DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the objection to claims 17 and 18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the processor” in claim 17 has a proper antecedent basis, because claim 1 recites a processor. However, in claim 17, the recitation of claim 1 occurs after the recitation of “the processor,” and therefore fails to provide an antecedent basis for the claim term “the processor.”
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. 12-14 that “this feature is not directed to merely outputting results. Instead, the output is further applied to the underlying technology”, and therefore “the claimed invention provides a clear improvement to another technology or technical field.” It is not clear exactly which “this feature” Applicant is referring to, but because almost the entirety of the claims recite abstract ideas (aside from mainly a general purpose computer performing computer functions), there appear to be no abstract ideas that are “further applied to the underlying technology,” as no underlying technology is recited in the claims. It is not clear exactly what the claimed underlying technology is, as the claims merely recite a vague and unspecified “sequential process”. Even assuming, arguendo, that a particular machine or process was recited in the claims, the claims fail to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application by using the results of the abstract determining, comparing, and other similar steps in any meaningful way to alter the structure or steps of the sequential process.
Applicant argues on p 14 that one of their abstract ideas is novel because it provides an improvement over prior art abstract ideas. This argument is not persuasive. A novel abstract idea remains an abstract idea. That one may perform the claimed abstract idea “WITHOUT HAVING ACCESS TO A CONTROL UNIT THAT CONTROLS THE SEQUENTIAL PROCESS” does not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application, or provide a technical improvement to the abstract idea of accessing and analyzing process data of a sequential process.
Applicant argues on pp. 14-15 that the claims are patent eligible because Example 47 says that “blocking future traffic from the source address” was deemed by The Office to be an improvement. This argument is not persuasive. The claims fail to recite any additional elements that either integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or are improved by the results of the abstract ideas. This lack of additional elements is dispositive of any alleged improvement, because the abstract ideas themselves cannot provide the alleged improvement (“It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement,” MPEP § 2106.05(a)).
Applicant alleges on p. 15 that the claims recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer. This argument is not persuasive. The computer recited in the claims is nothing more than a generic computer used as a tool to implement the abstract ideas, and no improvement to the functioning of the computer is recited in the claims.
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 § 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, 24, 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, 24, 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;
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;
forward the results of said comparing to a controller of the sequential process.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(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 §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(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 §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(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 §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(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 §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(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 §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(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 §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(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 §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(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 §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(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 §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(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 §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(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 §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(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 §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(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 §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(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 §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(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 §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(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 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 §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(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 §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(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 §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(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 §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(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;
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;
forwarding the results of said comparing to a controller of the sequential process.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(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, 25, and 27 recite the additional elements of:
a processor performing processor functions.
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, 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 non-transitory computer-readable medium and a processor capable of executing instructions contained on the non-transitory computer-readable medium.
The processor and computer readable medium 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 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 access and analyze process data of the sequential process without access to a control unit configured to control the sequential process.
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, 24, 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).
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, 24, 25, and 27 and claims 1-16, 24, 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 and non-transitory computer-readable medium with instructions amount 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).
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, 24, 25, 27, and 28 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103, claims 1-19, 24, 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
24 June 2026
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights