DETAILED ACTION
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 . 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 25 July 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
The pending claims in the present application are claims 1-10 and 12 of the “Amendment and Response to Office Action” of 08 August 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the “Amendment/Response”).
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 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The paragraphs below provide rationales for the rejection. The rationales are based on the multi-step subject matter eligibility test outlined in MPEP 2106.
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis involves determining whether a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101. (See MPEP 2106.03(I).) That is, Step 1 asks whether a claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (See MPEP 2106.03(II).) Referring to the pending claims, the “method” of claims 1-10 and 11 constitutes a process under 35 USC 101. Accordingly, claims 1-10 and 11 meet the criteria of Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. The claims, however, fail to meet the criteria of subsequent steps of the eligibility analysis, as explained in the paragraphs below.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2A, involves determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.04(II).) This step asks whether a claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. (See id.) Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).) Prong One and Prong Two are addressed below.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong One asks whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1).) Using independent claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following abstract idea limitations:
“A method of arranging devices of a processing plant configured to process fluid, the method comprising steps of: ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... analyzing ... relevance among a plurality of devices included in the processing plant and performing grouping on the plurality of devices according to the relevance to generate a plurality of device groups which are distinguishable from one another, each device group including at least one device, the devices included in a same device group having high relevance according to a predetermined criterion, and each device group having set therefor an occupied area including an arrangement area for the at least one device, and setting for the plurality of device groups, connection information representing that, in order to transfer the fluid between each device included in one device group and a counterpart device included in another device group, two specific device groups are connected and paired via a pipe, and pipe information required for calculating a use amount of a pipe material per unit length of the pipe corresponding to the connection information; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... setting ... an installation area of the processing plant, and a pipe-rack arrangement area having a band-like planar shape of a pipe rack to be provided in the installation area to support the pipe; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... repeatedly executing ... a first step and a second step while changing an arrangement of the plurality of device groups by means of an optimization algorithm to obtain a plurality of arrangements, and selecting a plurality of arrangements having total use amounts of the pipe materials smaller than a predetermined threshold value from the obtained plurality of arrangements, ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... the first step including arranging the plurality of device groups in the installation area having a restriction condition such that an outer edge of the occupied area of the one device group is brought into contact with a longest side of the pipe-rack arrangement area having the band-like planar shape and so that the occupied area of the one device group and the occupied area of another device group are prevented from overlapping each other, ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... the second step including calculating, for the arrangement of the plurality of device groups, the total use amount of the pipe material of the pipe to be supported by the pipe rack based on a position at which the outer edge of each occupied area is brought into contact with the longest side and on the connection information, ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... wherein the first step and the second step are repeated until an optimal arrangement of the plurality of device groups having a total use amount of the pipe materials smaller than total use amounts of other arrangements is not able to be found; and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... setting the optimal arrangement as the first layout of the plurality of devices.” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
The above-listed limitations of independent claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, fall under enumerated groupings of abstract ideas outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a). For example, limitations of the claim can be characterized as: mathematical concepts, including mathematical calculations (see the recited “calculating” step), which falls under the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Limitations of the claim also can be characterized as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, associated with one or more individuals creating plans or blueprints, which falls under the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Limitations of the claim also can be characterized as: concepts performed in the human mind, including evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion (see the recited “analyzing,” “setting,” “executing,” “arranging,” “calculating,” and “setting” steps), which fall under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Accordingly, for at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong Two asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2).) Continuing to use independent claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following additional element limitations:
Various steps being performed “by a computer” or “by the computer” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (f), and (h)
The above-listed additional element limitations of independent claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, are analogous to: accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, mere automation of manual processes, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)); a commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, and selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform from within a range of fundamental or commonplace functions performed by the hardware, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)); a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions, and merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, which do not qualify as a particular machine or use thereof (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)); a machine that is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(II)); use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, which does not integrate a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(III)); transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment, which is not likely to provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); 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, a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, and requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); and specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, which courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2B, asks whether a claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(II).) The step involves identifying whether there are any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept. (See id.) The ineligibility rationales applied at Step 2A, Prong Two, also apply to Step 2B. (See id.) For all of the reasons covered in the analysis performed at Step 2A, Prong Two, independent claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B. Further, claim 1 also fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B because at least some of the additional elements are analogous to performing repetitive calculations, which courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). As a result, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible for patenting.
Regarding pending claims 2-10 and 11, the claims depend from independent claim 1, and expand upon limitations introduced by claim 1. The dependent claims are rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 1. For example, the dependent claims recite abstract idea elements similar to the abstract idea elements of claim 1, that fall under the same abstract idea groupings as the abstract idea elements of claim 1. All limitations of claims 2-10 and 12 recite certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, similar to claim 1. At least claim 10 recites mathematical concepts, similar to claim 1. The specific language of claims 2-10 and 11 is not reproduced here for the sake of brevity. Claims 2-10 and 11 do not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, claims 2-10 and 12 also are rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirakawa, Masakazu, and Masao Arakawa. "Multi-objective optimization system for plant layout design (3rd report, Interactive multi-objective optimization technique for pipe routing design)." Journal of Advanced Mechanical Design, Systems, and Manufacturing 12.2 (2018): JAMDSM0053-JAMDSM0053. (hereinafter referred to as “Shirakawa”), in view of WIPO Int’l Pub. No. 2015/117245 A1 to James et al. (hereinafter referred to as “James”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Shirakawa discloses the following limitations:
“A method of arranging devices of a processing plant configured to process fluid, the method comprising the steps of: ...” - Shirakawa discloses, “a thermal power plant” (p. 1), “The main equipment in a thermal power plant includes boilers, turbines, and generators; the auxiliary equipment includes heat exchangers, pumps, and fans; the incidental facilities are utilized for fuel, water treatment, and power transmission and transformation, and the onsite buildings include control rooms, electrical rooms, and service buildings. The equipment and buildings are connected by pipes, ducts, and cables arranged in an overarching system structure” (p. 1), “the authors have chosen to address the design of thermal power plant layouts (plot plans), and have developed a multi-objective optimization system for plant layout design” (p. 2), and “The purpose of this study is to propose an optimization method to search for an optimal route for pipes and cables based upon multi-objective evaluation, in addition to the optimal layout solutions obtained by previously reported optimization methods” (p. 2). Optimization methods for optimal layout solutions for arranging the boilers, turbines, generators, auxiliary equipment, incidental facilities, and onsite buildings, used in conjunction with the optimization method for routing pipes and cables, in Shirakawa, read on the recited limitation.
“... analyzing, by a computer, relevance among a plurality of devices included in the processing plant and performing grouping on the plurality of devices according to the relevance to generate a plurality of device groups which are distinguishable from one another, each device group including at least one device, the devices included in a same device group having high relevance according to a predetermined criterion, and each device group having set therefor an occupied area including an arrangement area for the at least one device, and setting, for the plurality of device groups, connection information representing that, in order to transfer the fluid between each device included in one device group and a counterpart device included in another device group, two specific device groups are connected and paired via a pipe, and pipe information required for calculating a use amount of a pipe material per unit length of the pipe corresponding to the connection information; ...” - See the aspects of Shirakawa that have been mentioned above. Shirakawa also discloses, “Designer” with a “Computer system” and “Intelligence of computer” in “Fig. 1” as elements of a “Flowchart of the functional structure of the proposed system. An optimal equipment layout (Step 1) is obtained by the multi-objective optimization system for the plant layout design in the first report” (p. 4), “Fig. 2” showing “Equipment layout of the site in the trial design problem. There are six equipment units, and the connection of pipes and cables between the six equipment units” (p. 6), “Fig. 3” showing “Temporary placement of the pipe rack for the trial design problem in Fig. 2 based on the design rule. (a) Pipe racks are constructed at the front, rear, right, and left of each equipment unit (Step 1). (b) Pipe racks are thinned out based on a design rule (Step 2). (c) Equipment nodes (black points) and connection nodes (blue points) with equipment units are plotted (Step 3)” (p. 7), and “Table A” showing “unit cost of pipes and cables between the six equipment units” expressed as “Unit cost [$/m]” (p. 16). Using the computer intelligence to determine relationships between equipment to establish their positions within the layout of the thermal power plant, wherein the layout includes functional groupings in that two pieces of equipment may be directly functionally related to each other but not to other pieces of equipment, and such relationships are reflected in the layout, wherein pipes and pipe racks are placed about the pieces of equipment to connect operatively coupled pieces of equipment, and there is an associated cost of pipes per meter, in Shirakawa, reads on the recited limitations.
“... setting, by the computer, an installation area of the processing plant, and a pipe-rack arrangement area ... of a pipe rack to be provided in the installation area to support the pipe; ...” - See the aspects of Shirakawa that have been mentioned above. Shirakawa also discloses, “Fig. 5” showing “(A) Initial route solution” of “6 pipes and cables” (p. 12). The computer intelligence establishing the pieces of equipment so they have spacing therebetween for pipe racks and pipes, wherein the pipe racks support the pipes, in Shirakawa, reads on the recited limitations.
“... repeatedly executing, by the computer, a first step and a second step while changing an arrangement of the plurality of device groups by means of an optimization algorithm to obtain a plurality of arrangements, and selecting a plurality of arrangements having total use amounts of the pipe materials smaller than a predetermined threshold value from the obtained plurality of arrangements, ...” - See the aspects of Shirakawa that have been mentioned above. Shirakawa also discloses, “repeats Steps 2-6 in a loop” (p. 5), “the purpose of this proposed method is to simplify pipe routing design and develop an initial temporary layout of a pipe rack based on a design rule. Next, using ACO, which is a technique for evolutionary computation, we will extract several route solution candidates for each pipe and cable connection on a temporary pipe rack layout. Finally, from amongst the route solution candidates per each pipe and cable connection, we will search for the optimal combination based upon the multi-objective evaluation presented in Chapter 2” (p. 5), “Fig. 5” showing “(a) Initial route solution,” “(b) Optimal solution #1,” “(c) Optimal solution #2,” and “(d) Optimal solution #3” (p. 12), and “Pareto optimal solution is obtained by maximally shortening the pipe rack distance with the smallest costs for pipes and cables” (p. 13). Note the “f1” values for rows “(c)” and “(d)” in Table 1 of Shirakawa (p. 13) being less than “Aspiration level #2” and “Aspiration level #3,” respectively. Performing the sequences of optimization steps to generate multiple solutions having different arrangements, to seek the optimal solution with maximal shortening of pipe rack distance and smallest costs for pipes and cable, with pipe cost values less than aspiration levels, in Shirakawa, reads on the recited limitation.
“... the first step including arranging the plurality of device groups in the installation area having a restriction condition ... so that the occupied area of the one device group and the occupied area of another device group are prevented from overlapping each other, ...” - See the aspects of Shirakawa that have been mentioned above. Referring to Fig. 5(b), the arranging of equipment at the site such that the edges of the equipment are along long sides of pipe racks with the pieces of equipment spaced apart from each other and therefore non-overlapping, in Shirakawa, reads on the recited limitation.
“... the second step including calculating, for the arrangement of the plurality of device groups, the total use amount of the pipe material of the pipe to be supported by the pipe rack based on ... the connection information, ...” - See the aspects of Shirakawa that have been mentioned above. Calculating costs for pipes and cables to determine solutions with shortest pipe rack distance and smallest pipe and cable costs, for the arrangement depicted in Fig. 5(b), in Shirakawa, reads on the recited limitation.
“... wherein the first step and the second step are repeated until an optimal arrangement of the plurality of device groups having a total use amount of the pipe materials smaller than total use amounts of other arrangements is not able to be found; and ... ” - See the aspects of Shirakawa that have been mentioned above. Note the “f1” value for row “(b)” in Table 1 of Shirakawa (p. 13) being equal to or less than the same value for each of rows “(a),” “(c),” and “(d).” Performing the sequences of optimization steps to generate multiple solutions having different arrangements, to seek the optimal solution with maximal shortening of pipe rack distance and smallest costs for pipes and cable, with lower pipe costs than other solutions, in Shirakawa, reads on the recited limitation.
“... setting the optimal arrangement as the first layout of the plurality of devices.” - See the aspects of Shirakawa that have been mentioned above. The optimized arranging of equipment, pipe racks, and pipes for the thermal power plants, in Shirakawa, reads on the recited limitation.
The combination of Shirakawa and James teaches limitations below of independent claim 1 that do not appear to be disclosed in their entirety by Shirakawa:
The claimed “pipe-rack arrangement area” is one “having a band-like planar shape” - James discloses, “Figure 4 is a perspective view of a pipe rack module positioned atop a lower module according to one embodiment of the present disclosure” (para. [0021]). Note the shapes of the sides of the structures depicted in Figure 4 of James, which read on the recited limitations.
The claimed “restriction condition” is “such that an outer edge of the occupied area of the one device group is brought into contact with a longest side of the pipe-rack arrangement area having the band-like planar shape” - James teaches, “Both module 112 and module 114 have one surface in direct contact with the pipe rack module to facilitate connection to the pipe rack module” (para. [0033]), and “Modules, such as equipment modules 112 and 114” and “upper modules 112 are limited to those directly adjacent to the pipe rack module” (para. [0039]). The equipment modules contacting the pipe rack modules, in James, reads on the recited limitations.
“... a position at which the outer edge of each occupied area is brought into contact with the longest side ...” - See the aspects of James that have been mentioned above. The contacts between equipment modules and pipe rack modules, in James, reads on the recited limitations.
James discloses “A method of building a fluids processing facility” (abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Shirakawa. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the equipment and pipe racks, of Shirakawa, to have structural features and contacting relationships like the equipment modules and pipe rack modules, in James, for structural support, as taught by James (see para. [0040]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Shirakawa and James teaches the following limitations:
“The method of arranging the devices of the processing plant according to claim 1, wherein the step of selecting the arrangements having the total use amounts of the pipe materials smaller than the predetermined threshold value comprises executing a step of changing the arrangement of the plurality of device groups by means of a genetic algorithm or a particle swarm optimization method, to thereby select arrangements having total use amounts of the pipe materials smaller than the predetermined threshold value.” - See the aspects of Shirakawa and James that have been mentioned above. Shirakawa also discloses, “genetic algorithm (GA),” (particle swarm optimization (PSO),” and “ant colony optimization (ACO)” (p. 2), “The purpose of this study is to propose an optimization method to search for an optimal route for pipes and cables based upon multi-objective evaluation, in addition to the optimal layout solutions obtained by previously reported optimization methods. Specifically, it proposes the following three-stage optimization method. Initially, a pipe rack is positioned based on a design rule. Next, candidate route solutions for individual pipes and cables are extracted using ACO (Dorigo and Stützle, 2004). Finally, a satisficing trade-off method and GA are used to combine all optimal routes for pipes and cables, and to solve multi-objective combinatorial optimization problems. The features of this method can be optimized simultaneously not only for pipe and cable routes, but also for the placement of pipe racks among multiple conflicting evaluation functions. Furthermore, this proposed method is premised on its incorporation into the previously reported multi-objective optimization system for plant layout design and thus has been devised so it may share designs and other data.” (pp. 2 and 3), and “there are five evaluation functions ... accounted for ... the total cost of pipes” (p. 3). Generating solutions for arrangements of equipment for the plant based on having the smallest pipe and cable costs, wherein the solutions are generated using GA, PSO, and ACO, in Shirakawa, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Shirakawa and James teaches the following limitations:
“The method of arranging devices of the processing plant according to claim 1, wherein the step of setting the installation area and the pipe-rack arrangement area comprises setting a plurality of cases which are different in at least one of an arrangement position of the pipe-rack arrangement area or the number of the pipe-rack arrangement area to be arranged, and ...” - Shirakawa discloses, in Figs. 5(a)-5(d), generating layouts having different placements and orientations of spaces adjacent the equipment, differently positioned pipe racks, and different numbers of pipe racks, which reads on the recited limitations.
“... wherein the method further comprises executing a step of selecting the arrangements having the total use amounts of the pipe materials smaller than the predetermined threshold value for each of the plurality of cases, and selecting, from selection results of the arrangements of the plurality of cases, a plurality of combinations of the cases and the arrangements having the total use amounts of the pipe materials smaller than the predetermined threshold value.” - See the aspects of Shirakawa and James that have been mentioned above. Shirakawa discloses, “Fig. 5” showing “(a) Initial route solution,” “(b) Optimal solution #1,” “(c) Optimal solution #2,” and “(d) Optimal solution #3” (p. 12), and “Pareto optimal solution is obtained by maximally shortening the pipe rack distance with the smallest costs for pipes and cables” (p. 13). Selecting from multiple solutions to find an optimal one, based on smallest costs for pipes and cables, among other considerations, in Shirakawa, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Shirakawa and James teaches the following limitations:
“The method of arranging the devices of the processing plant according to claim 3, wherein, in the installation area, pipe-rack arrangement areas of a main pipe rack and a sub-pipe rack serving as the pipe rack are allowed to be set, the sub-pipe rack being configured to be connected to a longest side of the main pipe rack and extend in a direction of intersecting with the longest side, and ...” - See the aspects of Shirakawa and James that have been mentioned above. Shirakawa also discloses, in Fig. 5(c), pipe racks running through otherwise open areas between pieces of equipment, wherein the pipe racks include a longer pipe rack with shorter pipe racks extending perpendicularly therefrom, which reads on the recited limitation.
“... wherein the plurality of cases comprise cases in which the pipe-rack arrangement areas are set so as to vary in, as viewed from the main pipe rack, a direction of the longest side thereof to which the sub-pipe rack is connected and the number of sub-pipe racks to be connected to each longest side, the number including a case of zero.” - See the aspects of Shirakawa and James that have been mentioned above. Shirakawa also discloses, in Figs. 5(a)-5(d), layouts having different pipe rack arrangements, wherein comparing the layouts it is evident that in some layouts there are one or more shorter pipe racks extending perpendicularly from points on the longer pipe racks, and in other layouts there shorter pipe racks extending from the same points on the longer pipe racks have been omitted, which reads on the recited limitations. Compare, for example, Figs. 5(a) and 5(d) of Shirakawa.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Shirakawa and James teaches the following limitations:
“The method of arranging the devices of the processing plant according to claim 4, wherein the plurality of cases further include cases which are common in, as viewed from the main pipe rack, the direction of the longest side thereof to which the sub-pipe rack is connected and the number of sub-pipe racks to be connected to each longest side, the number including the case of zero, but vary from one another in an arrangement position of the main pipe rack in the direction of intersecting with the longest side.” - Shirakawa discloses, in Figs. 5(a)-5(d), layouts having different pipe rack arrangements, wherein comparing the layouts it is evident that in some layouts there are one or more shorter pipe racks extending perpendicularly from points on the longer pipe racks, and in other layouts shorter pipe racks extending from the same points on the longer pipe racks have been omitted, and in still other layouts shorter pipe racks appear to have been shifted to other positions along longer pipe racks, which reads on the recited limitations. Compare, for example, Figs. 5(a) and 5(b) of Shirakawa.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Shirakawa and James teaches the following limitations:
“The method of arranging the devices of the processing plant according to claim 4, wherein, in the plurality of cases, the pipe-rack arrangement area of the main pipe rack is set to be movable within a range set in advance in the direction of intersecting with the longest side, and the pipe-rack arrangement area of the sub-pipe rack is set to be movable in a direction of intersecting with a longest side of the sub-pipe rack, which is limited to a range in which, when a plurality of sub-pipe racks are connected to the main pipe rack, a pipe-rack arrangement area of one sub-pipe rack and a pipe-rack arrangement area of another sub-pipe rack are prevented from overlapping each other, and ...” - Shirakawa discloses, in Figs. 5(a)-5(d), layouts of pipe racks wherein open areas about longer pipe racks appear to shift going from one layout to another, and points of intersection between the longer pipe racks and the shorter pipe racks also appear to shift going from one layout to another along lengths of the longer pipe racks, but resulting in the shorter pipe racks being spaced apart from each other in a layout so they are non-overlapping, which reads on the recited limitations. Compare, for example, Figs. 5(a) and 5(b) of Shirakawa.
“... wherein, when the first step is executed with the arrangement of the plurality of device groups being changed, arrangement positions of the pipe-rack arrangement areas of the main pipe rack and the sub-pipe rack are allowed to be changed.” - See the aspects of Shirakawa that have been mentioned above. The arranging of pipe racks in the thermal plants, wherein steps of the arranging can be repeated in a loop (thereby resulting in potential rearranging of components), in Shirakawa, read on the recited limitations.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Shirakawa and James teaches the following limitations:
“The method of arranging the devices of the processing plant according to claim 4, wherein, when the first step is executed with the arrangement of the plurality of device groups being changed, a pipe-rack arrangement area of a sub-sub-pipe rack serving as the pipe rack is allowed to be generated, the sub-sub-pipe rack being connected to a longest side of the sub-pipe rack and extending in a direction of intersecting with the longest side of the sub-pipe rack.” - See the aspects of Shirakawa that have been mentioned above. The pipe rack layouts in the equipment layouts, wherein different layouts have shortest pipe racks projecting perpendicularly from slightly longer pipe racks that themselves project perpendicularly from even longer pipe racks, in Shirakawa, reads on the recited limitation. Compare, for example, Figs. 5(b) and 5(c) of Shirakawa.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Shirakawa and James teaches the following limitations:
“The method of arranging the devices of the processing plant according to claim 1, wherein, in the plurality of device groups, a connection side to be connected to a longest side of the pipe rack is set in advance with respect to the outer edge of each occupied area.” - Shirakawa discloses, in Fig. 5, pieces of equipment being positioned with sides adjacent to or abutting sides of pipe racks, wherein the positions of the pieces of equipment are set and maintained between different layouts, and wherein the pieces of equipment, in some instances, fit squarely within open areas (flush fit), which reads on the recited limitation. See, for example, equipment “2” and its surroundings in Figs. 5(a), 5(c), and 5(d) of Shirakawa. This reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Shirakawa and James teaches the following limitations:
“The method of arranging the devices of the processing plant according to claim 1, wherein, when the plurality of device groups are arranged in the first step, a maintenance area is provided in an area on an opposite side across the occupied area of a connection side to be connected to a longest side of the pipe rack, the maintenance area being an area to which a device arranged in the one device group is carried out at a time of maintenance, and which has none of the occupied area and the pipe-rack arrangement area of another device group provided therein.” - Shirakawa discloses, in Fig. 5, positioning of pieces of equipment such that areas opposite where the pieces of equipment abut the lengths of pipe racks remain open (free of other pieces of equipment and their associated pipe racks), which reads on the recited limitations. See, for example, equipment “3” and it surroundings in any of Figs. 5(a)-5(d) of Shirakawa.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Shirakawa and James teaches the following limitations:
“The method of arranging the devices of the processing plant according to claim 1, wherein the pipe information comprises information required for calculating a cost per unit length of the pipe as the use amount of the pipe material, and wherein the second step comprises calculating a total cost of the pipe material as the total use amount of the pipe material of the pipe to be supported by the pipe rack.” - Shirakawa discloses, “Pareto optimal solution is obtained by maximally shortening the pipe rack distance with the smallest costs for pipes and cables” (p. 13), and “Table A” showing “unit cost of pipes and cables between the six equipment units” expressed as “Unit cost [$/m]” (p. 16). The unit cost ($/m) information for pipe and cables for solutions with smallest costs for pipes and cables, in Shirakawa, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Shirakawa and James teaches the following limitations:
“The method of arranging the devices of the processing plant according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of cases and sub-cases in which a moveable range of the pipe rack in the pipe-rack arrangement area is limited are prepared in advance.” - See the aspects of Shirakawa and James that have been mentioned above. The various versions of equipment layouts, generated by running loops of steps for generating optimal layout solutions, wherein each of the layouts includes limited spacing between pieces of equipment, in Shirakawa, reads on the recited limitation.
Response to Arguments
On pp. 8-11 of the Amendment/Response, the applicant argues for reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejection under 35 USC 103. Specifically, the applicant contends that James teaches that equipment modules have one surface in direct contact with the pipe rack module to facilitate connection to the pipe rack module, but James does not disclose that such arrangement is intended to minimize the total use amount of materials. (See Amendment/Response, p. 9.) The applicant also contends that the cost function of the optimization problem in Shirakawa is unrelated to adjacency or contact constraints, and instead, involves a weighted sum of evaluation functions, none of which account for adjacency or contact between an edge of a device group and a side of a pipe-rack arrangement area. (See Amendment/Response, p. 9.) The applicant also contends that the optimization result in Shirakawa shows that the pipe rack is placed in contact with the shortest side of an arrangement area and a device, indicating that the contact positioning occurs incidentally as a consequence of cost minimization rather than a designed optimization constraint. (See Amendment/Response, pp. 9 and 10.) The applicant also contends that it is therefore not obvious to incorporate James into Shirakawa without significant modification, otherwise the cost function and the constraint defined in Shirakawa would need to be reconstructed in a substantial extent. (See Amendment/Response, p. 10.) Reconsideration and withdrawal is requested by the applicant for these reasons.
The examiner finds the applicant’s arguments above unpersuasive. With respect to the applicant’s remarks about the individual deficiencies of James and Shirakawa, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In response to the applicant’s remarks about deficiencies arising from combining Shirakawa and James, the examiner does not agree that the specific layouts in Shirakawa are in any way limiting. The specific layouts are purely exemplary. They show only one possible result of applying the optimization methodology in a specific instance, under specific conditions. But the optimization methodology could produce an entirely different optimal layout in different circumstances. James is cited not as a teaching of changing a fundamental aspect of Shirakawa, but rather, just a teaching showing one possible layout configuration that may be arise out of implementing the methodology of Shirakawa. Shirakawa’s methodology could product the layout configurations in James and entirely different ones too. There is no conflict between the disclosure or teachings of the two references. The obviousness rejection is, therefore, maintained.
On pp. 11 and 12 of the Amendment/Response, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of any potential claim rejection under 35 USC 101. The applicant contends that the claimed steps collectively form a practical industrial process for optimizing a physical facility layout, rather than reciting a mathematical relationship mental processes, or any organization of human activity. Claim 1 focuses on physical spatial arrangements of equipment and the minimization of physical materials in a processing plant, which are not directed to a judicial exception. (See Amendment/Response, p. 11.) The applicant also contends that the claimed algorithm is not implemented in a generic manner, but is subject to specific industrial constraints (grouping of devices constraints, arrangement of device groups constraints, that cannot be achieved by conventional optimization tools, as they limit the optimization process, forcing it to produce a layout conforming to physical installation requirements and engineering feasibility, rather than simply minimizing cost functions. (See Amendment, pp. 11 and 12.) The applicant also contends that the claim applies computational steps to solve a concrete industrial design problem, which is more than generic computer implementation. (See Amendment, p. 12.) The applicant also contends that the claims describe specific technical solutions to technical problems, thereby constituting more than application of a generic computer to an abstract idea. (See Amendment, p. 12.)
The examiner finds the arguments above unpersuasive. The examiner asserts that the claimed steps form a practical industrial process for optimizing a facility layout that recites steps that are mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity. The former is not indicative of absence of the latter. The examiner also asserts that the ineligibility rejection is not in any way premised upon an algorithm being implemented in a generic manner absent of industrial constraints. Rather, the industrial constraints are considerations or data used in the recited mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity. The claim is about planning industrial sites. Planning is an abstract idea. Further, nothing in the claims (beside the additional elements) read like anything that cannot be achieved using pen and paper and thought by a facilities designer or engineer. Additionally, a claim that recites more than minimizing cost functions is not necessarily eligible, especially if the “more” constitutes planning constraints or considerations. If anything, the structural elements in the claims are mere filed of use and technological environment, per MPEP 2106.05(h). Also, the examiner asserts that there is nothing in the computations steps that requires use of anything more than a generic, conventional computer. Finally, planning a processing plant or any other similar facility is not a technical problem that needs solved. It is a non-technical problem. A technical problem would be like a problem associated with databases, or computer animation, or something along those lines. For at least these reasons, the claims are ineligible.
On p. 13 of the Amendment/Response, the applicant contends that new dependent claim 12 is allowable. The examiner disagrees. The claim is another abstract idea element. And, from a prior art standpoint, the wording of the claim is so broad as to cover any prior planning work. Therefore, the claim is not allowable. See the 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 103 sections above for more details.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such prior art includes the following:
AU Pat. App. Pub. No. 2014202657 A1 to Haney et al. discloses, “The various processes of a plant are segmented into separate process blocks that are connected to one another using fluid conduits or electrical connections. Each process block is specialized to perform specific tasks in an assembly line manner to achieve an overall goal. For example, multiple distillation process blocks could be daisy-chained to create fuel from crude oil. Each process block is generally small enough to be mounted on a trick or a flatbed for easy transport, allowing for an assembly line of process blocks to be transported anywhere in the world with ease.” (Abstract.)
CA Pat. App. Pub. No. 3 057 262 A1 to Arai et al. discloses, “A module for a natural gas liquefaction apparatus is provided to include air-cooled heat exchanger groups and another equipment group. The air-cooled heat exchanger groups are arranged side by side on an upper surface of a structure, and are each configured to cool a fluid handled in the natural gas liquefaction apparatus. The another equipment group is arranged on a lower side from an arrangement height of each of the air-cooled heat exchanger groups, and forms a part of the natural gas liquefaction apparatus. When equipment groups are classified into a pretreatment unit equipment group provided in a pretreatment unit configured to perform pretreatment of natural gas before being liquefied, and a liquefaction processing unit equipment group provided in a liquefaction processing unit associated with processing of liquefying the natural gas after being treated in the pretreatment unit, the another equipment group is formed of the pretreatment unit equipment group.” (Abstract.)
GB Pat. App. Pub. No. 2 432 239 A to Okada discloses, “A system is disclosed which supports the process of creating a detailed layout design for buildings containing plant or machinery, which takes into account construction constraints, wiring and pipe routes and environmental influence of machinery (vibration, noise etc). The system classifies the layout design data into five data types, namely building data, equipment arrangement data, equipment connection element data, equipment connection path data, and user-specified range data, and edits the data of each data type individually. A storage unit stores the editing results of the layout design data. A CAD conversion unit converts the layout design data into a two-dimensional CAD drawing or a three-dimensional CAD model, and causes the interface unit to display the two-dimensional CAD drawing or three-dimensional CAD model on a screen.” (Abstract.)
Guirardello, Reginaldo, and Ross E. Swaney. "Optimization of process plant layout with pipe routing." Computers & chemical engineering 30.1 (2005): 99-114.
Shirakawa, Masakazu, Masao Arakawa, and Hirotaka Nakayama. "Multi-objective optimization system for plant layout design (1st report, genetic algorithm approach for designing layout of plot plan for power plants)." Nihon Kikai Gakkai Ronbunshu, C Hen/Transactions of the Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers, Part C 76.770 (2010): 2694-2703.
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 THOMAS Y. HO, whose telephone number is (571)270-7918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:30 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaborati