached on (571)272-2149. 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.
/LEO T HINZE/
Patent Examiner
AU 2853
22 January 2026
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853