DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of the Claims
This communication is in response to communications received on 9/3/25. Claim(s) 21, 34, 36, 37, and 39 has/have been amended, claim(s) 35 is/are cancelled, claim(s) none is/are new, and applicant does not provide any information on where support for the amendments can be found in the instant specification. Therefore, Claims 21-34 and 36-40 is/are pending and have been addressed below.
Claims Without Prior Art Rejections
Claim(s) 21-34 and 36-40 do/does not have prior art rejections. The remaining rejections are 101 and 112 as noted below.
Closest prior art to the invention claims without rejections include
Nixon et al. (US 2014/0282257 A1) in view of Windridge et al. (US 10,984,351 B2) for claim(s) 21-34 and 36-40.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 9/3/25, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 112 for claim(s) (112a) 21-40 and (112b) 21-40, 21-40, and 39-40 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. The Examiner respectfully withdraws rejections under 35 USC 112 for claim(s) (112a) 21-40 and (112b) 21-40 and 39-40 (except 21-40 112b).
Applicant respectfully traversed the rejection on pg. 13-15.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because regarding the 112 rejection of claim(s) 21-40 there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation(s) “a function of the operational profile” or “the retrieved operational profile.”.
Thus, the argument(s) are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 9/3/25, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 for claim(s) 21-40 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner respectfully withdraws rejections 35 USC 102 and 103 for claim(s) 21-40.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 9/3/25, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 for claim(s) 21-40 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the amended 101 rejection(s) below.
Applicant respectfully traversed the rejection on pg. 15-16.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the instant claims unlike Research Corp are not directed to pixel-by-pixel comparison and instead are directed to human-in-the-loop. Both claims using hardware and software is not enough of a similarity to overcome 101.
Applicant has not provided an argument on how the instant applicant is an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field and instead merely states the invention is a further advance in the functioning of a computer in human interaction specifically related to advanced training models.
Thus, the argument(s) are unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 21-34 and 36-40 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 21-34 and 36-40 is/are rejected. Claim 21, 34, and 36 recites the limitation as “a function of the operational profile” or “the retrieved operational profile.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation(s). Appropriate correction/clarification is required. Claim(s) 22-33 and 37-40 is/are rejected because they depend on claim(s) 21, 34, and 36.
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.
Claim(s) 21-35 and 36-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as noted below.
The limitation(s) below for representative claim(s) 21, 34, and 36 that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to task concatenation and prediction of operator and system response.
Step 1: The claim(s) as drafted, is/are a process (claim(s) 34 recites a series of steps) and system (claim(s) 21-33 and 36-40 recites a series of components).
Step 2A – Prong 1: The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) (emphasis added):
Claim 34: receiving at least one operational status message containing an operational parameter having one or more operational parameter values representative of the actual state of an operation of the controlled system from at least one of the controlled system components of the controlled system during operation thereof, and for processing the received operational parameter and the one or more operational parameter values to determine a current observed state of the controlled system or controlled component of the system;
retrieve at least one operational model, each at least one operational model including a plurality of predetermined objective operational parameters associated with one or more operational components of the controlled system and having at least one objective parameter value for one or more of the plurality of the predetermined operational parameters;
determine an optimal state of the controlled system or controlled system component as a function of the retrieved at least one operational model and the received operational status message, the observed state and the optimal state of the controlled system each including a plurality of operational components, the actual state information and optimal state information operational components having a corresponding match, and the operational components having an associated measured operational value representing the state of the operational component; and
upon determining said observed state information of the controlled system and determining the optimal state of the controlled system, determining a set of gaps between corresponding components of the observed state and the determined optimal state of the controlled system, said determined gaps including an associated value representing the magnitude of the difference between the observed state and the optimal state, and collecting the determined gaps in a gap list that represents the differences between the observed state and the optimal state of the controlled system;
retrieving one or more stored operational thresholds associated with the determined gaps and that correspond to one or more of the controlled components of the controlled system, wherein the retrieved operational thresholds are indicative of an acceptable range of difference values between the matched controlled components of the observed state and the determined optimal state;
comparing the associated difference values of the determined gaps with the received operational thresholds for the associated controlled component;
converting the determined gaps on the gap list into a set of tasks on a task list;
wherein, when the difference values exceed the operational threshold associated with a task, determining whether the associated tasks on said task list can be automatically addressed by the system or the associated tasks must be presented to the human operator for human operator input response; and
providing an alert to the human operator, wherein the alert prompts the operator to provide a control input as to one or more of the tasks on the task list for which the control system cannot automatically generate as a function of the operational profile for the controlled system, wherein the operator provides the control input.
Claim 21 and 36: same analysis as claim 34.
Dependent claims 22-33, and 37-40 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claim(s) 21, 34, and 36 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s): .
The identified limitations of the independent and dependent claims above fall well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts of:
a method of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or business relations) because the invention is directed to economic and/or business relationships as they are associated with task concatenation and prediction of operator and system response for a business.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The additional elements unencompassed by the abstract idea include controlled system (claim(s) 21, 34, 36), an controlled interface module for receiving and transmitting information with the controlled system, a human interface module for receiving inputs from a human operator, a communications module for communicating information with a human operator, a processor module, a system memory module for storing computer executable instructions, a memory module for random access memory (RAM) storage during system operation, a high performance computing (HPC) module, the processor module configured for processing of computer executable instructions configured to facilitate the flow of information between the controlled system, the operator, the system memory module, the RAM, and the HPC module (claim(s) 21, 36), system (claim(s) 23-30, 32-33, 37-40), module (claim(s) 26, 29, 32-33).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 fails to describe:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [0057]) invoked as a tool and/or general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [0057]) invoked as a tool and/or a general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and thus similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as set forth above (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Conclusion
When responding to the office action, any new claims and/or limitations should be accompanied by a reference as to where the new claims and/or limitations are supported in the original disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WEBB whose telephone number is (313)446-6615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-3.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/JAMES WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3624