DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment/Remarks received on 7 July 2025. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11, 14-16, 19, 31, and 32 have been amended. Claim 33 has been newly added. Claims 12 and 20-30 have been cancelled. Claim 4 was previously cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-19, and 31-33 remain pending in this application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 13-17, filed 7 July 2025, with respect to objected claims 1-3, 5, 7, 14, 15, 19, 31, and 32 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 7 July 2025. The objections of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 14, 15, 19, 31, and 32 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 17-19, filed 7 July 2025, with respect to rejected claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-19, 31 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 7 July 2025. The rejections of claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-19, 31 and 32 have been withdrawn.
Examiner’s Note: In the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C 112(b), the limitation “a data receiver, storage and transmitter unit” was incorrectly cited as failing to disclose a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The Examiner recognizes the specification (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 A1 (instant application) discloses “… the data receiver, storage and transmitter 102 (Input/Output interface) is configured to receive a plurality of data from one or more sources as an input data.” (pg. 3, par. [0027])
Examiner’ Note: The Applicant did not present any arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in the Remarks filed on 7 July 2025.
Further, the Examiner notes in the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C 112(a), the breath of the claim with respect to the limitation of “a data receiver, storage and transmitter unit” was incorrectly cited being unknown since the specification as filed neither recites clear structure for the limitation nor an algorithm(s) that a computer uses to perform the claimed functions. The Examiner recognizes the specification (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 A1 (instant application) discloses “… the data receiver, storage and transmitter 102 (Input/Output interface) is configured to receive a plurality of data from one or more sources as an input data.” (pg. 3, par. [0027])
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 20-29, filed 7 July 2025, with respect to rejected claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-19, 31 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument
Applicant asserts that integration of a judicial exception into a practical application is achieved in terms of improving the functionality of the computer and an improvement to computing technology (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)) with the capability of “implementing, via the one or more hardware processors, an available solution during online trajectory optimization by communicating to relevant actuators present in a dynamical system, monitoring performance of the dynamical system, wherein if the performance of the dynamical system is found to be off-track changes are made to actuation profiles for remaining course of time”. (see Remarks, pg. 20, paragraph 4)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant has set forth a broad and conclusionary statement asserting the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, as well as, mere recitations of claim limitations and citations from the specification, without providing any specific arguments/rationales/evidence as to why the previously and newly presented limitations integrate abstract idea into a practical application. Hence, the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
In regards to the Applicant’s argument,
Applicant asserts that integration of a judicial exception into a practical application is achieved in terms of the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e) with the capability of “re-estimating, via the one or more hardware processors, the actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables using the adjusted constituents, wherein re-estimated actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables enables correcting course of process by communicating to the set of actuators”. (see Remarks, pg. 21, paragraph 2)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106.04(d):
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Whether or not a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is evaluated using the considerations set forth in subsection I below, in accordance with the procedure described below in subsection II.
II. HOW TO EVALUATE WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS INTEGRATE THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
The analysis under Step 2A Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon (including products of nature). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations introduced in subsection I supra, and discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h).
The Examiner recognizes the Applicant has not provided arguments/rationales/evidence as to why the additional elements impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception that are more than insignificant extra-solution activities, which the courts have indicated do not provide a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the Applicant has not provided any arguments/rationales/evidence as to why the elements as presented in Step 2, prong two of the subject matter eligibility requirement of claim 1 (Non-Final Office Action mailed on 7 April 2025) were more than merely limiting that abstract idea to a field of use and post solution activities of gathering data and outputting data. The Examiner maintains the additional limitations as presented in Step 2A, prong two were recited at a high level of generality and so generically they represent merely limiting that abstract idea to a field of use and post solution activities of gathering data and outputting data. Hence, the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument,
Applicant asserts that integration of a judicial exception into a practical application is achieved in terms of improving the functionality of the computer and an improvement to computing technology (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)) with the capability of “real time trajectory optimization of a hybrid electrical vehicle is performed for minimizing fuel consumption, wherein the input data comprises i) design parameters comprising battery type, battery capacity, drive-train of the hybrid electrical vehicle, and ii) operational data comprising road grade, speed, acceleration, gear number, engine torque, motor torque, State Of Charge of battery (SOC), State Of Health (SOH), wherein the set of process variables comprise SOC, engine torque, motor torque and fuel consumption, wherein the set of manipulated variables comprise torque ratio, and wherein the set of disturbance variables comprise driver’s velocity and traffic profile, wherein the actuation profiles of manipulated variables, optimized trajectory of process variables, constraints, objectives, disturbance variable profile during route are determined using the trajectory optimization model, wherein during online implementation expected velocity profile is predicted for the route and profile of torque ratio is fetched from a knowledgebase that minimizes fuel consumption for a present and projected driving condition, wherein the set of process variables and the set of disturbance variables are monitored using vehicle sensors to detect drift from expected values and upon detection of drift, a source of drift is identified comprising at least one of inaccuracy of prediction model of process variable or disturbance variable, infeasibility to satisfy constraints, and wherein re-estimating, using the adjusted trajectory optimization model, a new actuation profile of torque ratio for the remaining portion of the vehicle route and implementing the re-estimated actuation profile to meet the objective of minimization of fuel consumption.” (see Remarks, pg. 22, paragraph 1)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees in part.
The Applicant has set forth a broad and conclusionary statement asserting the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, as well as, mere recitations of claim limitations and citations from the specification, without providing any specific arguments/rationales/evidence as to why the previously and newly presented limitations integrate abstract idea into a practical application. Hence, the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
In addition, the Examiner recognizes the claim limitations set forth above are only recited in claim 33 and integrate the abstract idea of claim 1 into a practical application. Therefore, claim 33 has not been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In regards to the Applicant’s arguments,
In line with Example 39, the claimed subject matter implements an available solution during online trajectory optimization by communicating to relevant actuators present in a dynamical system, monitoring performance of the dynamical system, wherein if the performance of the dynamical system is found to be off-track, then changes are made to actuation profiles for remaining course of time. Applicant asserts that though the claim limitations are based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims. Further, the claim does not recite a mental process because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind rather performed by the hardware processors. The claimed steps cannot be viewed individually, the claimed steps as a whole provide a technical solution of real time trajectory optimization of a process. (see Remarks, pg. 25, paragraph 3)
Further, Referring to XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, 968 F.3d 1323, 1330-32 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the Federal Circuit determined that claims to a method of operating a flow cytometry apparatus to classify and sort particles into at least two populations in real time to more accurately classify similar particles was not directed to “the abstract idea of using a ‘mathematical equation that permits rotating multidimensional data’” even though they may have involved mathematical concepts. Similar to the above referenced Federal Circuit decision, Applicant’s claimed subject matter of real time trajectory optimization of a process is not directed to “the abstract idea of using a mathematical equation” even though they may have involved mathematical concepts. (see Remarks, pg. 28, paragraph 4 - pg. 29, paragraph 1)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(1):
When evaluating a claim to determine whether it recites an abstract idea, examiners should keep in mind that while "all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract ideas", not all claims recite an abstract idea. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank, Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1980-81 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 US 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012)). The Step 2A Prong One analysis articulated in MPEP § 2106.04 accounts for this cautionary principle by requiring a claim to recite (i.e., set forth or describe) an abstract idea in Prong One before proceeding to the Prong Two inquiry about whether the claim is directed to that idea, thereby separating claims reciting abstract ideas from those that are merely based on or involve an abstract idea.
Some claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they do not recite an abstract idea, although it may be apparent that at some level they are based on or involve an abstract idea. Because these claims do not recite an abstract idea (or other judicial exception), they are eligible at Step 2A Prong One (Pathway B).
Non-limiting hypothetical examples of claims that do not recite (set forth or describe) an abstract idea include:
i. a printer comprising a belt, a roller, a printhead and at least one ink cartridge;
ii. a washing machine comprising a tub, a drive motor operatively connected to the tub, a controller for controlling the drive motor, and a housing for containing the tub, drive motor, and controller;
iii. an earring comprising a sensor for taking periodic blood glucose measurements and a memory for storing measurement data from the sensor;
iv. a method for sequencing BRCA1 gene sequences comprising: amplifying by a polymerization chain reaction technique all or part of a BRCA1 gene from a tissue sample from a human subject using a set of primers to produce amplified nucleic acids; and sequencing the amplified nucleic acids;
v. a method for loading BIOS into a local computer system which has a system processor and volatile memory and non-volatile memory, the method comprising the steps of: responding to powering up of the local computer system by requesting from a memory location remote from the local computer system the transfer to and storage in the volatile memory of the local computer system of BIOS configured for effective use of the local computer system, transferring and storing such BIOS, and transferring control of the local computer system to such BIOS;
vi. a method of rearranging icons on a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising the steps of: receiving a user selection to organize each icon based on the amount of use of each icon, determining the amount of use of each icon by using a processor to track the amount of memory allocated to the application associated with the icon over a period of time, and automatically moving the most used icons to a position in the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use; and
vii. a method of training a neural network for facial detection comprising: collecting a set of digital facial images, applying one or more transformations to the digital images, creating a first training set including the modified set of digital facial images; training the neural network in a first stage using the first training set, creating a second training set including digital non-facial images that are incorrectly detected as facial images in the first stage of training; and training the neural network in a second stage using the second training set.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) recites:
The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). Mental processes performed by humans with the assistance of physical aids such as pens or paper are explained further below with respect to point B.
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Mental processes recited in claims that require computers are explained further below with respect to point C.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) recites:
C. A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process
Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, Examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, Examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and Applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are "human cognitive actions" that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is Versata, in which the patentee claimed a system and method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization that was implemented using general purpose computer hardware. 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 1331, 115 USPQ2d at 1685, 1699. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the claims were performed on a generic computer, but still described the claims as "directed to the abstract idea of determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies, in the same way that the claims in Alice were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in Bilski were directed to the abstract idea of risk hedging." 793 F.3d at 1333; 115 USPQ2d at 1700-01.
2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification when explaining that the claimed electronic post office, which recited limitations describing how the system would receive, screen and distribute email on a computer network, was analogous to how a person decides whether to read or dispose of a particular piece of mail and that "with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper". 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.
3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of "anonymous loan shopping", which was a concept that could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
MPEP 2106.05(f) recites:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claims of example 39 are directed to training a neural network using a training set developed using a specific condition and found to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-19, 31 and 32 as filed on 7 July 2025 do not recite training a neural network and thus the arguments and claims are not directed to the same facts of those in example 39. Hence, the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
In addition, the Applicant has merely set forth broad and conclusionary statements asserting the judicial exceptions are not directed to mathematical and mental concepts without providing any specific arguments/rationales/evidence to why the cited limitation set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 7 April 2025 are not directed mathematical and mental concepts. Hence, the Examiner maintains current rejection of claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-19, 31 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth below.
Further, the Examiner emphasizes the Courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid. Thus, the use of one or more hardware processors as claimed is merely using a processor as a tool to perform a mental concept. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument,
Applicant’s claimed invention recites the technical advancement in terms of performing real-time trajectory optimization of a process involved in the dynamical system by monitoring performance of the dynamical system, and if the performance of the dynamical system is found to be off-track changes are made to actuation profiles for remaining course of time. Hence, the presently amended claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, taking all the claim elements individually, or in combination, the claim as a whole amounts to “significantly more” than an abstract idea of itself (Step 2B: Yes). (see Remarks, pg. 28, paragraphs 2-3)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner recognizes the Applicant has merely set forth a broad and conclusionary statement without providing any specific arguments/rationales/evidence as to why the claimed limitations individually and/or in combination is significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 11, 14, 19, and 31-33 stand objected to, claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-19, and 31-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-19, and 31-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-19, 31 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth below.
Applicant’s Interview Request
Upon review of the applicant’s reply filed on 7 July 2025, the Applicant’s interview request (Remarks, pg. 30, paragraph 2) has been denied since it does not appear an interview would result in expediating an allowance of the instant application (see MPEP 713.01(IV)).
Additionally, the Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner to schedule an interview to address any outstanding issues in the instant application in accordance with MPEP 713 and 713.09.
Claim Interpretation
In light of the claim amendments filed on filed on 7 July 2025, claim 19 is no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 7, 11, 14, 19, and 31-33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites punctuation and formatting issues in the limitation “implementing, via the one or more hardware processors, an available solution during online trajectory optimization by communicating to relevant actuators present in a dynamical system, monitoring performance of the dynamical system, …” in lines 5-7. Suggested claim language and format:
“implementing, via the one or more hardware processors, an available solution during online trajectory optimization by communicating to relevant actuators present in a dynamical system;
monitoring performance of the dynamical system, …”;
and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising of “… wherein if the performance of the dynamical system is found to be off-track, then changes are made to actuation profiles for remaining course of time” in lines 7-9. The limitation “changes are made to actuation profiles for remaining course of time” is conditional per the recitation of “… if the performance of the dynamical system is found to be off-track …” (i.e. “changes are made to actuation profiles for remaining course of time” is not positively recited in the method of claim 1). Suggested claim language: “… wherein in response to performance of the dynamical system is off-track, actuation profiles that are the most appropriate of a set of manipulated variables are updated for a remaining time of the process”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such. In addition, the preceding suggestion also obviates the grammatical and antecedent errors.
Examiner’s Note: If the preceding suggestion is adopted by the Applicant the following changes are suggested to obviate subsequent antecedent issues:
Claim 1 recites “a set of manipulated variables” in line 13 and “most appropriate actuation profiles” in line 17 should be changed to “the set of manipulated variables” and “the most appropriate actuation profiles”.
Claim 1 includes the grammatical issue in the limitation “… expected profile of each of the set of process variables …” in lines 25-26. Suggested claim language: “… an expected profiles for each of the set of process variables …”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 1 recites “… monitoring performance …” in line 7 and “… in response to the one or more changes observed while monitoring” in line 31. The limitation “… in response to the one or more changes observed while monitoring” should read “… in response to the one or more changes observed during the monitoring” since the limitation has antecedent support from the limitation “… monitoring performance …” in line 7; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of “most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables” in line 17-18 and “re-estimating … the actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables using the adjusted constituents …” in lines 31-32. The limitation “re-estimating … the actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables using the adjusted constituents …” should read “re-estimating … the most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables using the adjusted constituents …” since the limitation has antecedent support from the limitation “most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables” in line 17-18; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 1 includes grammatical and antecedent issues:
… wherein re-estimated actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables enables correcting course of process by communicating to the set of actuators; and
implementing, via the one or more hardware processors, the re-estimated actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables by informing the set of actuators (lines 32-37)
The claims recite different terms for the same limitation. To avoid ambiguity in the claims a single term should be used for each claim limitation. Suggested claim language:
“… wherein the re-estimated most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables enables correcting a course of the process by transmitting the re-estimated most appropriate actuation profiles to the set of actuators; and
implementing, via the one or more hardware processors, the re-estimated most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables by the transmission of the re-estimated most appropriate actuation profiles to the set of actuators”; and
for the purpose of examination the limitations have been interpreted as such.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “… an expected profile of each of the set of disturbance variables using respective models” in lines 15-16 and claim 7 recites “… updating the models of the set of disturbance variables … ” in line 4. The limitation “… updating the models of the set of disturbance variables … ” should read “… updating the respective models of the set of disturbance variables … ” since the limitation has antecedent support from the limitation “… an expected profile of each of the set of disturbance variables using respective models” in claim 1; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 3 includes the grammatical issue in the limitation of “… each of respective profiles” in line 4. Suggested claim language: “… each respective profiles”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “… expected profile of each of the set of process variables using their respective models” in lines 25-26 and claim 7 recites “… updating the models of the set of process variables … ” in line 6 and “… wherein the models of the set of process variables” in line 8. The limitations of “… updating the models of the set of process variables … ” in line 6 and “… wherein the models of the set of process variables” in line 8 should read “… updating the respective models of the set of process variables … ” in line 6 and “… wherein the respective models of the set of process variables” in line 8 since the limitation has antecedent support from the limitation “… the expected profile of each of the set of process variables using their respective models” in claim 1; and for the purpose of examination the limitations have been interpreted as such.
Claim 11 includes grammatical and antecedent issues in the limitation “wherein preprocessing the input data …” in lines 1-2. Claim 1 recites “preprocessing … the input data” in line 10. The limitation “wherein preprocessing the input data …” in lines 1-2 should read “wherein the preprocessing of the input data …” since the limitation has antecedent support from the limitation “preprocessing … the input data” in claim 1; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 11 includes a grammatical issue in the limitation “… using senor monitoring method …” in line 7. Suggested claim language: “… using a senor monitoring method …”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 14 includes grammatical and antecedent issues in the limitation “… each of the models comprising a trajectory optimization model” in line 7. Claim 14 appears to recite the same term for a different limitation as set forth in claim 1 (“…most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables corresponding to a trajectory optimization model” in lines 17-19). To avoid ambiguity in the claims, different terms should be recited for each limitation. Suggested claim language: “… each of the models comprises of a respective trajectory optimization model”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 19 includes punctuation and formatting issues in the limitation “implement an available solution during online trajectory optimization by communicating to relevant actuators present in a dynamical system, monitoring performance of the dynamical system, …” in lines 9-12. Suggested claim language and format:
“implement an available solution during online trajectory optimization by communicating to relevant actuators present in a dynamical system;
monitor performance of the dynamical system, …”;
and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 19 includes grammatical and antecedent issues in the limitation “… wherein if the performance of the dynamical system is found to be off-track, then changes are made to actuation profiles for remaining course of time” in lines 11-13. Suggested claim language: “… wherein in response to performance of the dynamical system is off-track, actuation profiles that are the most appropriate of a set of manipulated variables are updated for a remaining time of the process”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Examiner’s Note: If the preceding suggestion is adopted by the Applicant the following changes are suggested to obviate subsequent antecedent issues:
Claim 19 recites “a set of manipulated variables” in lines 17-18, “a most appropriate actuation profiles” in line 17, and “a process” in line 28 should be changed to “the set of manipulated variables”, “the most appropriate actuation profiles”, and “the process”.
Claim 19 recites “… monitoring performance …” in lines 10-11 and “… in response to the one or more changes observed while monitoring” in lines 35-36. The limitation “… in response to the one or more changes observed while monitoring” should read “… in response to the one or more changes observed during the monitoring” since the limitation has antecedent support from the limitation “… monitoring performance …” in lines 10-11; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Clam 19 includes punctuation and grammatical issues in the limitations of “… their respective models, and” in line 21 and “… the set of disturbance variables,” in lines 24-25. Suggested claim language: “… their respective models;” in line 21 and “… the set of disturbance variables;” in line 24-25; and for the purpose of examination the limitations have been interpreted as such.
Claim 19 recites the limitations of “a most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables” in lines 22-23 and “re-estimating the actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables using the adjusted constituents …” in lines 37-38. The limitation “re-estimate the actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables using the adjusted constituents …” should read “re-estimate the most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables using the adjusted constituents …” since the limitation has antecedent support from the limitation “most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables” in line 22-23; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 19 includes the grammatical and antecedent issues in the limitation “… wherein re-estimate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables enables correcting course of process by communicating to the set of actuators” in lines 38-40. Claim 19 recites “re-estimate the actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables …” in line 37-38. The limitation “… wherein re-estimate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables enables correcting course of process by communicating to the set of actuators” should read “… wherein the re-estimated most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables enables correcting a course of the process by transmitting the re-estimated most appropriate actuation profiles to the set of actuators” since the limitation has antecedent support from the limitation “re-estimate the actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables …” in line 37-38; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 31 includes punctuation and formatting issues in the limitation “implement an available solution during online trajectory optimization by communicating to relevant actuators present in a dynamical system, monitoring performance of the dynamical system, …” in lines 7-9. Suggested claim language and format:
“implement an available solution during online trajectory optimization by communicating to relevant actuators present in a dynamical system;
monitor performance of the dynamical system, …”;
and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 31 includes grammatical and antecedent issues in the limitation “… wherein if the performance of the dynamical system is found to be off-track, then changes are made to actuation profiles for remaining course of time” in lines 11-13. Suggested claim language: “… wherein in response to performance of the dynamical system is off-track, actuation profiles that are the most appropriate of a set of manipulated variables are updated for a remaining time of the process”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Examiner’s Note: If the preceding suggestion is adopted by the Applicant the following changes are suggested to obviate subsequent antecedent issues:
Claim 19 recites “a set of manipulated variables” in lines 17-18, “a most appropriate actuation profiles” in line 17, and “a process” in line 28 should be changed to “the set of manipulated variables”, “the most appropriate actuation profiles”, and “the process”.
Claim 31 recites “… monitoring performance …” in lines 8-9 and “… in response to the one or more changes observed while monitoring” in lines 30-31. The limitation “… in response to the one or more changes observed while monitoring” should read “… in response to the one or more changes observed during the monitoring” since the limitation has antecedent support from the limitation “… monitoring performance …” in lines 8-9; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 31 recites the limitations of “most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables” in line 19 and “re-estimating the actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables using the adjusted constituents …” in lines 32-33. The limitation “re-estimating the actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables using the adjusted constituents …” should read “re-estimating the most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables using the adjusted constituents …” since the limitation has antecedent support from the limitation “most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables” in line 19; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 31 includes the grammatical and antecedent issues in the limitation “… wherein re-estimate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables enables correcting course of process by communicating to the set of actuators” in lines 33-34. Claim 31 recites “re-estimate the actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables …” in line 32-33. The limitation “… wherein re-estimate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables enables correcting course of process by communicating to the set of actuators” should read “… wherein the re-estimated most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables enables correcting a course of the process by transmitting the re-estimated most appropriate actuation profiles to the set of actuators” since the limitation has antecedent support from the limitation “re-estimate the actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables …” in line 33-34; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 32 includes punctuation, grammatical, and formatting issues in the limitation of
“… in generation of
actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables, and
expected profiles of objective …”
Suggested claim language: “… in generating actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables and expected profiles of objective, …”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 33 includes grammatical issue in the limitation “… the real time trajectory optimization of the dynamical system including a hybrid electrical vehicle is performed for minimizing fuel consumption …” in lines 1-3. Suggested claim language: “… the real time trajectory optimization of the dynamical system includes operating a hybrid electrical vehicle to minimize fuel consumption …”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 33 includes grammatical issue in the limitation “… constraints, objectives, disturbance variable profile during route …” in line 11. Suggested claim language: “… constraints, objectives, and disturbance variable profile during movement along a route …”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 33 recites the grammatical and antecedent issues in the limitation “…wherein during online implementation expected velocity profile is predicted for the route and profile of the torque ratio is fetched from a knowledgebase …” in lines 12-13. Claim 1 recites “a knowledgebase” in line 19. Suggested claim language: “…wherein during online implementation an expected velocity profile is predicted for the route and a profile of the torque ratio is fetched from the knowledgebase …”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
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 1-3, 5-11, 13-19, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 A1 (instant application) discloses:
According to an embodiment of the disclosure, the data receiver, storage and transmitter unit 102 (Input/Output interface) is configured to receive a plurality of data from one or more sources as an input data. The one or more sources comprises one or more of a distributed control system (DCS), a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system, a laboratory information management system (LIMS), an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, a manufacturing execution system (MES), a manufacturing operations management (MOM) system, and a plurality of sensors present in the dynamical system. The data receiver, storage and transmitter unit 102 is accessible to the user via smartphones, laptop or desktop configuration thus giving the user the freedom to interact with the system 100 from anywhere anytime. The data receiver, storage and transmitter unit 102 may include a variety of software and hardware interfaces, for example, interfaces for peripheral device(s), such as a keyboard, a mouse, an external memory, a camera device, and a printer. The data receiver, storage and transmitter unit 102 can facilitate multiple communications within a wide variety of networks and protocol types, including wired networks, for example, local area network (LAN), cable, etc., and wireless networks, such as Wireless LAN (WLAN), cellular, or satellite. (pg. 3, par. [0027])
Claim 1 recites:
receiving, via one or more hardware processors, a plurality of data from one or more sources as input data; (lines 3-4)
Claim 19 recites:
… the one or more hardware processors are configured to:
receive a plurality of data from one or more sources as input data; (lines 6-8)
Claim 31 recites:
… the computing device to:
receive a plurality of data from one or more sources as input data;
In summary, the specification as originally filed on 5 August 2022 does not disclose one or more hardware processors/a computing device receives a plurality of data from one or more sources. The only support for the preceding limitations of claims 1, 19, and 31 is found in the newly presented claims filed on 7 July 2025 (i.e. the specification as originally filed does not support the newly amended claims 1, 19, and 31 as filed on 7 July 2025).
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-18, 32, and 33, dependent from claim 1, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
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 1-3, 5-11, 13-19, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “re-estimating … the actuation profiles” in line 31 and claims 19 and 31 recite “re-estimate the actuation profiles” in line 37 and line 32, respectively. The claims fail to recite an initial (first) estimating, hence the limitation “re-estimating” (i.e. a second estimation) renders the claims unclear. For the purpose of the examination, the limitation “re-estimating” has been interpreted as “estimating”.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-18, 32, and 33, dependent from claim 1, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “computing a difference between the expected profiles and currently measured profiles of the set of process variables with former estimated by performing model predictions on the recent data” in lines 5-7. The claim is unclear as to what data is used to compute “a difference” per the recitation of “… former estimated by performing model predictions on the recent data”; hence, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 6, dependent from claim 5, stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 5.
The following claims recite limitations that lack sufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claims:
Claim 8 recites “the models” in line 1.
Claim 14 recites “the preprocessed input data” in line 8 and “the models” in line 15.
Claim 19 recites “the data receiver, storage and transmitter unit” in line 27-28.
Claims 15-18 and 32, dependent from claim 14, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 14.
Examiner’s Note:
The claims are replete with grammatical errors and indefinite claim language. The Applicant is encouraged to carefully review the claims for any further issues that were inadvertently omitted by the Examiner to obviate future objections and rejections in the interest of advancing prosecution. In addition, if the Applicant requires further clarification, the Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner for an interview.
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 1-3, 5-11, 13-19, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
At step 1, the recites a process implemented method for real time trajectory optimization of a process comprising of a plurality of steps; and therefore is a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
At Step 2A, prong one the claim recites “… monitoring performance of the dynamical system …”; “preprocessing and integrating … the input data”; “classifying … the preprocessed and integrated input data among one of a set of disturbance variables, a set of process variables, a set of manipulated variables, a set of material properties, and a set of design parameters …”; “forecasting … an expected profile of each of the set of disturbance variables using respective models”; “predicting … expected profile of each of the set of process variables using their respective models”; “monitoring … the set of disturbance variables, the set of process variables, objectives, and constraints of the process in real time to observe one or more changes”; and “re-estimating … the actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables using the adjusted constituents …”.
The limitation of “preprocessing and integrating … the input data” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0028]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “classifying … the preprocessed and integrated input data among one of a set of disturbance variables, a set of process variables, a set of manipulated variables, a set of material properties, and a set of design parameters …” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0029]), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “classifying” in the context of the claim encompasses evaluating data to identify data to place in separate desired groups (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “forecasting … an expected profile of each of the set of disturbance variables using respective models” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0030]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “predicting … expected profile of each of the set of process variables using their respective models” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0030]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitations of “… monitoring performance of the dynamical system …” and “monitoring … the set of disturbance variables, the set of process variables, objectives, and constraints of the process in real time to observe one or more changes” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 4, par. [0034]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “re-estimating … the actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables using the adjusted constituents …” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 4, par. [0040] and [0041]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… a process …”; “receiving, via one or more hardware processors, a plurality of data from one or more sources as input data”; “implementing, via the one or more hardware processors, an available solution during online trajectory optimization by communicating to relevant actuators present in a dynamical system, … wherein if the performance of the dynamical system is found to be off-track, then changes are made of actuation profiles for remaining course of time”; “… the classification is stored in a variable information library”; “fetching, via the one or more hardware processors, most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables corresponding to a trajectory optimization model from a knowledgebase, based on a predefined condition for an applicable set of design parameters, the set of material properties, and the expected profiles of the set of disturbance variables”; “implementing, via the one or more hardware processors, the most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables by informing a set of actuators, wherein the set of actuators are part of the process”; “adjusting, via the one or more hardware processors, constituents of the trajectory optimization model in response to the one or more changes observed while monitoring”; “wherein re-estimated actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables enables correction course of process by communicating to the set of actuators”; and “implementing, via the one or more hardware processors, the re-estimated actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables by informing the set of actuators”.
The limitations of “… one or more hardware processors …”; “… a variable information library”; and “… a knowledgebase …” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations of “… a process …”; “… relevant actuators present in a dynamical system …”; “a set of actuators”; and “the set of actuators are part of the process” are generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “receiving … a plurality of data … as input data” represents mere data gathering for use in the abstract idea of “preprocessing and integrating”. The limitation of “receiving” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “… one or more sources …” represents a mere means for data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, as the gathered data (i.e. input data) is used in the abstract idea of “preprocessing and integrating”. The use of the “… one or more sources …” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “… the classification is stored in a variable information library”; “fetching … most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables corresponding to a trajectory optimization model from a knowledgebase, based on a predefined condition for an applicable set of design parameters, the set of material properties, and the expected profiles of the set of disturbance variables”; and “adjusting … constituents of the trajectory optimization model in response to the one or more changes observed while monitoring” represent mere data gathering. The limitations are recited at a high level of generality and so generically they represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “implementing … by communicating to relevant actuators present in a dynamical system”; “implementing … the most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables by informing a set of actuators…”; “… by communicating to the set of actuators”; “implementing … the re-estimated actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables by informing the set of actuators” represent the mere output of data. The limitations are recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically they represent more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “… wherein if the performance of the dynamical system is found to be off-track, then changes are made of actuation profiles for remaining course of time” and “wherein re-estimated actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables enables correction course of process …” are recitations of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). “As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965).” (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “… one or more hardware processors …”; “… a variable information library”; and “… a knowledgebase …” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The additional elements of “… a process …”; “… relevant actuators present in a dynamical system …”; “a set of actuators”; and “the set of actuators are part of the process” merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “receiving … a plurality of data … as input data”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “one or more sources”, as discussed above, represents mere a means for gathering data and is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “… the classification is stored in a variable information library”; “fetching … most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables corresponding to a trajectory optimization model from a knowledgebase, based on a predefined condition for an applicable set of design parameters, the set of material properties, and the expected profiles of the set of disturbance variables”; and “adjusting … constituents of the trajectory optimization model in response to the one or more changes observed while monitoring”, as discussed above, amount to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “implementing … by communicating to relevant actuators present in a dynamical system”; “implementing … the most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables by informing a set of actuators, wherein the set of actuators are part of the process”; “… by communicating to the set of actuators”; “implementing … the re-estimated actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables by informing the set of actuators”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-known, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
The limitations of “… wherein if the performance of the dynamical system is found to be off-track, then changes are made of actuation profiles for remaining course of time” and “wherein re-estimated actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables enables correction course of process …” represent equivalent recitations of the phrase “apply it”, wherein the courts have identified limitations that “(m)erely recit(e) the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent)” with the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept …”. (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2:
At Step 2A, prong one the claim recites “the expected profile of the set of disturbance variables is forecasted using one of current data or by making predictions using models of the set of disturbance variables present in a model database”.
The limitation of “the expected profile of the set of disturbance variables is forecasted using one of current data or by making predictions using models of the set of disturbance variables present in a model database” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0030]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… present in a model database”.
The limitation of “… a model database” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… present in a model database” represents mere data gathering. The limitation of “present(ing)” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… a model database” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… present in a model database”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3:
At Step 2A, prong one the claim recites “ … the most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables is identified by: calculating similarity scores between the forecasted expected profiles of the set of disturbance variables and each of respective profiles already stored in the knowledgebase for a similar set of design parameters and the set of material properties, and selecting the most appropriate actuation profiles for which the calculated similarity score is found to be maximum, wherein the similarity score is calculated in terms of distance measure comprising one of Euclidean distance or Mahalanobis distance, or any similar distance measure or a weighted sum of distance measures computed using different distance estimation techniques”.
The limitation of “… the most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables is identified by: calculating similarity scores between the forecasted expected profiles of the set of disturbance variables and each of respective profiles already stored in the knowledgebase for a similar set of design parameters and the set of material properties …” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0031]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “ … the most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables is identified by: … selecting the most appropriate actuation profiles for which the calculated similarity score is found to be maximum, wherein the similarity score is calculated in terms of distance measure comprising one of Euclidean distance or Mahalanobis distance, or any similar distance measure or a weighted sum of distance measures computed using different distance estimation techniques” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0031]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… stored in the knowledgebase …”.
The limitation of “… the knowledgebase …” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… stored in the knowledgebase” represents mere data gathering. The limitation of “present(ing)” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… the knowledgebase …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… stored in the knowledgebase”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5:
At Step 2A, prong one the claim recites “… wherein monitoring is performed by computing a difference between the forecasted expected profiles and measured profiles of the set of disturbance variables as per recent data; computing a difference between the expected profiles and currently measured profiles of the set of process variables with former estimated by performing model predictions on the recent data; and checking whether all the constraints are satisfied and quantifying an amount by which each constraint is violated, in response to the constraints are not satisfied”.
The limitation of “… wherein monitoring is performed by computing a difference between the forecasted expected profiles and measured profiles of the set of disturbance variables as per recent data” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 4, par. [0034]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… in monitoring can be performed by … computing a difference between the expected profiles and currently measured profiles of the set of process variables with former estimated by performing model predictions on the recent data” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 4, par. [0034]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… in monitoring can be performed by … checking whether all the constraints are satisfied and quantifying an amount by which each constraint is violated, in response to the constraints are not satisfied” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 4, par. [0034]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 6:
At Step 2A, prong one the claim recites “… the computed difference can represent an instantaneous difference or an integrated difference”.
The limitations of “… the computed difference can represent an instantaneous difference or an integrated difference” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 4, par. [0034]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 7:
At Step 2A, prong one the claim recites “… adjustment of the relevant constituents of the trajectory optimization model comprises at least one of: updating the forecast of the set of disturbance variables using recent data or by updating the models of the set of disturbance variables if a difference between the expected profile and actual profile of disturbance variables is more than a first threshold; updating the models of the set of process variables if a difference between expected profile and actual profile of the set of process variables is more than a second threshold; and relaxing limits on the constraints in response to the constraints are not satisfied and there is a scope for relaxing the limits on the constraints”.
The limitations of “adjustment of the relevant constituents of the trajectory optimization model comprises at least one of: updating the forecast of the set of disturbance variables using recent data or by updating the models of the set of disturbance variables if a difference between the expected profile and actual profile of disturbance variables is more than a first threshold …” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 4, par. [0035] and [0036]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “adjustment of the relevant constituents of the trajectory optimization model comprises at least one of: … updating the models of the set of process variables if a difference between expected profile and actual profile of the set of process variables is more than a second threshold …” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 4, par. [0035] and [0037]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “adjustment of the relevant constituents of the trajectory optimization model comprises at least one of: … relaxing limits on the constraints in response to the constraints are not satisfied and there is a scope for relaxing the limits on the constraints”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “relaxing” in the context of the claim encompasses evaluating data to modify information to a desired value (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… stored in the knowledgebase …”.
The limitation of “… the models of the set of process variables include one or more of machine learning (ML) models, deep learning (DL) models, and first-principles based models …” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… the models of the set of process variables include one or more of machine learning (ML) models, deep learning (DL) models, and first-principles based models …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8:
At Step 2A, prong one the claim recites “… the models are updated by one or more of tuning hyper-parameters of machine or deep learning models or by tuning parameters of the first-principles based models”.
The limitation of “… the models are updated by one or more of tuning hyper-parameters of machine or deep learning models or by tuning parameters of the first-principles based models” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 4, par. [0043]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 9:
At Step 2A, prong one the claim recites “… re-estimation of the actuation profiles is performed by one of a plurality of methods depending on limitations on computational time and actuation requirements of relevant sensors, wherein the plurality of method comprise: solving the trajectory optimization model with adjusted constituents for a relatively short horizon; and solving the trajectory optimization model for a remaining horizon with adjusted constituents and most recent data from sensors”.
The limitations of “… re-estimation of the actuation profiles is performed by one of a plurality of methods depending on limitations on computational time and actuation requirements of relevant sensors, wherein the plurality of method comprise: solving the trajectory optimization model with adjusted constituents for a relatively short horizon; and solving the trajectory optimization model for a remaining horizon with adjusted constituents and most recent data from sensors” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 4, par. [0042]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… relevant sensors” and “… sensors …”.
The limitations of “… relevant sensors” and “… sensors …” represent a mere means for data gathering. The “… relevant sensors” and “… sensors …” are recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “… relevant sensors” and “… sensors …” represent mere means for gathering data and is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10:
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… one or more sources of data comprises one or more of a distributed control system (DCS), a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system, a laboratory information management system (LIMS), an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, a manufacturing execution system (MES), a manufacturing operations management (MOM) system, or a plurality of sensors”.
The limitation of “… one or more sources of data comprises one or more of a distributed control system (DCS), a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system, a laboratory information management system (LIMS), an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, a manufacturing execution system (MES), a manufacturing operations management (MOM) system, or a plurality of sensors” represents a mere means for data gathering. The “… one or more sources of data comprises one or more of a distributed control system (DCS), a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system, a laboratory information management system (LIMS), an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, a manufacturing execution system (MES), a manufacturing operations management (MOM) system, or a plurality of sensors” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “… one or more sources of data comprises one or more of a distributed control system (DCS), a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system, a laboratory information management system (LIMS), an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, a manufacturing execution system (MES), a manufacturing operations management (MOM) system, or a plurality of sensors” represent mere means for gathering data and is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11:
At step 2A, prong two, the claims recites “… preprocessing the input data further comprises: applying an outlier detection and removal method on input data to identify and remove unreliable data and to identify any anomalous behavior of the one or more sources; detecting functioning of each of a plurality of sensors, among the one or more sources, using sensor monitoring method and historical performance data of each of the sensor plurality of sensors; and performing data imputation using a multivariate imputation method for the input data to fill in missing data”.
The limitation of “… preprocessing the input data further comprises: applying an outlier detection and removal method on input data to identify and remove unreliable data and to identify any anomalous behavior of the one or more sources”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “identif(ing) and remov(ing) unreliable data and to identif(ing) any anomalous behavior” in the context of the claim encompasses evaluating data to extract information from a group of data for further data analysis to determine an undesirable condition (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… preprocessing the input data further comprises: … detecting functioning of each of a plurality of sensors, among the one or more sources, using sensor monitoring method and historical performance data of each of the sensor plurality of sensors”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “detecting” in the context of the claim encompasses analyzing data to determine operational data (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… preprocessing the input data further comprises: … performing data imputation using a multivariate imputation method for the input data to fill in missing data” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0028]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… the plurality of sensors …” and “… the sensor …”.
The limitations of “… the plurality of sensors …” and “… the sensor …” represent a mere means for data gathering. The “… the plurality of sensors …” and “… the sensor …” are recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “… the plurality of sensors …” and “… the sensor …” represent mere means for gathering data and is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13:
The limitation of claim 13 further details “the models for the set of disturbance variables” of claim 1; hence, the claim stands rejected under the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 14:
At step 2, prong one, “… updating existing models or creating new models of the set of process variables and the set of disturbance variables corresponding to pre-defined objectives and constraints by: … preprocessing and integrating … historical input data; classifying … the preprocessed input data among a set of disturbance variables, a set of process variables, a set of manipulated variables, a set of design parameters, and a set of material properties corresponding to the process …; and updating … existing models or creating new models of the set of process variables and the set of disturbance variables corresponding to predefined objectives and constraints, … wherein each of the models comprising a trajectory optimization model”.
The limitation of “… updating existing models or creating new models of the set of process variables and the set of disturbance variables corresponding to pre-defined objectives and constraints by: … preprocessing and integrating … historical input data (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0028] and pg. 5, par. [0047]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… updating existing models or creating new models of the set of process variables and the set of disturbance variables corresponding to pre-defined objectives and constraints: … classifying … the preprocessed input data among a set of disturbance variables, a set of process variables, a set of manipulated variables, a set of design parameters, and a set of material properties corresponding to the process …” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 5, par. [0048]), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “classifying” in the context of the claim encompasses evaluating data to identify data to place in separate desired groups (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… updating existing models or creating new models of the set of process variables and the set of disturbance variables corresponding to pre-defined objectives and constraints: … updating … existing models or creating new models of the set of process variables and the set of disturbance variables corresponding to predefined objectives and constraints, … wherein each of the models comprising a trajectory optimization model” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 5, par. [0048]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… updating existing models or creating new models of the set of process variables and the set of disturbance variables corresponding to pre-defined objectives and constraints by: … receiving a plurality of historical data from the one or more sources as historical input data”; “… the one or more hardware processors …”; “… the classification is stored in the variable information library”; and “… the updated or created models are stored in a model database …”.
The limitations of “… the one or more hardware processors …”; “… the variable information library”; and “… a model database …” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… updating existing models or creating new models of the set of process variables and the set of disturbance variables corresponding to pre-defined objectives and constraints by: … receiving a plurality of historical data … as historical input data” represents mere data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality and so generically it represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “… the one or more sources …” represents a mere means for data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, as the gathered data (i.e. historical input data) is used in the abstract idea of “preprocessing and integrating”. The use of the “… the one or more sources …” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “… the classification is stored in the variable information library …” and “… the updated or created models are stored in a model database …” represent mere data gathering. The limitations are recited at a high level of generality and so generically they represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “… the one or more hardware processors …”; “… the variable information library”; and “… a model database …” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… updating existing models or creating new models of the set of process variables and the set of disturbance variables corresponding to pre-defined objectives and constraints by: … receiving a plurality of historical data … as historical input data”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-known, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
The limitation of “the one or more sources”, as discussed above, represents mere a means for gathering data and is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “… the classification is stored in the variable information library …” and “… the updated or created models are stored in a model database …”, as discussed above, amount to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… the models are retuned or updated based on prediction error, wherein the prediction error is a difference between measured values and predictions made by a corresponding model”.
The limitations of “… the models are retuned or updated based on prediction error, wherein the prediction error is a difference between measured values and predictions made by a corresponding model” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 4, par. [0035] and [0036]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 16:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… defining objectives and constraints of the process in terms of the set of process variables, the set of manipulated variables and the set of design parameters”.
The limitation of “… defining objectives and constraints of the process in terms of the set of process variables, the set of manipulated variables and the set of design parameters”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “defining” in the context of the claim encompasses a decision process in determining data for use in modeling (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 17:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… the trajectory optimization model is solved using one of control vector parameterization, direct transcription, single or multiple shooting methods, or a plurality of reinforcement learning techniques.”.
The limitations of “… the trajectory optimization model is solved using one of control vector parameterization, direct transcription, single or multiple shooting methods, or a plurality of reinforcement learning techniques” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 5, par. [0049]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 18:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… approximation of generated actuation profiles is carried out through interpolation or extrapolation methods”.
The limitation of “… approximation of generated actuation profiles is carried out through interpolation or extrapolation methods” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 5, par. [0050]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 19:
At step 1, the claim recites “a system for real time trajectory optimization of a process”, therefore is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
At Step 2A, prong one the claim recites “… monitoring performance of the dynamical system …”; “… preprocess and integrate the input data”; “… classify the preprocessed input data among a set of disturbance variables, a set of process variables, a set of manipulated variables, a set of material properties, and a set of design parameters”; “… forecast an expected profile of each of the set of disturbance variables using their respective models”; “… predict expected profile of each of the set of process variables using their respective models”; “… monitor the set of disturbance variables, the set of process variables, objectives, and constraints of the process in real time to observe one or more changes”; and “… re-estimate the actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables using the adjusted constituents”.
The limitation of “… preprocess and integrate the input data” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0028]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… classify the preprocessed input data among a set of disturbance variables, a set of process variables, a set of manipulated variables, a set of material properties, and a set of design parameters” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0029]), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “classifying” in the context of the claim encompasses evaluating data to identify data to place in separate desired groups (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… forecast an expected profile of each of the set of disturbance variables using their respective models” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0030]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… predict expected profile of each of the set of process variables using their respective models” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0030]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitations of “… monitoring performance of the dynamical system …” and “… monitor the set of disturbance variables, the set of process variables, objectives, and constraints of the process in real time to observe one or more changes” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 4, par. [0034]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… re-estimate the actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables using the adjusted constituents” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 4, par. [0040] and [0041]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “one or more hardware processors”; “a memory in communication with the one or more hardware processors”; “… the classification information is stored in a variable information library”; “receive a plurality of data from one or more sources as input data”; “implement an available solution during online trajectory optimization by communicating to relevant actuators present in a dynamical system, … wherein if the performance of the dynamical system is found to be off-track, then changes are made of actuation profiles for remaining course of time” “fetch a most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables from a knowledgebase based on a predefined condition for an applicable set of design parameters and forecasted expected profiles of the set of disturbance variables”; “implementing the most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables by informing a set of actuators using the data receiver, storage and transmitter unit, wherein the set of actuators are part of a process”; “adjust constituents of the trajectory optimization model in response to the one or more changes observed while monitoring”; and “… wherein re-estimated actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables enables correcting course of process by communicating to the set of actuators”.
The limitations of “one or more hardware processors”; “a memory in communication with the one or more hardware processors”; “a variable information library”; “a knowledgebase”; and “the data receiver, storage and transmitter unit” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations of “a process”; “… relevant actuators present in a dynamical system …”; “a set of actuators”; and “the set of actuators are part of the process” are generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “receive a plurality of data … as input data” represents a mere action and mere means of data gathering for use in the abstract idea of “preprocessing and integrating”. The limitation of “receive” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “… one or more sources …” represents a mere means for data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, as the gathered data (i.e. input data) is used in the abstract idea of “preprocessing and integrating”. The use of the “… one or more sources …” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “… the classification information is stored in a variable information library”; “fetch a most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables from a knowledgebase based on a predefined condition for an applicable set of design parameters and forecasted expected profiles of the set of disturbance variables”; and “adjust constituents of the trajectory optimization model in response to the one or more changes observed while monitoring” represent mere data gathering. The limitations are recited at a high level of generality and so generically they represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “implement … by communicating to relevant actuators present in a dynamical system, …”; “implementing the most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables by informing a set of actuators …”; and “… by communicating to the set of actuators”. The limitations are recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically they represent more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “… wherein if the performance of the dynamical system is found to be off-track, then changes are made of actuation profiles for remaining course of time” and “… wherein re-estimated actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables enables correcting course of process …” are recitations of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). “As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965).” (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “one or more hardware processors”; “a memory in communication with the one or more hardware processors”; “a variable information library”; “a knowledgebase”; and “the data receiver, storage and transmitter unit” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The additional elements of “a process”; “… relevant actuators present in a dynamical system …”; “a set of actuators”; and “the set of actuators are part of the process” merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “receive a plurality of data … as input data”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “one or more sources”, as discussed above, represents mere a means for gathering data and is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “… the classification information is stored in a variable information library”; “fetch a most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables from a knowledgebase based on a predefined condition for an applicable set of design parameters and forecasted expected profiles of the set of disturbance variables”; and “adjust constituents of the trajectory optimization model in response to the one or more changes observed while monitoring”, as discussed above, amount to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “implement … by communicating to relevant actuators present in a dynamical system, …”; “implementing the most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables by informing a set of actuators …”; and “… by communicating to the set of actuators”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-known, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
The limitation of “… wherein if the performance of the dynamical system is found to be off-track, then changes are made of actuation profiles for remaining course of time” and “wherein re-estimated actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables enables correction course of process by communicating to the set of actuators” represent equivalent recitations of the phrase “apply it”, wherein the courts have identified limitations that “(m)erely recit(e) the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent)” with the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept …”. (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 31:
At step 1, the claim recites “(a) computer program product”, therefore is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
At Step 2A, prong one the claim recites “… monitoring performance of the dynamical system …”; “preprocess and integrate the input data”; “classify the preprocessed and integrated input data among one of a set of disturbance variables, a set of process variables, a set of manipulated variables, a set of material properties, and a set of design parameters …”; “forecast an expected profile of each of the set of disturbance variables using respective models”; “predict the expected profile of each of the set of process variables using their respective models”; “monitor the set of disturbance variables, the set of process variables, objectives, and constraints of the process in real time to observe one or more changes”; and “re-estimate the actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables using the adjusted constituents”.
The limitation of “preprocess and integrate the input data” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0028]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “classify the preprocessed and integrated input data among one of a set of disturbance variables, a set of process variables, a set of manipulated variables, a set of material properties, and a set of design parameters …” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0029]), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “classifying” in the context of the claim encompasses evaluating data to identify data to place in separate desired groups (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “forecast an expected profile of each of the set of disturbance variables using respective models” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0030]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “predict the expected profile of each of the set of process variables using their respective models” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0030]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitations of “… monitoring performance of the dynamical system …” and “monitor the set of disturbance variables, the set of process variables, objectives, and constraints of the process in real time to observe one or more changes” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 4, par. [0034]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “re-estimate the actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables using the adjusted constituents” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 4, par. [0040] and [0041]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… a non-transitory computer readable medium having a computer readable program embodied therein, wherein the computer readable program, when executed on a computing device …”; “receive … a plurality of data from one or more sources as an input data”; “implement an available solution during online trajectory optimization by communicating to relevant actuators present in a dynamical system, … wherein if the performance of the dynamical system is found to be off-track, then changes are made of actuation profiles for remaining course of time”; “… the classification is stored in a variable information library”; “fetch most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables corresponding to a trajectory optimization model from a knowledgebase, based on a predefined condition for an applicable set of design parameters, the set of material properties, and expected profiles of the set of disturbance variables”; “implement the most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables by informing a set of actuators, wherein the set of actuators are part of a process”; “adjust constituents of a trajectory optimization model in response to the one or more changes observed while monitoring”; “implement the re-estimated actuation profiles of manipulated variables by informing the set of actuators, wherein the set of actuators are part of a process”; and “… wherein re-estimated actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables enables correcting course of process by communicating to the set of actuators”.
The limitations of “… a non-transitory computer readable medium having a computer readable program embodied therein, wherein the computer readable program, when executed on a computing device …”; “… a variable information library”; and “… a knowledgebase …” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations of “a set of actuators” and “the set of actuators are part of the process”; are generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “receive … a plurality of data from one or more sources as an input data” represents mere data gathering for use in the abstract idea of “preprocessing and integrating”. The limitation of “receive” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “… one or more sources …” represents a mere means for data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, as the gathered data (i.e. input data) is used in the abstract idea of “preprocessing and integrating”. The use of the “… one or more sources …” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “… the classification is stored in a variable information library”; “fetch most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables corresponding to a trajectory optimization model from a knowledgebase, based on a predefined condition for an applicable set of design parameters, the set of material properties, and expected profiles of the set of disturbance variables”; and “adjust constituents of a trajectory optimization model in response to the one or more changes observed while monitoring” represent mere data gathering. The limitations are recited at a high level of generality and so generically they represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “implement an available solution during online trajectory optimization by communicating to relevant actuators …”; “implementing the most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables by informing a set of actuators …” and “…by communicating to the set of actuators” represent the mere output of data. The limitations are recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically they represent more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “… wherein if the performance of the dynamical system is found to be off-track, then changes are made of actuation profiles for remaining course of time” and “… wherein re-estimated actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables enables correcting course of process” are recitations of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). “As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965).” (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “… a non-transitory computer readable medium having a computer readable program embodied therein, wherein the computer readable program, when executed on a computing device …”; “… a variable information library”; and “… a knowledgebase …” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The additional elements of “a set of actuators” and “the set of actuators are part of the process” merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “receive … a plurality of data from one or more sources as an input data”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “one or more sources”, as discussed above, represents mere a means for gathering data and is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “… the classification is stored in a variable information library”; “fetch most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables corresponding to a trajectory optimization model from a knowledgebase, based on a predefined condition for an applicable set of design parameters, the set of material properties, and expected profiles of the set of disturbance variables”; and “adjust constituents of a trajectory optimization model in response to the one or more changes observed while monitoring”, as discussed above, amount to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “implement an available solution during online trajectory optimization by communicating to relevant actuators …”; “implementing the most appropriate actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables by informing a set of actuators …” and “…by communicating to the set of actuators”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-known, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
The limitations of “… wherein if the performance of the dynamical system is found to be off-track, then changes are made of actuation profiles for remaining course of time” and “… wherein re-estimated actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables enables correcting course of process” represent equivalent recitations of the phrase “apply it”, wherein the courts have identified limitations that “(m)erely recit(e) the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent)” with the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept …”. (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 32:
At Step 2A, prong one the claim recites “solving … the trajectory optimization model for finding an extrema of the predefined objectives while satisfying predefined constraints for defined profiles of the set of disturbance variables and defined values of the set of design parameters and the set of material properties, wherein a solution of the trajectory optimization model results in generation of actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables, and expected profiles of objectives, constraints and the set of process variables”; “approximating, via the one or more hardware processors, the generated actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables depending on actuation capabilities of a set of actuators, wherein each of the set of actuators corresponds to a manipulated variable”; and “wherein defining and solving the trajectory optimization model of the process is performed in offline mode”.
The limitations of “solving … the trajectory optimization model for finding the extrema of the predefined objectives while satisfying the predefined constraints for the defined profiles of the set of disturbance variables and defined values of the set of design parameters and the set of material properties, wherein the solution of the trajectory optimization model results in the generation of actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables, and expected profiles of objectives, constraints and the set of process variables” and “wherein defining and solving the trajectory optimization model of the process is performed in offline mode” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 2, par. [0009] and pg. 5, par. [0049]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “approximating, via one or more hardware processors, the generated actuation profiles of the set of manipulated variables depending on the actuation capabilities of a set of actuators, wherein each of the set of actuators corresponds to a manipulated variable” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0104214 (instant application): pg. 5, par. [0050]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… the one or more hardware processors …” and “storing, via the one or more hardware processors, in the knowledgebase, a solution of trajectory optimization model, a set of constituents of the trajectory optimization model, wherein the set of constituents include a set of objectives, constraints, design parameters, a set of material properties, models of the process and disturbance variables, profiles of disturbance variables, and an initial state of the set of process variables, and computational time to solve the trajectory optimization model”.
The limitations of “… the one or more hardware processors …” and “… the knowledgebase …” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “storing ... a solution of trajectory optimization model, a set of constituents of the trajectory optimization model, wherein the set of constituents include a set of objectives, constraints, design parameters, a set of material properties, models of the process and disturbance variables, profiles of disturbance variables, and an initial state of the set of process variables, and computational time to solve the trajectory optimization model” represent mere data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality and so generically it represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “… the one or more hardware processors …” and “… the knowledgebase …” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “storing ... a solution of trajectory optimization model, a set of constituents of the trajectory optimization model, wherein the set of constituents include a set of objectives, constraints, design parameters, a set of material properties, models of the process and disturbance variables, profiles of disturbance variables, and an initial state of the set of process variables, and computational time to solve the trajectory optimization model”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to modeling systems/methods.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0278449 A1 discloses a hybrid vehicle controller operates to use GPS navigation information to determine how much energy should be delivered from or sent to, the battery.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0163789 A1 discloses an engine, electric machine and battery of a vehicle are operated such that a state of charge of the battery generally decreases and then achieves approximately a charge-depletion-to-charge-sustaining transition threshold after the vehicle has been driven a distance greater than the pure electrical range of the vehicle.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0046000 A1 discloses a management of fuel consumption in a hybrid electric vehicle.
U.S. Patent No. 9,043,061 B2 discloses a method includes interpreting a powertrain load variation amplitude and an internal combustion engine output profile.
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 JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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, 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 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights