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 . In an Amendment filed on 10/23/2025, claims 1, 3, 5, and 14-17 were cancelled. Therefore, Claims 2, 4, and 6-13 are still pending in this Application.
Request for 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/20/2025 has been entered.
Response to Remarks/Amendments
Applicant’s argument/remarks, on page 10, with respect to objections to claim 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, objections to the claims have been withdrawn due to amendments/cancellations to it.
Applicant’s argument/remarks, on pages 10-11, with respect to rejections to claims 2, 4, and 6-13 under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and they are respectfully unpersuasive. Therefore, rejections to the claims have been maintained.
On pages 10-11, the Applicant’s argues that:
“It is respectfully submitted that independent claims 2, 8 and 11 have been amended to further recite, inter alia, “...wherein the information includes at least one of: a temperature and temperature distribution inside the regeneration apparatus; a temperature and quantity of an exhaust gas discharged from the regeneration apparatus; a carbon monoxide concentration and a carbon dioxide concentration in the exhaust gas, a temperature, a flow volume, and a flow rate of a fluid flowing in a pipe connected to the regeneration apparatus or a riser, a position of the valve provided in the pipe, a temperature and a quantity of an exhaust gas discharged from the regeneration apparatus, a carbon monoxide concentration and a carbon dioxide concentration the exhaust gas, a temperature of the regeneration catalyst supplied from the regeneration apparatus to the riser, an amount of coke left; a temperature and a quantity of a cracked product supplied from the riser to a stripper; and a temperature and a quantity of light distillate stripped from the stripper” so as to better demonstrate the practical application and the improvement in technology by further specifically defining the claimed information”. These arguments are respectfully unpersuasive.
The amendments which are recited in a high level of generality and is considered insignificant extra solution and pre-solution activities of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and/or represents mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea or to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment of monitoring or estimating conditions of a fluid catalytic cracking apparatus (FCC) based on gathered data from the FCC apparatus (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), which cannot provide an inventive concept. The Applicant does not provide evidence on how the claimed subject matter or amendments improve the system or technology. Furthermore, The claims amendments are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
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 2, 4, and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
The claim(s) 2 (recites a-e), 8 (recites a-e and f), 11 (recites a-e and g-h),
a) “a learning apparatus that learns a condition estimator for estimating, from information that can be acquired while a fluid catalytic cracking apparatus is being operated, an operating condition of the fluid catalytic cracking apparatus,… and
b) an estimation apparatus that estimates the operating condition of the fluid catalytic cracking apparatus by using the condition estimator learned by the learning apparatus based on the information acquired while the fluid catalytic cracking apparatus is being operated…
c) learn the condition estimator through machine learning, using the learning data acquired by the learning data acquisition unit, …
d) estimate the operating condition of the fluid catalytic cracking apparatus by inputting the information acquired by the second processor to the condition estimator…
e) the condition estimator calculates the feature amount having a smaller number of dimensions than the information acquired by the first processor”.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claims are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers mathematical relationships which is identified as an example of mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas and/or steps that are easily performed in the mind and thus covers a mental process. See MPEP 210604(a)(2), III. For instance, steps a) and c) are directed to the collection of data for training and generating a model such as condition estimator by using machine learning. The condition estimator in the BRI is exemplified as a mathematical expression/model or calculation algorithm (see the original disclosure [0032] “The afterburn indicator may be information that is calculated according to a predetermined mathematical expression or calculation algorithm from the information that can be acquired from the sensor”; [0039] “neural network”) or a neural network which is also a mathematical expression of models of a system. The condition estimator is exemplified as “a learned feature amount calculator or an indicator predictor” (see 0029, 0035, [0039] neural network). While the disclosure does explicitly gives the explicit example of the model generated or used as the condition estimator, one of ordinary skill in the art, in the BRI can easily generate a condition estimator (model or equation) from collected data and by using mental steps along with pen and paper and by simply using regression analysis and using a group of samples of data previously collected and retrieved from a table or paper. Also, these steps of model generation are part of a learning process and/or training but the claim does not put any limits on how the steps of model generation are performed. Learning, training, machine learning and neural networks, involve algorithms which are mathematical calculations and their plain meaning are optimization algorithms. Thus, the claimed step a) and c) encompasses mathematical relationships which are part of the group of mathematical concepts abstract ideas. Furthermore, as stated above, the claimed limitations a), and c) also, involve mental steps or evaluations. Thus, the claimed step a) and c) encompasses mental steps or evaluations. Therefore, As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of steps a) and c) is that this step fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and/or mental steps with the use of pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Steps b) and d) involve the estimation of a condition value or amount by using the generated/learned condition estimator model by using collected data of the system when operated. Again, these steps in the BRI suggests a step of performing mathematical calculation using the model trained in order to produce an output value. As stated above and in light of the disclosure the model includes neural networks, calculation algorithms, or mathematical expressions (see [0032]). Thus, the claimed step b) and d) also encompasses mathematical relationships which are part of the group of mathematical concepts abstract ideas. Also, this steps can easily be performed mentally and/or by using pen and paper. For instance, given as example a prediction model equation such as y = a + b*x, a user can easily calculate mentally the value of Y, provided that the values of the variables are given or by using pen and paper. Again, the claims or the disclosure do not define or place any limits to any type of model can be used as the condition estimator. Therefore, As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of steps b) and d) is that this step fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and/or mental steps with the use of pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claims further recites “the condition estimator calculates the feature amount having a smaller number of dimensions than the information acquired by the first processor”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step covers mathematical relationships/expressions/formulas which is identified as an example of mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. For instance, this step involves the calculation of data values that uses a mathematical expression/model (see published disclosure [0054] “learning unit 123 learns the feature amount calculator 132 whereby the feature of the operating condition of the fluid catalytic cracking apparatus 10 maintained in a feature amount having a smaller number of dimensions, even if the multi-dimensional learning data is subject to dimension compression or reduction by a scheme such as an autoencoder, a t distribution stochastic neighbor embedding method, etc”). Therefore, seps a-e above covers mathematical relationships which is identified as an example of mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas and/or steps that are easily performed in the mind and thus covers a mental process. Claim 8 further recites “f) …learns the condition estimator so that a predicted value of a different type of information acquired after an elapse of a predetermined period of time since the predetermined point of time is output from the condition estimator, f) wherein the first processor is further configured to adjusts a weight of each of a plurality of types of information acquired by the first processor from which information the condition estimator calculates the predicted value, based on a result of fault tree analysis in which an occurrence of afterburn in the regeneration apparatus is defined as an event above” recited in high level of generality. These limitations, as drafted, are a process or steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships which are part of the group of mathematical concepts abstract ideas. For instance, these limitations involve the adjustments of certain values of inputted data by calculating amounts differential of values of predicted values using past data at first time and a predicted value in a future time. Therefore, these limitations covers mathematical relationships which are part of the group of mathematical concepts abstract ideas. Claim 11 further recites “g) … generate learning data by adjusting a plurality of types of information acquired by the first processor according to an offset time that depends on the type of information, and h) to generate input data input to the condition estimator by adjusting a plurality of types of information acquired by the second processor according to the offset time that depends on the type of information. These limitations, as drafted, are a process or steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships which are part of the group of mathematical concepts abstract ideas. For instance, in the BRI, these limitations involve the calculation of amounts or values for data which are offset (bias value added to the original amount or data calculated or estimated from the stored data, see [0053]). Therefore, the inventions of claims 2, 8, and 11 are directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements such as learning apparatus including a first processor and an estimation apparatus including as second processor to practice steps a-d and e) above and which are recited in high level of generality and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The disclosure does not define what is the apparatus or the processor structure. The one or more processors, are recited in high level of generality that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. These apparatuses and/or units represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. A generic computer and its memory for executing steps of a program are well understood, routine and conventional (see MPEP 2106.059f). Merely adding generic computer components to perform the steps is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (see MPEP 2106.059(f)). Furthermore, the claims recites the acquiring of learning data/information data and acquiring the information data of a machine to be used in the abstract ideas of training/learning and estimating, wherein the data is acquired using a sensor, and which are recited at high level of generality, and an estimation result output unit that outputs information indicating the operating condition which are steps of “acquiring data” and “outputting data”, and thus, are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity that do not impose any meaningful limitations on the claim (. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “whether the limitation is significant’). Furthermore, These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting (See MPEP 2106.05 wherein the limitations do not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim). Therefore, these additional limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and outputting (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claims further recites “a value of the information acquired while the fluid catalytic cracking apparatus is being operated is different between when an operating state of the fluid catalytic cracking apparatus is normal and when afterburn occurs”, which are steps of “acquiring data” and “outputting data”, and thus, are mere necessary data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity that do not impose any meaningful limitations on the claim (See MPEP 2106.05(g) “whether the limitation is significant’). The claims 2, 8 and 11 further recite “display a chart showing a feature amount calculated by the second processor plotted in a two-dimensional coordinate space or a three-dimensional coordinate space”, recited at a high level of generality, wherein “outputting data”/displaying, is an insignificant extra-solution activity that do not impose any meaningful limitations on the claim (See MPEP 2106.05(g) “whether the limitation is significant’; see MPEP 2106.05 wherein the limitations do not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim). This feature amount displayed in a chart as claimed is a tangential limitation unrelated to the estimation of the operating condition, thus, it does not impose any limitation to the abstract ideas of steps a-d). Furthermore, the claims recite the additional limitation of implementing the abstract idea for collecting data and diagnosis/estimating operating condition of a fluid catalytic cracking apparatus, the fluid catalytic cracking apparatus including a reaction apparatus in which a catalyst is used and a regeneration apparatus which regenerates the catalyst, recited in high level of generality, represents an attempt to limit the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment such as fluid catalytic cracking apparatus and/or its components, (see 2106.05(h)). Claim 2 further recites “further recites the additional limitation of “the operating condition includes at least two of a condition in which afterburn does not occur in the regeneration apparatus, a condition in which afterburn occurs in the regeneration apparatus, and a condition in which the regeneration apparatus is making a transition from a condition in which afterburn does not occur to a condition in which afterburn occurs”, recited in high level of generality and represents an attempt to limit the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment such diagnosis for a fluid catalytic cracking apparatus and/or its components along with its well-known conditions, (see 2106.05(h)). The Claims 2, 8, and 11 further, respectively recite wherein the information includes at least one of: a temperature and temperature distribution inside the regeneration apparatus; a temperature and quantity of an exhaust gas discharged from the regeneration apparatus; a carbon monoxide concentration and a carbon dioxide concentration in the exhaust gas, a temperature, a flow volume, and a flow rate of a fluid flowing in a pipe connected to the regeneration apparatus or a riser, a position of the valve provided in the pipe, a temperature and a quantity of an exhaust gas discharged from the regeneration apparatus, a carbon monoxide concentration and a carbon dioxide concentration in the exhaust gas, a temperature of the regeneration catalyst supplied from the regeneration apparatus to the riser, an amount of coke left; a temperature and a quantity of a cracked product supplied from the riser to a stripper; and a temperature and a quantity of light distillate stripped from the stripper”, recited at a high level of generality and is considered insignificant extra solution and pre-solution activities of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and/or represents mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea or to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment of monitoring or estimating conditions of a fluid catalytic cracking apparatus (FCC) based on gathered data from the FCC apparatus (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), which cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, these limitations amount to necessary data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05 wherein the limitations do not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements such as learning apparatus including a first processor and an estimation apparatus including as second processor to practice steps a-d and e) above and which are recited in high level of generality and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Assuming that the apparatus are one or more processors, these are recited in high level of generality do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The one or more processors, are recited in high level of generality that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. These apparatuses and/or units represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. A generic computer and its memory for executing steps of a program are well understood, routine and conventional (see MPEP 2106.059f). Merely adding generic computer components to perform the steps is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (see MPEP 2106.059(f)). Also, the additional elements the acquiring of learning data/information data and acquiring the information data of a machine to be used in the abstract ideas of training/learning and estimating, wherein the data is acquired using a sensor, and which are recited at high level of generality, and an estimation result output unit that outputs information indicating the operating condition which are steps of “acquiring data” and “outputting data”, and thus, are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity that do not impose any meaningful limitations on the claim (See MPEP 2106.05(g) “whether the limitation is significant’). Furthermore, These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting (See MPEP 2106.05 wherein the limitations do not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim). Therefore, these additional limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and outputting (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). These elements (acquiring data and outputting information) amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II (see 2106.05(d), II “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc.,..”). The claims further recites “a value of the information acquired while the fluid catalytic cracking apparatus is being operated is different between when an operating state of the fluid catalytic cracking apparatus is normal and when afterburn occurs”, which are steps of “acquiring data” and “outputting data”, and thus, are mere necessary data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity that do not impose any meaningful limitations on the claim (. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “whether the limitation is significant’). The claims 2, 8, and 11 further recite “display a chart showing a feature amount calculated by the second processor plotted in a two-dimensional coordinate space or a three-dimensional coordinate space”, recites at a high level of generality, wherein “outputting data”, is an insignificant extra-solution activity that do not impose any meaningful limitations on the claim (See MPEP 2106.05(g) “whether the limitation is significant’; see MPEP 2106.05 wherein the limitations do not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim). This feature amount displayed in a chart as claimed is a tangential limitation unrelated to the estimation of the operating condition, thus, it does not impose any limitation to the abstract ideas of steps a-d). Display features in 2D or 3D charts were features well known. For instance, The dimensionality reduction of training data to generate feature data it is a conventional step in machine learning, see Bhowan el al (US 11574011, see Col 7 line 35-63). Also, Bennet (US 20210019357 par. [0058]) teaches the limitations of displaying features in a chart in a 2d or 3D space (see“0058 The plot may display features plotted by machine learning model impact on the x-axis or the horizontal axis (e.g., from lower model impact to higher model impact).”; also, Ansari et a (US 11593700 Col 8 lines 43-46), teaches same displaying features limitations. Also, Wang et al (Auto-encoder based dimensionality reduction) teaches the dimensionality reduction of data, wherein features amount dimensions are reduced compared to the training data dimensions, and the features are displayed/visualized in 2d or 3d charts (see Figs. 3-4, and see 3.1.1.). Moreover, the additional elements of collecting data and diagnosis of the fluid catalytic cracking apparatus, wherein the fluid catalytic cracking apparatus including a reaction apparatus in which a catalyst is used and a regeneration apparatus for regenerating the catalyst, recited in high level of generality, represents an attempt to limit the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment such as fluid catalytic cracking apparatus and/or its components, (see 2106.05(h)), wherein this apparatus and these components are very well known as suggested in in the original disclosure [0003] wherein a prior art reference JP 2019-89907) was cited. Claim 2 further recites “further recites the additional limitation of “the operating condition includes at least two of a condition in which afterburn does not occur in the regeneration apparatus, a condition in which afterburn occurs in the regeneration apparatus, and a condition in which the regeneration apparatus is making a transition from a condition in which afterburn does not occur to a condition in which afterburn occurs”, recited in high level of generality and represents an attempt to limit the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment such diagnosis for a fluid catalytic cracking apparatus and/or its components along with its well-known conditions, (see 2106.05(h)). The Claims 2, 8, and 11 further, respectively recite wherein the information includes at least one of: a temperature and temperature distribution inside the regeneration apparatus; a temperature and quantity of an exhaust gas discharged from the regeneration apparatus; a carbon monoxide concentration and a carbon dioxide concentration in the exhaust gas, a temperature, a flow volume, and a flow rate of a fluid flowing in a pipe connected to the regeneration apparatus or a riser, a position of the valve provided in the pipe, a temperature and a quantity of an exhaust gas discharged from the regeneration apparatus, a carbon monoxide concentration and a carbon dioxide concentration in the exhaust gas, a temperature of the regeneration catalyst supplied from the regeneration apparatus to the riser, an amount of coke left; a temperature and a quantity of a cracked product supplied from the riser to a stripper; and a temperature and a quantity of light distillate stripped from the stripper”, recited at a high level of generality and is considered insignificant extra solution and pre-solution activities of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and/or represents mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea or to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment of monitoring or estimating conditions of a fluid catalytic cracking apparatus (FCC) based on gathered data from the FCC apparatus (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), which cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, these limitations amount to necessary data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05 wherein the limitations do not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 4, 6-7, 9-10, and 12-13 depends on claims 2, 8, 11, respectively and thus recites the limitations and the abstract ideas of their respective parent claims.
Claims 4 and 6 further recites the additional limitation of “wherein the first processor learns the condition estimator so that the feature amount calculated by the condition estimator from the learning data is grouped into different clusters depending on the operating condition of the fluid catalytic cracking apparatus occurring when the learning data is acquired, and … the second processor retains a correlation between coordinates of the feature amount in a two-dimensional coordinate space or a three-dimensional coordinate space and the operating condition of the fluid catalytic cracking apparatus and further outputs the operating condition of the fluid catalytic cracking apparatus corresponding to the feature amount calculated by the condition estimator”, these limitations, as drafted, are a process or steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships which are part of the group of mathematical concepts abstract ideas. For instance, these limitations involve the calculation of amounts or values for data into dimensions. The step of clustering data involves the use of mathematical model performing a plurality of mathematical steps such as distance calculation between data points, and between data groups/clusters. The claims or disclosure does not put any limits on how the steps of clustering is performed. Also, retain a correlation when interpreted in the broadest reasonable interpretation is a step that performs a mathematical step of finding a correlation which is a value or strength between data, and which is calculated according to mathematical algorithms. However, the claims does do not place any boundaries on how this steps is performed. Also, the additional limitations “outputs the operating condition of the fluid catalytic cracking apparatus corresponding to the feature amount calculated by the condition estimator”, recited at high level of generality, represents mere data outputting and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity that do not impose any meaningful limitations on the claim (. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “whether the limitation is significant’). Therefore, these additional limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and outputting (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 7, recites the additional limitations of “wherein when the information acquired when the fluid catalytic cracking apparatus was operated at a predetermined point of time in the past is input to the condition estimator, the first processor learns the condition estimator so that a predicted value of a different type of information acquired after an elapse of a predetermined period of time since the predetermined point of time is output from the condition estimator”. These limitations, as drafted, are a process or steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships which are part of the group of mathematical concepts abstract ideas. For instance, this step involves the step of training a model with historical/past data collected in the past/predetermined time, and the model or condition estimator calculates a value of using the trained model at a different time from the collected historical data, wherein the value represents a value of different value or type of information compared to the historical data. Therefore, the inventions of claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 9-10 recites the additional limitations of “wherein the first processor adjusts, based on a difference between a) the predicted value calculated by the condition estimator learned by using, as learning data, particular information of the plurality of types of information acquired by the first processor and b) the predicted value calculated by the condition estimator learned without using the particular information as learning data, the weight of the particular information”, recited in high level of generality. These limitations, as drafted, are a process or steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships which are part of the group of mathematical concepts abstract ideas. For instance, these limitations involve the adjustments of certain values of inputted data by calculating amounts differential of values of predicted values using past data at first time and a predicted value in a future time. Therefore, these limitations covers mathematical relationships which are part of the group of mathematical concepts abstract ideas. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea of claim 8 into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible. Claim 10 further recites “wherein the second processor outputs the predicted value calculated by the condition estimator learned by using the particular information as learning data and the predicted value calculated by the condition estimator learned without using the particular information as learning data” recited at high level of generality, represents mere data outputting and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity that do not impose any meaningful limitations on the claim (. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “whether the limitation is significant’). Therefore, these additional limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and outputting (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 12 further recites “wherein the plurality of types of information include information indicating a temperature in the regeneration apparatus at a predetermined point of time and information indicating an operating condition of the reaction apparatus or the regeneration apparatus at a point of time before the predetermined point of time”, which are recited at high level of generality which are steps of “acquiring data” and “outputting data”, and thus, are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity that do not impose any meaningful limitations on the claim (See MPEP 2106.05(g) “whether the limitation is significant’) and/or represents an attempt to limit the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment such as using the temperature of a fluid catalytic cracking apparatus and its components, (see 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 13 further recite “wherein the reaction apparatus processes a fluid having a boiling point equal to or higher than 170° C” is a tangential limitation and represents an attempt to limit the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment such as a fluid catalytic cracking apparatus and its components, (see 2106.05(h)) and these additional elements were well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (see 2106.05(d) and 2106.05 “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:… ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d))). For instance, it was well known that the reaction apparatus (stripper and riser) of an FCC system, processes a fluid such as petroleum, hydrocarbons, oil, light oils or any other derivatives having a boiling point equal to or higher than 170° C (see Applicant IDS cited references Nahas et al (US 20020072465) par. 0019, 0021; Futoshi JP2019089907A “…heavy oil used as feed oil, a boiling range may be 170-800 ° C, or 190-780 ° C, . ). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
Provided that the rejection of claims 2, 8, and 11 under 35 USC 101 are overcome, these claims would be allowable since not prior art has been found that teaches or suggests the combination of limitations recited in claims 2, 8 and 11 and its dependent claims 4, 6-7, 9-10 and 12-13. The same reasons of indication of allowable subject matter (functions limitation not found in the state of the art) as stated in the office action of 12/7/2024 is incorporated by reference herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, as cited in PTO form 892, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rakib et al (ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS OF AFTERBURN IN RFCC REGENERATOR USING COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS) teaches or suggests that afterburning is highly correlated to abnormal high temperature in the regenerator overhead line of the (page 1), CO imbalance leads to afterburning (page 4).
GOOGLE AI (estimating afterburning in a fluid catalytic") teaches that afterburning is estimated by monitoring and analyzing temperature differential and flue gas composition within the regenerator.
Examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicant must also show how the amendments avoid or differentiate from such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLVIN LOPEZ ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7686 and fax (571) 270-8686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Robert Fennema, can be reached at (571) 272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/O. L./
Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117