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 .
This Action is final and is in response to the claims filed October 22, 2025. Claims 1 and 3-17 are currently pending, of which claims 1, 3, 4, 15, and 16 are currently amended. Claim 2 is cancelled and claim 17 is newly presented.
Response to Arguments
Objection to the Title
Applicant’s amended Specification has been accepted and entered. Therefore, the previous objection has been withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant has amended claim 16 to no longer cover a non-statutory embodiment. Therefore, that previous rejection has been withdrawn. Applicant next argues that the claims “as a whole integrate the alleged abstract ideas into a practical application as a monitoring control system for an industrial plant”. See Remarks 15. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The processors and memory are clear generic computer components and a textbook example of an apply it scenario. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, associating the data type to industrial amounts related to a plant is merely a general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See Id. at 2106.05(h). No actions are taken that affect the actual controlled components that would integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Instead, there is a general behavior knowledge graph, that is applied generally in a particular environment. A user/operator can certainly address which actions need to be taken based on observed and evaluated behaviors by these general control targets.
Examiner encourages language that actually controls the control targets and/or other plant-specific features. As discussed above, Applicant is merely evaluating conclusions from if-then statements in a generic graph, which is a mental process with the assistance of pen and paper. Reciting specific control actions explicitly occurring based on the rule data could integrate these abstract ideas into a practical application.
It is for at least these reasons and the reasons cited below that the claims remain rejected in this Action.
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previously cited art have been fully considered. Specifically, Applicant has amended the claims at issue and argues that the “IF-THEN” format is not taught by Horiwaki. See Remarks 17-18. These arguments are persuasive and the various node behaviors and graph information in the specific order and combination written therein are not taught by the prior art. Therefore, only the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 remains.
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 and 3-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
As per claim 1, at Step 1, the claim is directed to the statutory category of invention of a machine (processing device). At Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are directed to mental processes. The claim language has been reproduced below:
An information processing device comprising: a memory; and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to:
receive rule data and system data, the rule data representing rules of monitoring control and including one or more pieces of first state information among a plurality of pieces of state information by which states of one or more monitoring control targets are expressed in a relation between at least two concepts, the one or more monitoring control targets including one or more industrial amounts related to a plant, the system data including one or more pieces of second state information among the plurality of pieces of state information and indicating a state of a first target included in a monitoring control system among the monitoring control targets (mental process – observation and evaluation);
determine a condition of collation between the plurality of pieces of state information (mental process – evaluation and judgment);
collate, in accordance with the condition, the first state information included in the rule data and the second state information included in the system data (mental process – evaluation and judgment with the assistance of pen and paper); and
output a result of the collation to an output device,
wherein
the plurality of pieces of state information are expressed in a network graph including a node and a link, the node being a concept, the link being connection between a plurality of concepts (mental process – evaluation and judgment with the assistance of pen and paper),
the rule data is expressed in a network graph including the one or more pieces of first state information (mental process – evaluation and judgment with the assistance of pen and paper), and
the system data is expressed in a network graph including the one or more pieces of second state information (mental process – evaluation and judgment with the assistance of pen and paper),
the rule data is expressed in an IF-THEN format, and includes the node of an IF state, the node of a THEN state, the node of a behavior that represents transition from the node of the IF state to the node of the THEN state, and the link that connects the node of the IF state, the node of the THEN state, and the node of the behavior (mental process – evaluation and judgment with the assistance of pen and paper).
Each limitation is a mental process, as noted above. A user could certainly manually monitor the control targets in relation to one another and their individual state information. With the assistance of pen and paper, a user could evaluate relationships between the state information and then report the results accordingly. At Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are bolded above. The memory and processors are recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The outputting of the results is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See Id. at 2106.05(g).
At Step 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
As per claims 15 and 16, the claims are respectively directed to a method and a computer program product that implements the same features as the method of claim 1, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Examiner notes that even though claim 16 is directed to non-statutory subject matter, as noted above regarding the transitory media, the claim would still otherwise be rejected should it meet the criteria of Step 1.
As per claim 17, the claim is directed to an information processing device that implements the same features as the method of claim 1, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Moreover, searching for ranges is a mental process at Step 2A, Prong 1, as a user can evaluate data over desired ranges while graphing a general knowledge graph with the assistance of pen and paper. As discussed above, the outputting of the results is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05(g). At Step 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
As per claim 3, the claim is directed to the mental process of graphing with the assistance of pen and paper (mental process – observation and evaluation). At Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
As per claim 4, the claim is directed to the mental process of graphing with the assistance of pen and paper (mental process – observation and evaluation). At Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
As per claim 5, the claim is directed to the mental process of graphing with the assistance of pen and paper (mental process – observation and evaluation). At Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
As per claim 6, the claim is directed to the mental process of graphing with the assistance of pen and paper (mental process – observation and evaluation). At Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
As per claim 7, the claim is directed to the mental process of natural language structure with the assistance of pen and paper (mental process – observation and evaluation). At Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
As per claim 8, the claim is directed to the mental process of graphing with the assistance of pen and paper (mental process – observation and evaluation). At Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
As per claim 9, the claim is directed to the mental process of analyzing relationships between objects (mental process – observation and evaluation). At Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
As per claim 10, the claim is directed to the mental process of analyzing relationships between objects (mental process – observation and evaluation). At Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
As per claim 11, the claim is directed to the mental process of analyzing and organizing relationships between objects (mental process – observation and evaluation). At Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
As per claim 12, the claim is directed to the mental process of analyzing and organizing relationships between objects, including generation of information (mental process – observation and evaluation, with the assistance of pen and paper). At Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
As per claim 13, the claim is directed to the mental process of analyzing and organizing relationships between objects, including generation of information (mental process – observation and evaluation, with the assistance of pen and paper). At Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
As per claim 14, the claim is directed to the mental process of analyzing and organizing relationships between objects, including generation of information (mental process – observation and evaluation, with the assistance of pen and paper). At Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Conclusion
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 Nicholas Klicos whose telephone number is (571)270-5889. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/NICHOLAS KLICOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118