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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 rejections.
Remarks
Applicant’s arguments, filed (12/11/2025), with respect to pending claims 1-15 have been fully considered and are directed to claims as amended. The arguments addressed to the 101 Rejection is not persuasive.
Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues (Page 7, line 30 through Page 8, lines 1-2):
“First, it is respectfully noted that the Office has omitted several additional limitations
from claim 1 in its consideration of whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
practical application. For example, claim 1 also recites a controller utilizing measurements taken
from the multivariable industrial process and an actuator to drive the multivariable process such. that the controller is configured to use the measurements to provide control commands to the
actuator to drive the multivariable process.”
The claim does not actually performing any control process, for instance:
control the behavior of the device to process like a paper machine or a water treatment.
The steps of …“change setpoint(s) of the controller to an adjusted setpoint value(s) in order to use them when providing the control commands…” related to the machine learning algorithms related to the diagnostic process, which is analyze and estimate behavior of a process like a paper machine or a water treatment.
The “control command” is not actually directed to the device/machine which is actually/physically perform the any action related to the behavior of the physical device.
The claim does not perform any physical measurement, what is being measured, how it is measured, and when it is measured.
The limitation of “… the diagnostic arrangement having a controller utilizing measurements from the multivariable industrial process, and an actuator to drive the multivariable process, where the controller is arranged to use the measurements to form control commands to the actuator” just add more details of controlling or optimizing a multivariable industrial process, which is just comprises an additional parts of the general computer, [e, g, controller, diagnostic arrangement, controller is part of general computer], which are perform the routing steps of calculation and measurements.
The additional limitations in relation to the computer, computer product, or computer system does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)). The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea.
Applicant argues (Page 8):
“Similar to Example 45 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines (PEG), the
abovementioned elements do not merely link the judicial exceptions to a technical field, but
instead add a meaningful limitation in the operation and control of a multivariable industrial
process, such as a pulp process, papermaking, board making or tissue making process, industrial
water or waste water treatment process, raw water treatment process, water re-use process,
municipal water or waste water treatment process, sludge treatment process, mining process, or
oil recovery process (claim 14). Beyond this, claim 1 has been further been amended to recite,
inter alia, that the one or more estimators are configured to change setpoint(s) of the controller to
an adjusted setpoint value(s) in order to use them when providing the control commands to the
actuator, wherein an output of each estimator is configured to be used alone or together with
outputs of other estimators for controlling dosing amount of chemical or chemicals to the
adjusted setpoint value(s) used in said process. In this regard, information and measurements
obtained by the controller are provided to the one or more estimators to take corrective action via
adjusted setpoint values in order to control dosing amounts of chemicals in the process. Taken
together, it is clear that claim 1 integrates any purported abstract idea into a practical application
and is therefore not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong Two.”
The Examiner respectfully point:
In Example 25 Diamond v. Diehr 450 U.S. at 184, 187, where a combination of steps including installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, all of which together meaningfully limited the use of a mathematical equation to a practical
application of molding rubber products. See MPEP 2106.05(e) for more information on this consideration, including a discussion of the exemplar provided herein, which is based on Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184, 187. See also USPTO Finjan Memorandum (discussing Finjan and Core Wireless).
Unlike in Example 25 Diamond v. Diehr 450 U.S. at 184, 187, the claim 1 of the current application, just generally recited the diagnostic arrangement. Any computer being used could be perform routine steps as a calculations/analysis, and measurements, which could easily be performed by a generic computer structure.
The present claims do not recite an improvement in a particular diagnostic arrangement.
Instead, the claims recite performing a processing data, calculation, this mathematical calculation is not specific, and the claims would tend to monopolize all uses of the mathematical calculation.
Any computer being used could be perform routine calculations, which could easily be performed by a generic computer structure.
In order to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim must have additional elements which make the claim, taken as a whole, significantly more than the abstract idea.
The controlling or optimizing a multivariable industrial process is not specified, how it is controlled, when is controlled, and what is controlling.
Therefore the controlling and optimizing process referred to the diagnostics process using the machine learning algorithms on the computer.
The claim does not actually performing any control process, for instance:
control the behavior of the device to process like a paper machine or a water treatment.
The steps of …“change setpoint(s) of the controller to an adjusted setpoint value(s) in order to use them when providing the control commands…” related to the machine learning algorithms related to the diagnostic process, which is analyze and estimate behavior of a process like a paper machine or a water treatment.
The “control command” is not actually directed to the device/machine which is actually/physically perform the any action related to the behavior of the physical device.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as addressed below.
The new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (Vol. 84 No. 4, Jan 7, 2019 pp 50-57) has been applied and the claims are deemed as being patent ineligible.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a
statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C.
101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The below claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the independent claim 1 all include abstract ideas as highlighted (using a bold font) shown below.
“1. a diagnostic arrangement for controlling and/or optimizing a multivariable industrial process during operation of the multivariable industrial process, the diagnostic arrangement having a controller utilizing measurements, which are taken from the multivariable industrial process, and an actuator to drive the multivariable process, where the controller is configured to use the measurements to provide control commands to the actuator to drive the multivariable process, the arrangement having a data processing module in order to process measurement data from the multivariable process and to perform pre- processed measurement data, and a machine learning module in order to perform machine learning values from the pre-processed measurement data, wherein the diagnostic arrangement comprises an explanation value module for forming explanation values from the machine learning values, and a deviation calculation module to calculate deviations between the explanation values and normal explanation values, deviations between the machine learning values and normal machine learning values, and
deviations between the pre-processed measurement data and normal pre-processed measurement data, the diagnostic arrangement further comprising at least one estimator, which each estimator is arranged to follow a specific disturbance condition or quality condition of the multivariable process utilizing said deviations between the explanation values and normal explanation values, between the machine learning values and normal machine learning values, and between the pre- processed measurement data and normal pre-processed measurement data, and to form an estimation of severity of the disturbance condition or the quality condition and commands to change setpoint(s) of the controller to an adjusted setpoint value(s) in order to use them when providing the control commands to the actuator, wherein an output of each estimator is configured to be used alone or together with outputs of other estimators for controlling dosing amount of chemical or chemicals to the adjusted setpoint value(s) used in said process.”
The steps of indicated as Abstract idea is considered to be equivalent of a mathematical concepts or steps.
Under step 2A prong 2,
The claims are not directed to any practical application.
The claim 1 comprising additional limitation of machine learning module, deviation calculation module, estimator. The additional limitations in relation to a computer, computer product, or computer system does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)). The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea.
The new limitation of “an output of each estimator is configured to be used alone or together with outputs of other estimators for controlling dosing amount of chemical or chemicals to the adjusted setpoint value(s) used in said process.” just data obtaining and output data, which is insignificant extra solution activity.
The claim does not perform any physical action by actually controlling process.
Under step 2B
The Claim 1 does not comprise any additional elements into which the Abstract idea can be integrated to create a practical application.
The claim 1 comprising additional limitations of “machine learning module”, “deviation calculation module”, “diagnostic arrangement further comprising at least one estimator, which each estimator” and “estimator”.
The additional limitations in relation to the computer, computer product, or computer system does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)). The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea.
The new limitation of “an output of each estimator is configured to be used alone or together with outputs of other estimators for controlling dosing amount of chemical or chemicals to the adjusted setpoint value(s) used in said process.” just data obtaining and output data, which is insignificant extra solution activity.
The depended claims 3, 6, 8, and 12-15 are merely extend the details of the abstract idea of mathematical concepts, more particularly mathematical calculations or mental steps as accrued.
Claim 2 just additionally describing type of data.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 additionally comprises the modules, which are related to the computer, computer product, or computer system does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)). The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea.
Therefore claims 2-15 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner note regarding the prior art of the record:
Regarding Claim 1, Eisuke (JP6529690B1), discloses a diagnostic arrangement (Fig.1, para [0024], where operation condition setting support device 30 supporting setting of the operation conditions of the plant 3 with use of the algorithm learned by the learning device 4”) for a multivariable process (para [0036], where setting values for a plurality of control amounts), controlling and /or optimizing a multivariable industrial process, the diagnostic arrangement having a controller utilizing measurements from the multivariable industrial process, and an actuator to drive the multivariable process, where the controller is configured to use the measurements to provide control commands to the actuator, to drive the multivariable process, the arrangement having a data processing module in order to process measurement data of the multivariable process and to perform pre-processed measurement data (para [0050]);
and a machine learning module yin order to perform machine learning values from the pre-processed measurement data (para [0037]),
wherein in that the diagnostic arrangement comprises an explanation value module for forming explanation from the machine learning values (Fig. 3: index calculator, and see para [0038] and [0039], where learning the estimation algorithm 43 using a large number of actual values…calculated an indicator that represents the magnitude and urgency of the deriving behavior of the vehicle, i.e., the calculated an indicator for specific results of data corresponds to the explanation value) and a deviation calculation module to calculate and deviations between the pre-processed measurement data and normal pre-processed measurement data (para [0026], where when a state value to be monitored is abnormal and different from that in the past operation”, i.e., there is a deviation of state value from past operation(normal value) with respect to normal operation),
(para [0029], where from the difference between each of the state values in present operation and that in past operation or the change ration of the difference , an index representing a degree of importance and a degree of urgency of the state value influencing the major device is calculated);
Germouni et al. (US Pub.20080274240A1) discloses commands to change setpoint(s) of the controller to an adjusted setpoint value(s) in order to use them when provoiding the control commands to the actuator (para [0023]).
Lunberg ”A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predications” discloses deviations between the machine learning values and normal machine learning values (Fig. 5, page 8).
Hu (CN204569467U) disclose output of or controlling dosing amount of chemical or chemicals to the adjusted setpoint value(s) used in said process (page 5, para 4).
The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a method of testing having the steps of “the diagnostic arrangement further comprising at least one estimator which each estimator is arranged to follow a specific disturbance condition or quality condition of the multivariable process utilizing said deviations between the explanation values and normal explanation values, between the machine learning values and normal machine learning values, and between the pre- processed measurement data and normal pre-processed measurement data and to form an estimation of severity of the disturbance condition or the quality condition”.
Regarding Claim 2-15 the claims are not rejected under 35 USC 102 or 103 as being dependent from a base claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Chiy-Ferng Perng ”Nonlinear Input Mapping in Fuzzy Control Systems “;
2. George K. L. Mann et al., “Analysis of Direct Action Fuzzy PID Controller Structures”.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KALERIA KNOX whose telephone number is (571)270-5971. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571)2722302. 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.
/KALERIA KNOX/
Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/MICHAEL J DALBO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857