DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed on 06/05/2026 in which claims 1, 4, 6, and 7 were amended and claim 3 was cancelled. Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The applicant has amended claims 1, 4, 6, and 7 and submits that the amendments do not contain new matter.
Examiner concurs that no new matter has been introduced by way of amendment.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The limitation previously objected to in claim 3 has been amended and placed in claim 1.
The amendment sufficiently overcomes the objection and has accordingly been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The claims have been amended in response to the rejections set forth in the previous action under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The amendments sufficiently overcome the rejections and accordingly have been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The applicant argues that the claims are subject matter eligible per the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant argues that it is necessary to use an artificial intelligence method based on industrial data drive in combination with a mathematical model to predict the crown of the steel plates and strips and improve prediction precision, so that the site can be controlled more accurately. Applicant further argues that the deviation amount between the calculated value of the mechanism model and the actual values of the outlet crown are given as output by the DNN model to predict the crown of steel plates and strips to narrow the prediction error range.
The claimed invention is directed toward a sequence of steps which can be construed as mental process and mathematical concepts, as abstract ideas. The improvement appears to be rooted in the abstract ideas themselves (improving prediction precision) and there does not appear to be any apparent improvement provided by any additional elements of the claims, either alone or in combination with the judicial exceptions. The control of the site is not claimed in any meaningful capacity to provide a practical application for the claimed invention. Further, the calculation of the deviation amount being used to narrow a prediction error range are further recitations of improvements to predictions, wherein predictions may be mental processes, and in this case, such predictions rely heavily on math. In order for a judicial exception to be integrated into a practical application, the claim(s) must recite additional elements that provide an improvement. In the present claims, the additional elements have been found not to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on the claims, as set forth in this action.
The applicant argues that the invention has a technical advantage, solves technical problems, and achieves highly efficient technical effects. The applicant further argues that the invention is integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more under Step 2B.
This argument is conclusory with no supporting evidence or provided and therefore the arguments are not convincing.
The claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The matter of claim 3 found allowable over the prior art in the previous action has been incorporated into independent claim 1 by way of amendments.
The incorporation of the allowable matter into the independent claim renders the claims allowable over the prior art. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been withdrawn.
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 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility:
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis entails 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).
Step 2A Prong 1 - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Step 2A Prong 2 - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step 2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B - Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B- Significantly More.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities are further evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
Independent Claims:
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2 and 4-7 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
Step 2: establishing an outlet crown mechanism model of a hot continuous rolling production line The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a hot continuous rolling so as to make a judgement for a model representative of such process. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
performing calculating to obtain a calculated value of the outlet crown of the steel plates and strips as a benchmark value of the outlet crown,The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail performing calculations to evaluate a benchmark value. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the explicit recitation of performing calculations is additionally the recitation of mathematical calculations. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
and calculating a deviation amount of the benchmark value of the outlet crown and the actual values of the outlet crown as output data The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail performing calculations to evaluate a deviation value. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the explicit recitation of performing calculations is additionally the recitation of mathematical calculations. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
randomly dividing modeling data consisting of the input data and the output data into training set data and test set data; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail make a judgement as to how to divide data into two sets. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by writing two distinct groups of data on a piece of paper to distinguish the groups. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
selecting model parameters,. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement of model parameters. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
obtain a predicted value of the deviation amount of the outlet crown; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgmental evaluation of the deviation value. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 6: adding up the predicted value of the deviation amount of the outlet crown and the benchmark value of the outlet crown to obtain a final predicted value of the crown, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the combined predicted value of the deviation amount and the benchmark value. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the recitation of “adding up” is the recitation of a mathematical calculation. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
evaluating predicted results by using a mean square error (MSE), a root mean square error (RMSE), a mean absolute error (MAE) of performance indexes and a correlation coefficient R, and analyzing a prediction precision, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating predicted results according to various error calculations and making a judgement on the prediction precision. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
wherein the Step 2 further comprises the steps of: Step 2.1: establishing the outlet crown mechanism model of the hot continuous rolling production line, wherein a mathematical equation is as defined in equation (1):
C
=
P
K
P
+
F
K
F
+
E
C
ω
C
+
E
Σ
ω
H
+
ω
W
+
ω
O
+
E
0
Δ
1
wherein,
C
represents the crown of the steel plates and strips;
P
and
F
respectively represent a rolling force of stands and a roll-bending force of the stands for enabling roll systems to bend and deform;
K
P
and
K
F
respectively represent the a transverse stiffness of a rolling mill and a transverse stiffness of a bending roll;
ω
C
represents a controllable roll crown;
ω
H
represents a hot crown of the rolls caused by a thermal expansion of the rolls;
ω
W
represents a wear crown of the rolls, caused by a wear of the rolls;
ω
0
represents an initial roll crown of the rolls; Δ represents an inlet crown of the steel plates and strips;
E
0
represents inlet crown coefficients,
E
C
represents controllable roll crown coefficients, and
E
Σ
represents comprehensive crown coefficients; which can reasonably be read to entail making a judgement as to a mathematical model that represents the outlet crown mechanism. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, this claim is the explicit recitation of mathematical formulas. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2.2: calculating the hot crown of the rolls caused by the thermal expansion of the rolls according to the equation (2):
ω
H
=
2
1
+
v
β
t
R
∫
0
R
r
T
r
,
z
-
T
0
r
,
z
d
r
(
2
)
wherein
β
t
represents thermal expansion coefficients of the rolls and is calculated according to the equation (3) below;
v
represents a Poisson coefficient of the rolls;
T
(
r
,
z
)
represents a temperature at
(
r
,
z
)
where a coordinate is located,
r
represents a variable along a radius direction of the rolls, and
z
represents a variable along a length direction of the rolls;
T
0
(
r
,
z
)
represents an initial temperature of the rolls; a model is simplified and a temperature of the rolls is regarded as uniform distribution:
β
t
=
Δ
L
L
×
Δ
T
(
3
)
wherein
Δ
L
represents a thermal expansion of the steel plates and strips when the temperature changes by
Δ
T
;
L
represents a length before expansion; which can reasonably be read to entail performing an evaluation of the behavior of the rolls caused by thermal expansion. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, this claim is the explicit recitation of mathematical formulas. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2.3: calculating a wear amount of the rolls according to the equation (4):
w
e
a
r
n
=
k
×
∑
P
i
n
×
l
i
n
(
1
+
α
X
4
)
w
4
wherein
w
e
a
r
n
represents the wear amount of the rolls;
k
represents coefficients related to roll materials and steel plates and strips materials, and
P
i
n
represents the rolling force of the
n
t
h
rolling mill during rolling an
i
t
h
steel coil;
l
i
n
represents a length of the
i
t
h
steel coil after being rolled by the
n
t
t
h
rolling mill and is calculated according to the equation (5) below;
α
represents wear coefficients of the rolls;
X
represents a position of the wear amount;
w
represents a width of the steel plates and strips:
l
i
n
=
L
n
×
B
n
×
H
n
b
i
n
×
h
i
n
(
5
)
wherein
l
i
n
,
b
i
n
,
and
h
i
n
respectively represent a length, a width and a thickness of the
i
t
h
steel coil after being rolled by the
n
t
h
rolling mill, and
L
n
,
B
n
, and
H
n
respectively represent a length, a width and a thickness of the steel plates and strips before being rolled; which can reasonably be read to entail performing an evaluation of the wear amount of the rolls. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, this claim is the explicit recitation of mathematical formulas. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2.4: calculating the wear crown of rolls caused by wear of the rolls according to the equation (6):
ω
W
=
w
e
a
r
n
0
-
w
e
a
r
n
1
6
wherein
ω
W
represents the wear crown of the rolls,
w
e
a
r
n
0
represents the wear amount of the rolls when a position X of the wear amount is equal to 0, and
w
e
a
r
n
1
represents the wear amount of the rolls when the position X of the wear amount is equal to
±
1
;
when
X
=
0
, at a center line of the corresponding steel plates and strips:
w
e
a
r
n
0
=
k
×
∑
P
i
n
×
l
i
n
w
(
7
)
when
X
=
±
1
, at an edge of the corresponding steel plates and strips:
w
e
a
r
n
1
=
k
×
∑
P
i
n
×
l
i
n
(
1
+
α
)
w
(
8
)
, which can reasonably be read to entail performing an evaluation of the wear of the rolls. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, this claim is the explicit recitation of mathematical formulas. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2.5: taking variables except for the rolling force of the stands, the roll-bending force of the stands, the hot crown of the rolls and the wear crown of the rolls, in the outlet crown mechanism model of the hot continuous rolling, as fixed values, calculating the outlet crown of the steel plates and strips, and taking the outlet crown of the steel plates and strips as the benchmark value of the outlet crown. which can reasonably be read to entail making a judgement as to which variables to be considered fixed, performing a calculation via evaluations, and making a judgment as to which value will be the benchmark value. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because this claim includes the explicit recitation of calculating values, the claim additionally recites mathematical calculations. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
Step 1: acquiring actual values of an outlet crown, actual measured data related to the outlet crown of a hot continuous rolling production line and calculated data of a process automation level, and- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering.
using the actual measured data and the calculated data as input data to establish a DNN model for predicting a crown of steel plates and strips;- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computing components recited at a high level of generality as tools to execute the abstract idea.
to establish the DNN model for predicting the crown of the steel plates and strips;- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computing components recited at a high level of generality as tools to execute the abstract idea.
Step 4: based on the training set data, constructing the DNN model for predicting the crown of the steel plates and strips,- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computing components recited at a high level of generality as tools to execute the abstract idea.
and training the DNN model for predicting the crown of the steel plates and strips;- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computing components recited at a high level of generality as tools to execute the abstract idea.
Step 5: inputting the test set data into the trained DNN model for predicting the crown of the steel plates and strips to - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computing components recited at a high level of generality as tools to execute the abstract idea.
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); and adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
acquiring actual values of an outlet crown, actual measured data related to the outlet crown of a hot continuous rolling production line and calculated data of a process automation level, and– This limitation has been identified as the insignificant extra solution activity mere data gathering, as stated previously. Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, acquiring such data values as in the claim encompasses receiving data over a network. The courts have found that receiving and transmitting data over a network is a computer function that has been recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner, such as in the claims.
The courts have found that simply appending insignificant extra solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The remaining additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using generic computing components (such as a DNN functioning in its expected and normal capacity i.e. by being trained and receiving/outputting data) as a tool to execute the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity in conjunction with well-understood, routine, and conventional activity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims:
Examiner notes limitations identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in italicized bold and limitations identified as additional elements are indicated using italics.
Claim 2
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 2, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 2 additionally recites the limitations:
selecting an eight-stand continuous rolling production line for finish rolling,, which can reasonably be read to entail making a judgment as to the particular type of production line equipment to evaluate. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
and determining following influencing factors based on a crown mechanism and combined with a hot continuous rolling technology: an outlet width of a rolled piece, an inlet temperature of the rolled piece, an outlet temperature of the rolled piece, a rolling force of stands, a roll-bending force of the stands, a roll wear amount of the stands, an outlet speed of the rolled piece, an outlet thickness of the rolled piece, a thermal expansion of the rolled piece, and a deformation resistance of the rolled piece; and, which can reasonably be read to entail making evaluations and judgements about influencing factors for the application. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, such measurements provided in the claim may be observed as part of a mental process and recorded on pen and paper for subsequent use. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 2 additionally recites the limitations
according to the influencing factors, extracting the actual measured data and the calculated data of the process automation level from a site, This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering.
wherein the actual measured data comprises the outlet width of the rolled piece of a finish rolling F8 stand, the inlet temperature of the rolled piece of a finish rolling Fl stand, the outlet temperature of the rolled piece of the finish rolling F8 stand, the rolling force of finish rolling Fl-F8 stands, the roll-bending force of the finish rolling Fl -F8 stands, the outlet thickness of the rolled piece of the finish rolling F8 stand, the outlet speed of the rolled piece of the finish rolling Fl -F8 stands, and the outlet crown of the rolled piece of the finish rolling F8 stand; and the calculated data of the process automation level comprises the deformation resistance of the rolled piece of the finish rolling Fl-F8 stands, the outlet thickness of the rolled piece of finish rolling Fl-F7 stands, rolling kilometers of the finish rolling Fl-F8 stands, and the thermal expansion of the rolled piece during the finish rolling process. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use.
The courts have ruled appending insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception and generally linking the use of the judicial exception into a particular technological environment and field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Because an additional element was identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), it requires further evaluation to determine if it is beyond well understood, routine, and conventional activity. Under broadest reasonably interpretation and when read in light of the specification, extracting data from a site encompasses transmitting and receiving data over a network. This computer function has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner such as in the claim. The courts have found that limitations that amount to appending insignificant extra solution activity which is well understood, routine, and conventional activity to the judicial exception and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept that would amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions because the claim appears to recite the use of generic computing components functioning in their normal capacity as tools to execute the judicial exception, for a given technological application. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 4, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 4 additionally recites the limitations:
designing a forward propagation algorithm of the DNN model for predicting the crown of the steel plates and strips and determining an activation function according to the equations (9) and (10) below:
a
1
=
x
9
,
a
l
=
σ
d
l
=
σ
W
l
a
l
-
1
+
b
l
10
;
wherein
a
1
represents an output of a first layer, expressed by a matrix method;
d
represents an output of a
l
t
h
layer, expressed by the matrix method, wherein
2
≤
l
≤
L
,
L
is a total number of layers of a neural network;
W
l
represents a matrix of the
l
t
h
layer and
b
l
represents a bias vector of the
l
t
h
layer;
x
represents an input vector;
σ
(
d
)
represents the activation function; which can reasonably be read to entail making an evaluation and judgement on the design of a forward propagation algorithm and making an additional evaluation as to determine an activation function. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because this claim explicitly recites mathematical formulas, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
the activation function (11) is specifically a Sigmoid activation function:
σ
d
=
1
e
-
d
11
;
wherein
d
is an input of the activation function; , which is the recitation of a mathematical formula. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 4.2 designing a loss function in a backward propagation algorithm of the DNN model for predicting the crown of the steel plates and strips: a mean square function (12) is used to measure an output loss of the training set data:
J
W
,
b
,
x
,
y
=
1
2
a
L
-
y
2
2
=
1
2
σ
W
L
×
a
L
-
1
+
b
L
-
y
2
2
12
;
wherein
y
is a target output of the DNN model for predicting the crown of the steel plates and strips;, which can reasonably be read to entail making an evaluation and judgment so as to determine a loss function. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because the claim explicitly recites a mathematical calculation, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 4.3: adopting an Adam optimization algorithm and updating and calculating the model parameters to minimize the loss function;, which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating an Adam optimization algorithm so as to determine model parameters that satisfy minimization of the loss function. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because the claim explicitly recites calculating parameters to minimize the loss function, the claim recites both mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 4.4: adopting a Cosine annealing algorithm based on an unequal interval annealing strategy to adjust a learning rate of the DNN model for predicting the crown of the steel plates and strips; and which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating a Cosine annealing algorithm so as to derive a judgement of the proper learning rate. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 4.5: adopting a variable controlling method to select a number of hidden layers of the network, selecting a number of hidden layer nodes and a number of data groups used during each training, which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating a variable controlling method and making a judgment as to the number of hidden layers, nodes and data groups for the network. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation and completing training of the DNN model for predicting the crown of the steel plates and strips.. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computing components to execute the judicial exception. The courts have ruled invoking the use of computing components recited at a high level of generality does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to invoking computing components as a tool to execute the judicial exception are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Training a DNN model in an unspecified way does not present an inventive concept that would be beyond the normal functioning of a generic DNN model. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 5, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 5 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 5 additionally recites the limitation wherein the number of the hidden layers of the constructed DNN model for predicting the crown of the steel plates and strips is 3, the number of the hidden layer nodes is 50, and the number of the data groups selected from each training is 128.. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) . The courts have ruled generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality to execute the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use and invoking the use of generic computing components as tools to execute the judicial exception are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 6, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 6 additionally recites the limitations:
Step 6.1: adding up the predicted value of the deviation amount of the outlet crown and the benchmark value of the outlet crown to obtain the predicted value of the crown which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the sum of the predicted value and the benchmark value to obtain a prediction. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the recitation of the phrase “adding up” is the recitation of a mathematical calculation. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
and performing predicting to obtain the predicted value of the crown which can reasonably be read to entail making a judgement as a predicted value. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 6.3: performing calculating according to the outlet crown mechanism model of the hot continuous rolling production line to obtain the calculated value of the outlet crown; and which can reasonably be read to entail performing an evaluation according to a model. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, this claim recites performing mathematical calculations to obtain values. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 6.4: evaluating the predicted results of the Steps 6.1-6.3 by using the mean square error (MSE), the root mean square error (RMSE), the mean absolute error (MAE) of performance indexes and the correlation coefficient R, and analyzing the prediction precision. which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating predicted results. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 6 additionally recites the limitations:
of the DNN model for predicting crown of the steel plates and strips. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computing components as a tool such as a generically recited DNN model for executing the judicial exception
Step 6.2: directly taking the outlet crown as the output of the DNN model and This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering and Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
based on the DNNmodel; This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The courts have ruled invoking the use of generic computing components, such as a generically recited DNN as per the claims, as a tool to execute the judicial exception and appending insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Because an additional element was identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), it requires further consideration as to whether the limitation is well understood, routine, and conventional activity. Taking data directly from a model encompasses transmitting and receiving data over a network, which has been found by the courts to be a computer function that is well understood, routine, and conventional, when recited in a generic way such as in the claims. The courts have found that limitations that amount to appending insignificant extra solution activity that is well understood, routine, and conventional, as well as invoking the use of generic computing components as tools to execute the judicial exception are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 7, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 7 additionally recites the limitation the mean square error (MSE) is calculated according to the equation (13):
M
S
E
=
1
n
∑
j
-
1
n
(
y
j
-
y
j
'
)
2
(
13
)
; the root mean square error (RMSE) is calculated according to the equation (14):
R
M
S
E
=
1
n
∑
j
-
1
n
(
y
j
-
y
j
'
)
2
14
;
the mean absolute error (MAE) of performance indexes is calculated according to the equation (15):
M
A
E
=
1
n
∑
j
=
1
n
y
j
-
y
j
'
15
;
the correlation coefficient R is calculated according to the equation (16)n:
R
=
1
-
∑
j
-
1
n
(
y
j
-
y
j
'
)
2
∑
j
-
1
n
(
y
j
-
y
-
)
2
(
16
)
wherein
y
j
represents the actual values of the outlet crown,
y
'
j
represents the
predicted value obtained through the corresponding model,
y
-
represents a
mean value of the actual values of the outlet crown, and
n
represents a total
number of data groups in the test set data, which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating error and correlation metrics based on actual values and predicted values. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Additionally, this claim includes the explicit recitation of mathematical formulas and calculations. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 7 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 would be allowable if amended to overcome the applicable rejections set forth under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as given in this office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to particularly disclose at least an outlet crown mechanism model of hot continuous rolling as defined in Equation 1 of the independent claim 1, particularly the following featured limitations:
Step 2.1 establishing the outlet crown mechanism model of the hot continuous rolling production line, wherein a mathematical equation is as defined in equation (1):
C
=
P
K
P
+
F
K
F
+
E
C
ω
C
+
E
Σ
ω
H
+
ω
W
+
ω
O
+
E
0
Δ
1
wherein,
C
represents the crown of the steel plates and strips;
P
and
F
respectively represent a rolling force of stands and a roll-bending force of the stands for enabling roll systems to bend and deform;
K
P
and
K
F
respectively represent the a transverse stiffness of a rolling mill and a transverse stiffness of a bending roll;
ω
C
represents a controllable roll crown;
ω
H
represents a hot crown of the rolls caused by a thermal expansion of the rolls;
ω
W
represents a wear crown of the rolls, caused by a wear of the rolls;
ω
0
represents an initial roll crown of the rolls; Δ represents an inlet crown of the steel plates and strips;
E
0
represents inlet crown coefficients,
E
C
represents controllable roll crown coefficients, and
E
Σ
represents comprehensive crown coefficients;
The closest prior art for this equation was found to be CN 104511482 A, which provides a mathematical equation characterizing the load roll gap convexity. ((Zhang, ¶42-43) "
PNG
media_image1.png
66
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, C_r is the load roll gap convexity, P and F are bowed rolling force and the unit kN ;KP mill with transverse rigidity, unit - /kN ;KF is bending roller force influence coefficient in units of mm/kN, ω_h, ω_w and ω_g are respectively grinding convexity and convexity, omega heat convexity and abrasion. Ω_c is the roller convexity caused by crossing or jumping unit, Ε_ω and E_c. is convexity influence coefficient. on parameter using the actual rolling condition and the line mathematical model.")
Alternatively, the closest prior art contains a crown model presented by Chen (Chen, L., Wang, X., and Tang, L., “Operation Optimization in the Hot-Rolling Production Process”, 2014, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, Vol 53, Issue 28) presents a crown model represented by the mathematical equation
PNG
media_image2.png
48
413
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. ((Chen, Page 11397, Col 2, ¶2) "(5).The Crown Model-Many factors affect the crown, and the equation can be descripted as follows: [[equation]] where Kp is the lateral stiffness coefficient of the mill,F the bending force, KF the lateral stiffness coefficient of the bend roller, Eω the comprehensive influence coefficient of the work roller, ωH the thermal profile of the work roll crown, ωW the wear profile of the roll crown,ω0 the initial crown, Ec the influence coefficient of the controlled roll crown, ωc the controlled roll crown, and CR0 a constant. As done in the works of Sun 11and Zhao,12only the first item(Pi/Kp) is considered in our model.")
However, neither of these model representations are exactly as presented in the instant application and there does not appear to be an obvious motivation in the prior art to modify either model so as to arrive at the particularly claimed crown model.
The dependent claims incorporate the limitation above and have been found allowable for the same rationale.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY GORMAN LEATHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1880. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:00 pm ET.
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, EMERSON PUENTE can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/E.G.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights